tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86876432151175430882024-03-13T13:58:34.694+13:00Maui StreetWelcome to Maui Street.Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.comBlogger530125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-43287857138787678352015-08-11T18:38:00.000+12:002015-08-11T18:39:02.385+12:00Book review: Man of Secrets, the Private Life of Donald McLean<i>This review was originally published in Your Weekend.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Was Donald McLean, the nineteenth century New Zealand politician, a courageous statesman or an elected crook? Did his land buying practices generate prosperity or war? Is it true he was a pious Christian or was he actually a sly adulterer? To McLean’s allies he was one of the architects of the New Zealand colony, to his enemies he was an immoral politician making personal gains off government power. The truth, as historian Matthew Wright reveals in Man of Secrets: the Private Life of Donald McLean, is more complicated than either his allies or enemies would admit. <br />
<br />
Donald McLean arrived in New Zealand in 1840, “a stranger in a strange land”. Born in 1820 the young McLean exchanged the harsh upheavals of nineteenth century Scotland – including an early separation from his parents – for the promise of the colonies. After a brief stint in New South Wales the restless McLean landed his first job in New Zealand as a purchase agent for a Sydney-based timber company. Perceptive enough to realise that te reo Māori would be essential to any future success – Māori held the balance of power in the emerging colony and would continue to do so for at least another decade – McLean quickly acquired a working knowledge of the language. <br />
<br />
It was the beginning of rapid rise. In 1843 Governor FitzRoy appointed McLean to a position in the Office of the Protector of Aborigines. The focus of McLean’s work would become land purchasing. The hungry colony needed land and, with knowledge of Māori and their language, McLean was uniquely suited to the role. A decade later he would be appointed Chief Land Purchase Commissioner. Part of McLean’s success was that although he understood the Māori mind and sympathised with their struggles in the new colony, he was comfortable in his own superiority complex and was not beyond using sly tactics to secure a purchase.<br />
<br />
The effects of those sly tactics are still felt today. The Waitangi Tribunal notes that McLean’s purchasing methods were not always “transparent” and, in the case of the Waitara Purchase in the Taranaki, McLean’s methods “brought disaster”. Yet Wright takes regular swipes at this “post-colonial” history accusing some historians of “presentism” and condemning their efforts to recast history “to suit changing contemporary ideals”. It is an embarrassing distraction from an otherwise good book and it ignores the fact that Wright’s own book is an effort to recast the history of McLean.<br />
<br />
And, for the most part, Wright succeeds in doing so. Far from being the source of all evil – or a benevolent colonial founder who did no wrong – McLean is revealed as a complex man struggling with the residue of an emotionally abusive childhood, the early loss of his beloved wife and a relentless drive to succeed. That drive to succeed would take McLean all the way to Native Minister where he would cement himself as one of the most influential figures in the history of Māori-Pākehā relations. Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-7962993683739783742015-03-12T09:37:00.000+13:002015-03-12T09:37:05.152+13:00On the role of criticism: Te MatatiniSo this happened. Via <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/268336/maori-tv-accused-of-censorship">Te Manu Korihi</a>:<br />
<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“The Tainui group, Te Iti Kahurangi, took to the national Te Matatini kapa haka stage last week and performed a haka which challenged the way [Māori Television] covered Maori issues.<br /><br />After the performance, its kaitataki tane Kingi Kiriona, [a former Te Karere reporter], questioned how Māori Television covered stories.<br /><br />He suggested that the station should be doing more uplifting stories about tangata whenua rather than negative stories about them”.</em></blockquote>
<br />
<br />There is a very basic problem here: Kiriona and Te Iti Kahurangi are confusing negativity with accountability. Māori Television – and Native Affairs in particular – do the latter. The investigations into the Kōhanga Reo National Trust were not designed to undermine Māori, but to expose wrongdoing. We could have left it at that, but then this happened:<br />
<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“Waikato-Tainui said an initial decision by Māori Television to not show the haka performance was censorship.<br /><br />Te Arataura o Waikato-Tainui Chairman Rahui Papa said the matter served as a reminder to protect not only the right to freedom of speech but also the age-old Māori customary practice to openly discuss and debate issues.<br /><br />He said the censoring of Te Iti Kahurangi not only impinged freedom of speech but did not align with an important tikanga that had been practised for years”.</em> </blockquote>
<br />
<br />There is another basic problem here: Te Iti Kahurangi is arguing for a double standard. While they made the case for their own freedom of speech, their haka simultaneously made the case against Native Affair’s freedom of speech. That is not to say Māori Television’s decision to edit the haka was right, but neither was the substance of Te Iti Kahurangi’s criticism.<br /> <br />If this were merely a question of form then no problem arises. Te Matatini is a proper forum for voicing criticism, as Mihi Forbes <a href="http://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_story_id/OTAxNQ==/National/x_story/Native-Affairs-responds-to-haka">acknowledged on Waatea</a>. Yet it is equally true that Native Affairs is a proper forum for criticism and, more importantly, accountability. To suggest, like Te Iti Kahurangi did, that criticism must take a particular form - especially a form which is not accessible to all Māori - is a kind of cultural elitism. <br /><br />There seems to be some resistance to the idea that Māori Television is, well, Māori. As if Māori cannot take modernity and repurpose it. It is a rigid view which takes things Māori to mean things historical. The irony is that such a view is, in fact, ahistorical. Māori in colonial and postcolonial New Zealand have always borrowed Western systems, technology and aesthetics and then repurposed them.<br /><br />This is an issue of power, as <a href="https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/censorship-has-no-place-on-maori-television/">Leonie Pihama suggests</a>. Yet the power does not lie with Native Affairs – the primary target of the haka – but with those who the haka sought to defend. Native Affairs is a show run by a team of young women with little institutional support from Maori Television (or anyone else). Who holds the power here?<br /> <br />The outsiders on Native Affairs or the establishment figures who they hold to account…<br />
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-65334487215810040822015-01-09T09:33:00.000+13:002015-01-25T17:53:43.160+13:00Gareth Morgan and the Pākehā Pathology <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsrgXjXnMhQQTs30WShskl1z-53cOEwYSyeQpKv75GBZZEl0v8bN2n58gnzIIuu9uzdgAX2lH_qVuBh-jQypixGavnUWuiakCscnvDfG3AcmCMGsvi22bsWRgqMb_nUYMu4Ah1r381NemY/s1600/ToW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsrgXjXnMhQQTs30WShskl1z-53cOEwYSyeQpKv75GBZZEl0v8bN2n58gnzIIuu9uzdgAX2lH_qVuBh-jQypixGavnUWuiakCscnvDfG3AcmCMGsvi22bsWRgqMb_nUYMu4Ah1r381NemY/s1600/ToW.jpg" height="400" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Treaty of Waitangi. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sometimes it seems like the qualities we cherish in our democracy we condemn in our politics. We revere a kind of abstract equality, but we hesitate when it means substantive equality for Māori. There are plenty of New Zealanders willing to admonish Māori underrepresentation in local government, yet few are willing to support any measures to achieve the equality they claim to support. There are plenty of intellectuals and politicians who applaud the rule of law, yet few who supported the rule of law so much that they opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the incongruous intellectual tradition of which Gareth Morgan is a part. He supports “rangatiratanga”, yet he opposes “<a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11383199">unique political rights for Māori</a>”, which is rather contradictory because rangatiratanga <i>is</i> a unique political right for Māori: it is the right to our “unique” indigenous systems*. Surely, for the sake of credibility if not consistency, you cannot support something in one breath and then condemn it in the next. Yet Morgan seems intellectually unfazed. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As one might be after solving the tax problem and the cat problem, the “Treaty problem” must seem small and simple in comparison. The New Zealand Herald - whose roster of writers on Māori issues appears to be <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861947">two Pākehā men</a> – has commissioned a four part series based on Morgan’s new book, <i>Are We There Yet? The Future of the Treaty of Waitangi</i>. But Morgan, certainly an impressive economist and publicist, is hardly a Treaty expert.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In his <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11382188">first column</a>, a kind of extended inoculation, Morgan tells us the Treaty “renaissance [should] be celebrated”. Yet in the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11382652">second</a> and <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=11383199">third</a> columns it becomes clear that underneath this superficial optimism is a grim fatalism: the Waitangi Tribunal is using the Treaty to “divide society along descent lines”. I’m sure the members of the Tribunal would be flattered to know they are credited with such sinister power. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Apparently this division is emerging because the Tribunal is “only talk[ing] to one of the partners”. That is, the Māori partner. The reality is rather different. Far from refusing to participate in Tribunal hearings the Crown regularly disputes claimants’ versions of events and vigorously contests their evidence at hearings. But I suspect this is not Morgan’s meaning – how could a Treaty author get such an elementary fact wrong? – I think the clue to his intended meaning is later in the paragraph where he writes:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“How can those in the Treaty industry guide enduring solutions if they don't take non-Maori with them”</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or, in other words, the Tribunal and the “Treaty industry” - which, ironically, Morgan is now a part of as a Treaty author – must soothe Pākehā sensitivities and avoid findings which do not meet their ideological expectations. Morgan wants to shift the full burden to Māori – we must compromise – the full measure of justice is not available to us because it is not acceptable to them (Pākehā). The statement should be reversed: how can Pākehā society offer “enduring solutions” if they do not take Māori with them?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That is not to say I expect Morgan to completely understand our perspective. The relentless focus on what is acceptable to Pākehā – rather than what is just for Māori – is natural. When you are born to one culture with few voices dissimilar to your own then it is very easy to mistake the happy accident of your own cultural sensibilities as a set of natural laws. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is more common than we might hope and it is not peculiar to one culture. Yet in almost every settler colony only one culture gets to draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable, the normative and abnormal. Which culture gets to draw the line is a matter of power and where the line is drawn is then a matter of ideology. In New Zealand the culture that draws the line is Pākehā culture and where they draw it will often exclude Māori.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And this is very much what the anti-Treaty industry does: they draw a line and declare that we go no further. But Morgan is more sophisticated than this. He wants us, rather paternalistically, to reclaim our “self-esteem” with power devolved from the state, but he will not permit measures like dedicated representation which give us some power <i>over</i> the state. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet, in the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11383734">final column</a> suggesting better ways to implement the Treaty partnership, Morgan then goes on to endorse an upper house with a 50/50 split between Māori and non-Māori. Confused yet? You should be because in each column Morgan warns us of this inchoate division the Tribunal and the Treaty industry are creating, yet he then suggests a political division between Māori and non- Māori as a solution to that division. Again, Morgan seems intellectually unfazed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which is not to say we should opposes his suggestions - most of them are already in place, all of them are acceptable steps forward – but we should recognise that he fails to examine the Treaty in a substantive way. Marking problems at the edges will not do. The Treaty partnership has no meaning without reckoning with where power lies and how it is really meant to be distributed. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Social and political reality does not change just because it is unjust, it does so when the material reality that gave rise to it expires. The problem is economic – colonisation was wildly profitable, decolonisation is costly – but also ideological. Pākehā supremacy is an organising principle in New Zealand society. Certainly not in the sense that Pākehā think themselves racially superior and are pursuing a conscious agenda on that basis, rather in the sense that their systems are placed above our systems. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus the burden of compromise always falls to Māori – we can push only for what is compatible with their system – this makes Morgan’s idea that there is some sort of creeping political division emerging an utterly ridiculous one. Think about it from an iwi perspective. For each iwi a typical settlement represents around 1 to 5 percent of what was lost. In this situation who is making the compromise? The party which agrees to concede 95 to 99 percent of what it lost or the party which agrees to return 1 to 4 percent of what it gained?<br />
<br />
*<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Rangatiratanga is more than a "right" as we would normally understand it. It describes a form of authority as well as the systems, practices and so on which derive from it. However, in the context of Morgan's pieces he is referring to the "right" to rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Māori text of the Treaty. </i></span></div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-64896490656962452032014-12-08T16:31:00.000+13:002014-12-09T09:52:15.389+13:00Māori wards and the struggle to narrate Māori rights<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv0rwc48-StxqKMN5WDC_TLrcMwa09fo-Xl6CoA14-54hsoPk3HHpxh2Ft2rhAjItBwBLSyeZGi1Bjbdy4LIt0cfoxh7CPCAg0-B_erKO9vqLFHWQ07Ww01Aj5NrtLL4nQS1TGGeoxnblh/s1600/The+New+Plymouth+District.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv0rwc48-StxqKMN5WDC_TLrcMwa09fo-Xl6CoA14-54hsoPk3HHpxh2Ft2rhAjItBwBLSyeZGi1Bjbdy4LIt0cfoxh7CPCAg0-B_erKO9vqLFHWQ07Ww01Aj5NrtLL4nQS1TGGeoxnblh/s1600/The+New+Plymouth+District.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The New Plymouth District, soon-to-be-home of the newest Māori ward.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Treaty means whatever you want it to mean, as long as you’re against it. The popular account seems to consist of two jointly asserted and mutually exclusive "facts". Under the first account the Treaty is a rat-eaten relic, a kind of curiosity stored somewhere in Archives New Zealand. It has no application in modern New Zealand. Yet the second account declares that we must dutifully comply with the terms of the English language version. Māori surrendered their sovereignty in exchange for the rights and privileges of British subjects. The Treaty is relevant only as a transaction. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which account you prefer depends on whether you want to deny or attack Māori rights. If it’s the former then the claim must be that the Treaty creates no rights – it means nothing – if you prefer the latter then the claim must be that the Treaty creates some rights – it means something – just not what Māori and their guilt-ridden allies think. The truth – or the <a href="http://www.e-tangata.co.nz/news/sovereignty-not-surrendered-and-not-asked-for/politics">best interpretation</a> – doesn’t sit somewhere in the middle, nor is it even adjacent, it’s entirely removed from the popular accounts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet you should prepare for a thumping from the popular accounts. In October the New Plymouth District Council voted to approve a Māori ward for the next local government election. The tenacious mayor, Andrew Judd, <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63475174/Mayor-calls-for-half-Maori-councils">went a little further</a> in the media and suggested a “reasonable interpretation” of the Treaty demands fifty-fifty representation. Oh, the outrage! <a href="http://garethsworld.com/blog/uncategorized/create-divided-society-new-plymouths-maori-seat/">Gareth Morgan</a> thinks the decision is an instruction manual for a “divided society”. <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/ct7s">The New Zealand Centre of Political Research</a> reminds us that the good people of Nelson voted down a Māori ward and so can you. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Which is a tenuous position. Should Māori rights be subject to the very majority we are seeking protection against? Whatever the answer, democracy is more nuanced than simple majority rule. Democracy must guarantee majority rule, sure, but it’s equally clear it must also guarantee the majority will not abuse its power and violate the basic and <i>pre-existing</i> rights of the minority. Democracy, then, is a careful balance between majority rule and minority rights. This position is as true for John Hart Ely as it was for John Stuart Mill. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But is it right to think in such rigid – even positivist – Euro-centric terms? We need to recognise the trap. It’s tempting to narrate Māori perspectives in Euro-centric frames, but the claim to Māori wards has little to do with minority rights. I suspect many Māori readers have been flinching at “minority rights” because we understand the argument for Māori wards is based on tangata whenua rights.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus our claim to representation is based on the rights we inherit from our tipuna – our rights as Indigenous people – the same rights promised in the Māori version of the Treaty. While the rangatira who signed surrendered governorship over British subjects – "kāwanatanga" - they understood that they retained their unfettered chieftainship – "tino rangatiratanga". The Treaty created a partnership – it was the Treaty of Waitangi, not the Proclamation of Waitangi – and that should be honoured. Fair representation is an integral part of doing so. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And of course this is causing angst. Gareth Morgan urges New Zealanders to "wake up". Grave changes are occurring, he warns. Yet the push for fair representation along Māori terms has been happening for 174 years, it’s just Pākehā society only seems to pay attention when they fear they have something to lose. Only then are they confronted with the possibility that some injustice may exist - that Māori and their tipuna have been denied their inherent rights. Some Pākehā retreat to their ideological armoury – no racial separatism! – while others confront the past and the place of tangata whenua. I hope there are more of the second than the first.<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Note: there was a very poor phrase in here that has been edited out. I won't repeat it, but I do apologise for being thoughtless. </i></div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-55841265095519424452014-09-21T17:18:00.001+12:002014-09-21T18:25:21.345+12:00Election 2014: the left represents no one while claiming to represent everyone<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXqcF17h_SvN0QpIWC0yF_smm1gdoKOwtVp8RqrLbqzrKN73ptGJMYbm2nf1K4ZetiXV6dIO0NSc-L9KD0L_UWG4EwIyUCcjIxxzkIxhQT6gryHgnuhty73SNc3Jp0ZwO55ZtTIfDe4Vsh/s1600/Hone+Key.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXqcF17h_SvN0QpIWC0yF_smm1gdoKOwtVp8RqrLbqzrKN73ptGJMYbm2nf1K4ZetiXV6dIO0NSc-L9KD0L_UWG4EwIyUCcjIxxzkIxhQT6gryHgnuhty73SNc3Jp0ZwO55ZtTIfDe4Vsh/s1600/Hone+Key.jpg" height="320" width="218" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Our returning Overlord: the Rt. Hon. John Key.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are, it seems, many New Zealands. There is the sceptical, radical, reformist New Zealand – the one I admire, the one I’m proud to support – and then there is the thin-lipped, conservative, know-your-place New Zealand. Neither New Zealand much likes the other, let alone understands the Other. Yet my New Zealand – and, if you’re reading this, probably <i>our</i> New Zealand – is in retreat, even disarray. Meanwhile, status-quo New Zealand – <i>their</i> New Zealand - is ascendant. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even before the results rolled in my sense of alienation had blossomed into something closer to a full-scale culture shock. Where has my New Zealand gone? How could the party of Dirty Politics poll this high? It used to be said that politics was a secondary and subservient branch of ethics, did we forget that or never believe it in the first place? New Zealanders pride themselves on a kind of earthy realism, yet this seemed like something closer to Stockholm syndrome. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, the answers don’t matter because we’re asking the wrong questions. This election was never about Dirty Politics or ethics in politics. It wasn't even about the politics of mass surveillance or hope for something better. No one is suffering from Stockholm syndrome either. This was an endorsement of a third way government. It was an endorsement of a man who is less politician, more phenomenon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fifth Labour government’s redistributive policies are still in place. Government spending is rising. Unemployment is gradually decreasing. We are in the magic zone (surplus). The status quo still serves those it's meant to keep content – the middle. In light of that change always seemed unlikely. For those who are at the hard edge of government policies and a mediocre economy – beneficiaries and the working poor – voting is increasingly becoming a class act. A middle class act. Not because beneficiaries or the working poor are feckless scum stuck in their self-defeating ways, but because the left isn’t reaching them. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's not to say the left isn't left enough. Labour 2014 is further to the left than Labour 2004. Labour 2011 was more left than Labour 2008. The problem is more fundamental than a shift to the left or right. After all, there was plenty to vote for. What excited me, knowing the awful living conditions the poor in this country must put up with, was Kiwibuild. 100,000 new homes. It’s very easy to treat that as an abstraction, but for people living with rotten bathrooms, sleeping in damp bedrooms and eating in mouldy kitchens 100,000 news homes matter. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet the problem wasn’t that the policies were poorly pitched. The problem seems to be that politics – the process, the institutions and then the policies - isn’t reaching voters at the hard edge. Our New Zealand not only talks past the New Zealand that won last night, our New Zealand also seems to talk past the people we claim to represent. Everyone is entitled to a better life, yet our leaders seem incapable of giving convincing expression to that very simple idea. Labour and the Greens made two cases very well – “here’s what we’ll do and how we’ll do it – yet the sine qua non – here’s <i>why</i> we’ll do it – isn’t reaching New Zealand. Notice that I’m using New Zealand as the collective now, not its many parts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I saw David Cunliffe this morning. I had no words for him. What do you say when your side has been routed? And how do you say it to the man who will be held responsible? Although he put on a very brave face, he was clearly a broken man. Not in an emotional or physical sense, but spiritually spent. It was a uniquely horrible feeling. And's that's for me. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I saw Metiria Turei too. She was warm, as always. We hugged it out while she was leaving the set. It was small moment of optimism in a bleak day. I reflected on that moment today and decided I’m not going to wallow in the collective pity nor indulge in self-pity. Fuck that. National deserved its crushing victory – credit to them - we most probably deserved our routing. Defeat is an opportunity and I’m taking this opportunity to join the Greens. I see it like this: the left’s old guard has no answers. None. We need a new generation. It's time for our New Zealand to step up. </div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-51939004181131626472014-09-01T07:00:00.000+12:002014-09-01T08:44:13.150+12:00Who's ahead in Te Tai Hauāuru? <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEBEIM1g9O1d0jv0se3Se0chjAq6iI9XlyO7N3A2rbaSOKvnau_j9o-l_ZoAzL1y4wZGYeMTQ4jZkactqTNe4HQAFCbgi22H12rElAncz9ZVtLgympTt2RcLkdrGEX0-Mm225z72S35PZf/s1600/chris-mckenzie-te-tai-hauauru-2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEBEIM1g9O1d0jv0se3Se0chjAq6iI9XlyO7N3A2rbaSOKvnau_j9o-l_ZoAzL1y4wZGYeMTQ4jZkactqTNe4HQAFCbgi22H12rElAncz9ZVtLgympTt2RcLkdrGEX0-Mm225z72S35PZf/s1600/chris-mckenzie-te-tai-hauauru-2014.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chris McKenzie: the front runner in Te Tai Hauauru</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It seems we have a new front runner in Te Tai Hauāuru. Via the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=11315922">Whanganui Chronicle</a>: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“The race for Te Tai Hauāuru is as close as predicted with the Māori Party's Chris McKenzie holding a slim three-point lead over Labour rival Adrian Rurawhe.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>A Māori TV/ Reid Research poll released on Wednesday had Mr McKenzie on 32 per cent with Mr Rurawhe on 29 per cent, the Greens' Jack McDonald on 11 per cent and the Mana Movement's Jordan Winiata on 10 per cent - impressive given that he had only been in the race for one week”.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I’m told this reflects the Māori Party’s internal polling. I’m also told it’s difficult to poll at the electorate level, doubly so in the Māori electorates. For that reason, we should treat the poll as indicative, not definitive. In any event the gap between the two front runners is within the margin of error (5%).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But on the strength of the <a href="http://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/shows/native-affairs/S01E002/kowhiri-2014-electorate-debates">Native Affairs debate</a> last week, Chris McKenzie deserves to lead. I called the debate for Jack Tautokai McDonald – I’m hopelessly biased, granted – but Jack is only after the party vote. Thus, between those who are running for the electorate vote <i>and</i> the party vote, the winner was Chris McKenzie. He was in command of his policies and his facts. More so than Adrian Rurawhe and Jordan Winiata who, it should be noted, were both strong, but there were two professional politicians at the podium: Jack and Chris. As talented as Adrian and Jordan are, they were clearly a cut below the more experienced candidates. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not that the debate will change much, other than the respective campaign teams. This is where Adrian’s advantage lies. He has the stronger campaign team (like the formidable <a href="http://campaign.labour.org.nz/following_in_illustrious_footsteps">Gaylene Nepia</a>). One shouldn’t underestimate the advantage of institutional support too. Drawing on the Labour Party’s campaign knowledge is an advantage, as is the brand bump from standing on the Labour ticket. If the trend continues, the Māori Party candidates will suffer from a brand slump ("a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National" etc…).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But Chris has a secret weapon too: Tariana Turia. Her endorsement and support might be enough to hold the electorate. However, Ken Mair made an <a href="http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/winning-in-te-tai-hauauru.html">important point</a> last year - "we aren’t looking for a candidate to fill Tariana’s shoes. We are looking for a candidate to carve a new path". I agree with that in one sense - the challenge is not to succeed Tariana the person (though I still think succession politics is relevant). Instead Chris must frame himself as the successor to <i>Tariana’s legacy</i>. That is, the successor to kaupapa Māori politics. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, in that light, who holds the advantage? Probably Adrian. As attractive as I find the philosophical and practical argument – that Chris is needed to protect kaupapa Māori politics – Adrian’s position is much stronger. Material needs trump and, on that one count, Labour is in a better <a href="http://campaign.labour.org.nz/all_our_announced_policies">policy position</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kiwibuild; KiwiAssure; Kiwisaver; NZ Power; the Economic Upgrade; extending ECE; restoring adult and community education; Māori trade training; the living wage in the public sector and $16.25 minimum wage; forestry and wood products policy; food in schools; subsidizing school donations and free tablets; bowel screening; free dental care; GP visits and prescriptions for pregnant women; healthy homes guarantee; manufacturing upgrade. The list really does go on. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Labour's position is more comprehensive than the Māori Party. Few voters will know the details, but many will know intuitively that a Labour-led government is in a better position to meet Māori needs than the Māori Party within a National-led government. Now that's a very powerful narrative. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-58547068288018776582014-08-13T12:03:00.001+12:002014-08-13T12:03:11.363+12:00The country that white supremacy made <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit8DqypdG6AJvhwy_AUqQmFyGkTxfo9oCr75p5fq9YCfvirOmQGiUhBI54JmoTpoY441HvtFo9wegbT2pJuGbBh533YyO6JzxdKRCJIRyLs2xOkFcn4dSf_HU_DTvcPcBGLWgVzUJFC497/s1600/WinstonPeters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit8DqypdG6AJvhwy_AUqQmFyGkTxfo9oCr75p5fq9YCfvirOmQGiUhBI54JmoTpoY441HvtFo9wegbT2pJuGbBh533YyO6JzxdKRCJIRyLs2xOkFcn4dSf_HU_DTvcPcBGLWgVzUJFC497/s1600/WinstonPeters.jpg" height="285" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Two wongs don't make a white"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 <a href="http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/the-politics-of-level-playing-field-why.html">Colin Craig</a>, <a href="http://all-embracing.episto.org/2014/07/29/jamie-whyte-has-not-been-thinking/">Jamie Whyte</a>, <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/251870/candidate-sorry-for-shylock-comment">Steven Gibson</a> and <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11307143">Winston Peters</a> are not seen as products of our impoverished political culture – one where racism is strategy – but merely lone bigots. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
They say "investor" or "foreign buyer" but what they mean is "of colour" with a "funny accent"<br />
— Duckie (@DuckieMcDuck) <a href="https://twitter.com/DuckieMcDuck/statuses/498725151920242688">August 11, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
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?"<br />
— Graham Cameron (@mvlgrimace) <a href="https://twitter.com/mvlgrimace/statuses/498910482334375937">August 11, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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, “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/race_and_the_supreme_court_what_the_schuette_decision_reveals_about_how.html">the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race</a>”. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reasoning is seductive, but a deception. Racism , as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/racism-more-than-old-white-men-using-n-word">Gary Younge</a> 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, “<a href="http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/04/justice_sotomayors_beautiful_schuette_dissent_race_matters.html">the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race</a>”. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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: <i>race matters</i>. Let's not stop talking about it. </div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-18917443433860403682014-07-30T13:02:00.000+12:002014-07-30T13:02:34.202+12:00Whyte Power: Act and the winner takes all society<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsChoBz10fcFhdMgO13QLPBepfgWu_e8AvBGOIZUN7-bxGW4x3sB5gJypgs6UStH__nlsLahdjQW1D8L3mLlEVY_XleM_q1xgwaEpe3fE07Yq7M4aM2P5XtiVXZOv7_SIQkkUZj1c00ags/s1600/Seymour+and+Whyte+-+Act.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsChoBz10fcFhdMgO13QLPBepfgWu_e8AvBGOIZUN7-bxGW4x3sB5gJypgs6UStH__nlsLahdjQW1D8L3mLlEVY_XleM_q1xgwaEpe3fE07Yq7M4aM2P5XtiVXZOv7_SIQkkUZj1c00ags/s1600/Seymour+and+Whyte+-+Act.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Seymour and Jamie Whyte. H/T <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mathmo">Wikipedia</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.act.org.nz/?q=posts/we-need-a-civilised-discussion-about-racial-law">You can’t make this up</a>: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Yesterday I published the speech that I gave to the ACT Party Waikato Conference on Saturday. It concerned a fundamental principle of Western civilisation.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>I said that all citizens should be equal before the law.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>I realise that in some countries, such as Afghanistan, that might be a controversial idea… </i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>But in New Zealand today, you might expect the principle of equality before the law to be uncontroversial. You might expect that a declaration of commitment to it would be greeted with quiet equanimity, perhaps even a yawn.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Not so. My declaration has triggered vitriolic hostility.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so it should. The argument is absurd. In Whyte’s world substantive inequality is not the residue of settler colonialism, but a failure – on the part of Māori, of course - to commit to equality before the law. This is where equality before the law is not a substantive standard, but a formal one. Theoretical purity is more important that actual circumstance. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/MorganGodfery">@MorganGodfery</a> for a phd in philosophy there's almost an intellectual cowardice in his unwavering, dogmatic adherence to select principles<br />
— book hatin goodall (@AdamGoodallYes) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamGoodallYes/statuses/494267999155535873">July 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Redneckery’s appeal is in its simplicity. One believes that the history of racism is something that happened – not something that is happening. If the redneck accepts that then there’s no need to acknowledge – let alone examine – how conditions yesterday shape circumstances today. Instead a neat line is drawn between the past and the present. Thus Whyte is prepared to admit some injustice – the sort that fits his dogmatic view of “property rights” – yet he rejects any form of continuing injustice. Utopia is so close! If only the maoris embraced equality before the law! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every ideology is built on stilts. The idea that, if all you unseeing others committed to living The Ideology, then utopia will arrive. It’s a particularly nasty form of white male syndrome – the need to universalise everything. Everything. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You’ll know I’m quite serious when I say white male syndrome. Only last week Colin Craig – a self-described conservative – was pitching to the same audience. That is, the redneck and his supposed desire for equality in liberal democracy. Whyte is appealing to the same audience. But the argument is not, in fact, an argument – it’s a strategy. White men are practising identity politics. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not explicitly so. They dress it in the myth of the level playing field. I <a href="http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/the-politics-of-level-playing-field-why.html">wrote about this last week</a>. People of privilege push the idea that “all people are created equal and any deviation from that principle constitutes the real injustice”. The idea goes something like this: “injustice is not the fact that you are poor, dumb and incarcerated, but that you need and receive targeted rights because of it”. Formal inequality – that is, anything that isn’t one size fits all – is the real injustice. Substantive inequality? Nope - no injustice there, apparently. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is white male syndrome. It’s a rearguard action designed to protect actual privilege – the one of the white kind. If disadvantage is a matter of personal responsibility – the fault of the poor sod stuck in her feckless and self-defeating ways - then no response is required from the privileged. This is what Whyte is arguing for. Not so much a winner takes all approach – the game is rigged, after all - but the pre-determined winner keeps all. In New Zealand, the game was played 174 years ago. The winners took all and Jamie Whyte – who’s on the winning team – will make damn sure they keep it all.</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-12054251288770103962014-07-23T15:49:00.000+12:002014-07-23T15:49:57.353+12:00The politics of the level playing field: why Colin Craig is wrong <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Sensing a theme in the Conservative Party's campaign literature. <a href="http://t.co/R4LQRtyjDz">pic.twitter.com/R4LQRtyjDz</a><br />
— Toby Manhire (@toby_etc) <a href="https://twitter.com/toby_etc/statuses/490302878288867328">July 19, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pretty much this. Via <a href="http://maoriparty.org/panui/conservatives-need-a-lesson-in-cultural-competency/">Te Ururoa Flavell</a>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“Māori Party Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell says the Conservative Party’s policies to get rid of the Māori seats, shut down the Waitangi Tribunal and implement ‘one law for all’ are ignorant, dangerous, and are not welcome in our political system or our country…</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i><i>The old assimilation policy is hidden behind a few new terms and slogans, such as One Law for All, but the intention is the same and we know all about it. In this day and age there is no place for political leaders who know nothing about our history and know nothing about us”.</i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Craig and his Conservatives aren’t here to restore “<a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1407/S00213/one-law-to-rule-us-all.htm">unity</a>”. They’re the exhausted rear guard of New Zealand racism. Armed, it seems, with very little but a slogan and a cheque book. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The intent is clear: Craig is trying – failing - to tap the reservoir of racism. It’s not “one law for all” but “one law to rule us all”. The latter sounds more chauvinist than the former, quite a feat, yet doomed to fail. What Brash had with one law for all and Craig doesn’t with one law to rule us all is institutional acceptance. The veneer of respectability. As Brash was fond of saying, he was for “mainstream New Zealand”. Craig is merely the perfectly pitched 5 percent politician. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Mihingarangi Forbes revealed as much in <a href="https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/native-affairs-colin-craig-panel?utm_source=brightcove&utm_medium=button&utm_campaign=share%20this%20video">her interview with Craig on Native Affairs</a>. Best described as extended torture, Craig can’t muster a coherent explanation for, firstly, his apparent support for Māori<i> </i>Television and, second, his opposition to division “based on race”. The same for te reo Māori. Craig supports government funding, yet can’t reconcile it with his “one law to rule us all” position. He is left to grasp at artificial distinctions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But even in the face of such impressive incompetence, it’d be negligent to ignore Craig. His message is still insidious because it’s pitched at the progressive – yes, irony - desire for equality in liberal democracy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That is, the idea all people are created equal and any deviation from that principle constitutes the real injustice. It’s the myth of the level playing field. There’s room to recognise the Treaty and historic injustice, yet Craig and his Conservatives seem to be claiming that – at some unspecified point in time - modern democracy created a nation of equals. It didn’t, but that’s a foundational myth in New Zealand. The idea that a neat line separates the bad Old Days and the more enlightened Good Days. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So if the level playing field is true - it isn't - then you’re poor, dumb and incarcerated because you deserve to be. Where the injustice is not the fact that you are poor, dumb and incarcerated, but that you need and receive targeted rights because of it. The reasoning is absurd: catering for substantive inequality is actually creating legal inequality. On Planet Conservative, the latter is the real crime. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it’s a very attractive argument – especially among the selfish. If disadvantage is a matter of personal responsibility then it requires no response from the advantaged. The demand that Māori accept “equal rights” – so no legal distinctions between different people – is really a plea for assimilation. Craig is really asking Maori to accept their disadvantages quietly. Well, no thanks. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Replace “Māori” with any other category of difference in New Zealand society. Now try to argue that this category of difference must be abandoned for the sake of “unity”. It doesn’t really work unless there is some manifest harm, yeah? Te Ururoa is right. Craig is merely resurrecting “the old assimilation policy”, but “hidden behind a few new terms and slogans”. Now that “is not welcome”.</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-50232890366881657312014-06-08T18:00:00.000+12:002014-06-09T13:08:22.053+12:00The Meaning of the Internet Mana Party<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzx2r1QfOO0VBpfG9kpFBdzaaNHrnCh78Py2Df2VIj9PxhOK3BAlXVc8br1GX9d3tdJgkAg3skOvjh37dCUlcW-_ivLwLgLtVnu0SNWWAtSC6UdE6T8fE6F2albdL51CD7jg0JC8IKoOg9/s1600/Hone_Harawira,_Mana_Party_leader.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzx2r1QfOO0VBpfG9kpFBdzaaNHrnCh78Py2Df2VIj9PxhOK3BAlXVc8br1GX9d3tdJgkAg3skOvjh37dCUlcW-_ivLwLgLtVnu0SNWWAtSC6UdE6T8fE6F2albdL51CD7jg0JC8IKoOg9/s1600/Hone_Harawira,_Mana_Party_leader.jpg" height="250" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hone Harawira</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
When you think of the Māori electorates, what comes to mind? For some the Māori electorates are a hangover - part of a legacy of failed hand outs to a feckless and troublesome people. For others the Māori electorates are a necessary evil – a hand up to a people never quite capable of pulling themselves up, a sop to a people stuck in their self-defeating ways. <br />
<br />
I’m not writing to announce that I know The Meaning of the Māori electorates. There can be no such thing as The Meaning, rather there are many meanings. It’s true that the Māori electorates represent the “last vestige of a lost autonomy”. The electorates exist to protect mana motuhake. Yet it’s equally true that the electorates represent a counterrevolutionary force. It might be said that they exist to contain mana motuhake. On the one hand, the Māori electorates mean that we have a small role in the distribution of public power and that protects our autonomy, but on the other hand it means that we must submit ourselves to Pākehā norms and institutions and that’s a limit on our autonomy.<br />
<br />
But what do the electorates mean to Hone Harawira and his Mana Party? There’s a saying that goes “he kai kei aku ringa” - there is food at the end of my hands. This isn’t a statement, but an instruction to seize an opportunity. For Hone Harawira and the Mana Party, the Māori electorates represent an opportunity. On their view it doesn’t matter whether the electorates are benevolent or malevolent. They are a means to an end. That end is “<a href="http://mana.net.nz/2014/04/mana-and-or-or-not-dotcom/">getting rid of National</a>”. <br />
<br />
Thus it’s odd to see a handful of Labour MPs deriding the Internet Mana Party as a “dirty deal”. That argument didn't apply to Labour's concession to Jim Anderton in Wigram. It’s even weirder to see some commentators arguing that the deal corrupts the Māori electorates. They seem to have substituted analysis for catharsis. It’s easy to fall back on partisan hackery or didactic moralising, but neither does anything to capture the complexity of the situation.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFd7KTR2QXeHzqqcH57vVZnNUXfLxyKO-A_He5IMLjxtc8hXtpQqiFBIFVumqLVw_P3BBUh98NFVg9sSFE8mk8hYLs2v4DwdGdswb1ULi3nRj4ffyKKcIiUgSVDcMSfwn54YxFY_KKkOl/s1600/Kim+Dotcom.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFd7KTR2QXeHzqqcH57vVZnNUXfLxyKO-A_He5IMLjxtc8hXtpQqiFBIFVumqLVw_P3BBUh98NFVg9sSFE8mk8hYLs2v4DwdGdswb1ULi3nRj4ffyKKcIiUgSVDcMSfwn54YxFY_KKkOl/s1600/Kim+Dotcom.jpeg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kim Dotcom</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br />
Governments change, but poverty is a constant in the Māori electorates. Hone represents the people in his electorate – the permanent poor - but he’s also charged with another duty: to improve their lives. If the opportunity exists, why would anyone expect him to conform to other people’s standards and reject an electoral alliance? Why would Hone remain content with actual poverty and a poverty of electoral opportunity? As Tim Selwyn notes, coat tailing is an imperfect rule, but MMP is about “<a href="http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/coat-tailing-etc.html">making as many votes count toward representation as possible</a>”. <br />
<br />
Sure, the deal is an act of desperation. But that isn’t a bad thing. You would be desperate too if you were on the wrong end of 174 years of inequality. The Mana Party is taking its desperation and, as a matter of fact, committing an act of deep conformism. The coat tails rule is well exploited. Mana isn’t going against the grain but seeking the safety of convention. Yet the spectacle of an independent Māori party – with socialist leanings and, oddly, moneyed support – seems to invoke the latent paternalism of parts of the left. Right wing resistance is a given, but the cries of dirty deal and sell out from the parts of the left resemble many of the attacks against the Māori Party when they made a pragmatic decision to support the National government. The same desperation was at play in the Māori Party at the time. They could remain on the margins and sit content with actual poverty and a poverty of electoral opportunity or they could have a crack at reversing 174 years of inequality. They used the opportunity their Māori electorates had provided and accepted a deal with National. <br />
<br />
They did as many Māori advocates always have - submitted to institutional norms for practical change. Mana could hold true to its radical principles – as Sue Bradford did and all power to her – but that would underestimate the desperation in Māori communities. The Māori Party knew it (although they have been punished for the lack of change) and Mana knows it. <br />
<br />
Which brings us back to the meanings of the Māori electorates. Mana – like the Māori Party and even the Young Māori Party before it – wants to become a fact in the distribution of public power. The corollary – as the experience of the Māori Party and even the Young Māori Party before it – is that Mana must cosy up with establishment powers and sacrifice some autonomy. But didn’t someone say politics is the art of compromise? Desperate people sometimes do desperate things. Or, in this case, desperate people can do conventional things too.<br />
<br />
<i>I wrote this post about a week ago, but didn't publish it because I've been here and there over where I stand. I'm still not entirely sure where I stand. Sometime next week I'm aiming to post an essay on where Māori politics stands and why. </i> <i>For similar (better) perspectives it’s worth checking out Labour MP Louisa Wall’s post at the Daily Blog - <a href="http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/05/the-hypocrisy-of-attacking-maori-seats-for-being-tactical/">the hypocrisy of attacking Maori seats for being tactical</a> – and Scott Hamilton’s post at Reading the Maps - <a href="http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/05/from-olaf-nelson-to-kim-dotcom.html">From Olaf Nelson to Kim Dotcom</a>. </i></div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-12080084311949494872014-05-11T11:45:00.001+12:002014-05-11T11:45:18.063+12:00On that use of headdress: does New Zealand have a problem with cultural appropriation? From the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11252997">Herald on Sunday</a>: <br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>A new series of artworks by Stephanie Key… has been posted online as she prepares for a major moment in her fledgling career.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>But already one of the pop-art style self-portraits — Key wearing an elaborate pink, feathered, war headdress, lacy pink knickers and a pink modesty star over her nipple — has been criticised for being culturally inappropriate.</i></blockquote>
<br />That Stephanie happens to be the prime minister’s daughter is irrelevant. The issue is the appropriation and abuse of Native American imagery. Artists who create works that appropriate Native American heritage – here the headdress – are conforming with an abusive tradition in popular culture: the misuse of indigenous histories. <br /><br />Each headdress comes with a story. Often it’s the story of resistance and survival. The short history of the world is that the West has left very little for the rest. From land to resources to culture, indigenous people have been deprived of their birth rights. For that reason, indigenous people guard what they retain – in this case a cultural and spiritual symbol – and they aren’t keen to see it abused… Again. <br /><br />Artists who appropriate Native American imagery aren't making art on the edges. It’s actually an act of deep conformism and reveals a lack of imagination. In 2012 <a href="http://flavorwire.com/344807/what-a-native-american-expert-thinks-about-that-controversial-no-doubt-music-video">No Doubt released a video</a> casually appropriating Native American imagery (during Native American Heritage Month no less) and just this year Heidi Klum posted a picture of herself in Native kit:<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt7p0dy2BxS-z4FkX2aR6wrJkyyh3pM-au181FVmtxS1kg2D0DkUvbZxLKSTjxTjtJtR84rlYjAwQNBv5SShCwaVJQAM_r-una3zlZnzVAml_4qdu3tU0ro7DrDIiN-bJ0hp3kyCxKf5c6/s1600/Heidi+Klum+-+native+appropriation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt7p0dy2BxS-z4FkX2aR6wrJkyyh3pM-au181FVmtxS1kg2D0DkUvbZxLKSTjxTjtJtR84rlYjAwQNBv5SShCwaVJQAM_r-una3zlZnzVAml_4qdu3tU0ro7DrDIiN-bJ0hp3kyCxKf5c6/s1600/Heidi+Klum+-+native+appropriation.jpg" height="320" width="244" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /><br />But it goes back further than No Doubt and Heidi Klum. As early as the frontier wars in the United States white actors would dress in redface to portray the stupid, sexualised and dangerous natives. The history of Native American culture and settler colonialism is one of abuse. Whether Stephanie intended to or not – she may in fact intend to satirise mainstream appropriation – she channels this dark history of appropriation.<br /><br />I’ve outlined this short history because the context is important. This isn’t just a matter of a young person being a young person. Artists are responsible for their works, especially where that work feeds the hurt that Native Americans feel – and all indigenous peoples – when their culture, histories and spirituality are appropriated. That becomes more important again when the image not only takes from, but feeds an existing stereotype: (h/t MsMoctavia)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglh4Dxki_qYjuTtSBZ7NsbI4SFq13k-Gbd8qNX0Ij4u_KpfXqh6qVJoqxr7B8KmsKNJF0YK9-W-DKF9952qYRrpqttZF52aaiga-n6QuPZSOOXZudgXF4UmWDH5PLcdYQTWAUcmR7bTK2I/s1600/Sexualised+Native+appropriation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglh4Dxki_qYjuTtSBZ7NsbI4SFq13k-Gbd8qNX0Ij4u_KpfXqh6qVJoqxr7B8KmsKNJF0YK9-W-DKF9952qYRrpqttZF52aaiga-n6QuPZSOOXZudgXF4UmWDH5PLcdYQTWAUcmR7bTK2I/s1600/Sexualised+Native+appropriation.jpg" height="400" width="277" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /><br />I think Desi Rodriguez Lonebear is right, artists who appropriate owe apologies to Native Americans they take from. If you use a peoples’ imagery you are answerable to those peoples. In New Zealand, there is no excuse for ignorance on this count. We live in a country where indigenous people are a fact and cultural sensitivity is something we pride ourselves on. But the fact that Native American appropriation has happened <a href="http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/25499">twice in one week</a> might put a lie to that cultural sensitivity.
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-31833943322244827832014-04-23T06:00:00.000+12:002014-04-23T07:35:32.064+12:00Shane Jones: the political obituary <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9DP09tS_E8DHtpyk8ZJSjRfvNIW0Wge-fDvXFTGrC76AFzkigGYuoNSuRG-o_7Ch5g5pKeOUPeUIAoaP3SRdHsnKYlDyWKE4yd2vv_icS1b61dfA98M1Rx-f4R5sDbZqmjNYMHn-ex_kV/s1600/Shane_Jones.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9DP09tS_E8DHtpyk8ZJSjRfvNIW0Wge-fDvXFTGrC76AFzkigGYuoNSuRG-o_7Ch5g5pKeOUPeUIAoaP3SRdHsnKYlDyWKE4yd2vv_icS1b61dfA98M1Rx-f4R5sDbZqmjNYMHn-ex_kV/s1600/Shane_Jones.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I know Shane Jones. I like Shane Jones. I don’t want to seem like a sycophant, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I admired him. I disagreed with much of what he said, sure, but I recognised a commanding Maori leader. <br />
<br />
Here was a man – and I’m deliberately using gendered language, but more on that later – who understood the Maori experience and the Maori condition: our idiosyncrasies, language, literature, history, philosophies, spiritualism and our politics. <br />
<br />
And that’s what set Jones apart. In that respect, he was above the Maori leaders of his generation. He was the successor to Ngata’s legacy. It’s probably because he was a student of James Carroll. Both men appreciated that Maori society is always adapting tradition to modernity. Carroll took that to mean integration into and imitation of British political institutions. Jones took that to mean integration into and imitation of Anglo-American capitalism. <br />
<br />
It’s said that Maori walk backwards into the future. History is closer. Jones knew this better than many. I think it’s what influenced his political thinking and practice. It’s the reason he favoured integration on Maori terms – he was drawing on the wisdom of experience, as he saw it – and the reason he valued oratory. He traced his political descent down the same line as Carroll, Ngata, Couch and Peters. Shane was a model of these Maori men. He drew on their strengths, but he also inherited their weaknesses. <br />
<br />
Shane inherited the prejudices of the likes of Carroll, Ngata, Couch and Peters. These were conservative <i>men</i> who didn’t care as much for other marginalised groups. Take Apirana Ngata. He was an Anglo-patrician who believed in a racial hierarchy. Although he committed his entire being to Maori, he was not open-minded on today’s standards. I’m not saying Jones’ believes in racial hierarchy, but that he inherited blindspots from his predecessors.<br />
<br />
It’s those blindspots that make Shane a social democrat, but not a liberal. That was a cause of tension, stress and confusion on the left. Labour was always his default home, but I don’t think it was ever his proper home. Shane was socialised into politics off the back of, for lack of a better term, the old left. His introduction to Parliament and the Beehive was while working for Geoffrey Palmer in the fourth Labour government. He would've been a better fit - ideologically - in the Maori Party. He might've had a more successful career in National.<br />
<br />
This meant he was neither perfect for Maori nor perfect for the left. (But perfection is a false chalice, yet that didn’t stop many from demanding it). The attacks against women were uncalled for and wrong. The struggle for gender equality shouldn't and can't be divorced from the struggle for ethnic equality. Equality works best when it's equality for the whole and not the parts. <br />
<br />
I think many of Shane’s Maori supporters were always willing to recognise that. Yet his opponents rarely acknowledged his significance for Maori and in Maori political history. His place in Maori politics and Maori history was ignored. That was a telling signal to Maori - a people who revere the past and always try to fit their thinking in it. Shane worked because he understood this. He knew what made Maori tick, though it was always undermined by the faults of his political line.<br />
<br />
But what was worse – and very neo-colonialist – was being told to wait for someone better. That moment had too much in common with when the radical left realised tino rangatiratanga meant ownership and then Maori suddenly became the new bourgeois. I’ve said it before: Maori politics doesn’t sit apart from the political spectrum, but below it. At least the political right doesn't pretend to be a false friend.<br />
<br />
Maori political history isn't rich with choice. Telling us to wait for a more "progressive" candidate is deeply offensive. Maori have waited too long for too little. Shane was an opportunity and one many - including myself - were willing to back. He wasn’t perfect, but he was as close as we’ve come in more than a decade to the centre of power. Winston was the last Maori politician to come close to real power. It’s been a century since Maori actually touched it (Carroll as acting prime minister). Forgive us for working with what we have.<br />
<br />
Shane was always good to me. I don’t base my politics on how well politicians treat me, but I believe he was a good man with honest intentions. That’s more than I can say for a lot of politicians I’ve met. I wish Shane all the best. But I’m mourning what he represented and what appears to be, for now, a loss of meaning in Maori politics. Who carries the tohu of the likes of Carroll now? Is that political line broken? After all, Parekura has gone. Tariana is leaving. But who is coming through? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-18768211641927925032014-04-15T13:57:00.000+12:002014-04-15T16:11:30.886+12:00Our double reality: on being Maori and being politicalWell, they haven’t done anything wrong. In holding a <a href="http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/politics/native-affairs-come-dine-key">lucrative fundraiser at the exclusive Northern Club</a>, the Maori Party neither broke the law nor transgressed some moral jurisdiction. But the grievous hypocrisy is unmistakable. Consider this:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
mana Dotcom is actually Dotcom mana. it's all about the money, money. Unbelievable using Maori seat to draw in members from other party<br />
— Te Ururoa Flavell (@TeUruroaFlavell) <a href="https://twitter.com/TeUruroaFlavell/statuses/454893096619102208">April 12, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<div>
<br />
Dotcom’s dollars are off limits, but money from privileged Auckland isn’t?<br />
<br />
Donations arrive attached with expectations of reciprocity. The Prime Minister will expect a return in loyalty. The donors will expect their interests to be represented in Cabinet. To think otherwise is deliberate ignorance. Donations are made on the basis of self-interest and shared identity. But does the Maori Party want to be the party of privileged Auckland?<br />
<br />
The Maori Party doesn’t just suffer at the hands of racists, but at the hands of Maori leftists and separatists too. At times it seems like the party is fielding unjust criticism from all sides. But this isn’t one of those times. The party has played into the central criticisms others make: that it's drifted away from the people.<br />
<br />
Sure, a fundraising dinner at the exclusive and prestigious Northern Club is far removed from the lived experience of most Maori. But the real story is how political fundraising compromises political independence and political values. Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. <i>How</i> you practice it- and, importantly, <i>who</i> you practice it with - is loaded with meaning.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhRPOH2veal0Aoh1yx0GM4Q5C26mkE_UvNG3bVpF4J7MdXobh6KxZMex1zNZO0XpCg5wLEzpKlmo_3HH0afzHf0vryH3CIeYMIExSovZkzO24FAo5ioMKeQQP16vGd1Cu-aYUdix2PTa9q/s1600/Naida+Glavish+-+Native+Affairs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhRPOH2veal0Aoh1yx0GM4Q5C26mkE_UvNG3bVpF4J7MdXobh6KxZMex1zNZO0XpCg5wLEzpKlmo_3HH0afzHf0vryH3CIeYMIExSovZkzO24FAo5ioMKeQQP16vGd1Cu-aYUdix2PTa9q/s1600/Naida+Glavish+-+Native+Affairs.jpg" height="174" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Maori Party President Naida Glavish on <a href="http://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/shows/native-affairs/S08E006/native-affairs">Native Affairs</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
I’m not accusing the Maori Party of selling out. That’s too easy and it tells us nothing about the complexity of their situation. What I’m accusing the party of is saying one thing while doing another. There’s the hypocrisy levelled at Hone Harawira, but there’s also a deeper contradiction.</div>
<br />
The Maori Party argues it's neither left nor right - it’s<i> Maori</i>. Pita Sharples is no social democrat and Tariana Turia isn’t a classical liberal, sure, but that doesn’t mean they can retreat from the political spectrum. They are part of politics as usual. Not as a matter of ideology, but circumstance and practice.<br />
<br />
You can’t claim to be separated from mainstream politics when you sit in Parliament with a ministerial warrant. You can’t claim to be above mainstream politics when – as Patrick Gower put it – you’ve adopted the National Party fundraising model.<br />
<br />
This speaks to the unsteady, unsure ground Maori politics exist on. Maori experience a sort of <i>double reality</i>. We experience politics as both New Zealanders and Maori. This dual reality causes angst and havoc in Maori politics. Where does the border begin and end? How do political parties naviagte two competing worlds? Is it even appropriate to distinguish instead of integrate?<br />
<br />
The trick is to acknowledge that and be very clear – for the sake of your own integrity – when and why you’re moving between the Maori political world and the world of rightwing wealth. Especially when the world you’re emigrating to is so far removed from the reality for most Maori. <br />
<br />
The Maori Party is based on an appeal to our collective purpose. Yet it works so hard to undermine it. They can enjoy nice food and cavort with whoever they like. After all, the Maori Party is about establishing kaupapa Maori politics. It can help establish new social norms if it likes too. But it should recognise the consequences. <br />
<br />
A democracy is a country of competing interests and competing powers. Maori are no longer content to be the weakest. The Maori Party is testament to that. But their approach to progress has been ineffective and - as of yesterday - quite stupid. They didn't do anything wrong, but they're not doing much right either. </div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-17521680944728381632014-04-08T16:12:00.003+12:002014-04-08T16:13:02.071+12:00Anne Tolley: see no racism, hear no racism, speak no racism<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2dJBfA-3N4ejR98B5GOb9YLbjrJrMDhfs7OoU31A3x4U2CZPz49vKxnPXNhdxDtbezxdH1aw9Occf34ODFVwaP_2Tj01ove7yEGUBGmSrHexXXdhqtJFz1I9jgMp0lpG00-srj-cE1buE/s1600/Challenging+racism+in+feminism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2dJBfA-3N4ejR98B5GOb9YLbjrJrMDhfs7OoU31A3x4U2CZPz49vKxnPXNhdxDtbezxdH1aw9Occf34ODFVwaP_2Tj01ove7yEGUBGmSrHexXXdhqtJFz1I9jgMp0lpG00-srj-cE1buE/s1600/Challenging+racism+in+feminism.jpg" height="250" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Maori women challenging racism in the early feminist movement<br />H/T <a href="http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/27912/challenging-racism">Te Ara</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Don’t act surprised. From <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/241079/maori-offenders-not-targetted-minister">RNZ</a>:</div>
<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"The Government is rejecting suggestions Maori are being unfairly targetted in the police or corrections systems the Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell has described as institutionally racist. </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>A visiting United Nations delegation says the Government needs to investigate why a systemic bias against Maori is evident in the country's criminal justice system. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The delegation, which reports to the UN Human Rights Council, says any bias against Maori leading to their incarceration more than other New Zealanders constitutes arbitrary detention and is illegal under international law. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Police and Corrections Minister Anne Tolley says she has seen no evidence of institutional racism in either police or Corrections. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Quite the reverse in fact; there's a lot of work going on. The police are turning the tide and we're very impressed by that work and of course in Corrections the work that's going on to reduce reoffending</i>."</blockquote>
<br />It’s easy when you have the privilege of detachment – and, of course, the authority of objectivity – to deny that racism exists. But even then, Tolley’s remarks are neither a full denial nor a proper admission. Her response is bureaucratic: “the police are turning the tide and we’re very impressed by that work”.<br /><br />What does that even mean? If the police “are turning the tide” is that an admission institutional racism <i>did exist</i>? Or is “quite the reverse” a denial that institutional racism ever existed? Does it matter? Unfortunately it does. <br /><br />Tolley’s position doesn’t change the facts: <a href="http://www.law.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/law/shared/about/centres%20and%20associations/te-tai-haruru/documents/Maori%20chapter.pdf">Maori adults are 3.8 times more likely</a> to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence. <a href="http://justspeak.org.nz/what-are-your-odds/">Maori young people are more likely than Pakeha</a> to be apprehended and prosecuted for committing the same offence. This is the reality of the racial hierarchy: the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gaps. But add the health, wealth, education, employment and housing gaps too. <br /><br />But if Tolley denies that this is the product of institutional racism, she doesn’t have to do anything substantive about it. Her response can be bureaucratic: we are doing [insert glib policy] in hope of achieving [insert rosy outcome] for [insert folksy platitude]. <br /><br />Tolley’s position is profoundly ahistorical. Settler colonialism is based on the denial of indigenous systems and culture. You can’t complete the colonial project – namely to import the capitalist economy and recreate the architecture of liberal democracy - while allowing an indigenous system to co-exist.<br /><br />The New Zealand experience is no different. In the 19th century Maori were invited to assimilate under the Treaty. In 20th century New Zealand Maori have been invited to integrate under the Treaty settlement process. But under neither regime were Maori offered full membership of the state. Institutional racism made assimilation and integration conditional - sovereignty had to be transferred, discrimination tolerated and wrongdoing (eventually) forgiven. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Indulge me for a moment and imagine if we started setting some conditions like, say, extracting a genuine commitment to do something about institutional racism. But perhaps a commitment from government isn't necessary. Iwi, hapu, whanau, community groups, national organisations and individuals - of different ethnicities - are doing their best to turn the tide. In many areas, it’s working. Maori do have better access to housing and education than a century ago. But I’m suspicious of the government’s claim to be turning the tide. Here’s why: <div>
<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
“<i>You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me</i>”. – Malcolm X </blockquote>
</div>
</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-30494286405313862972014-03-20T17:43:00.000+13:002014-03-20T17:44:33.708+13:00Wrong questions, wrong answers: the rot in the Kohanga Reo<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMb9qbWlg1yLZcrUQD4X2g7BcvW75fjqcY5yP8EieYnH4V4OC-LZQcqsJ5fEWiTMFk034mjmMYi9nMYn8ivm4ts55bdHZlTtTHYeQ2MXNHOxpHyKhsOWsUUiaDekDCHdOimkcRbrU0XjKG/s1600/kohanga+kids.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMb9qbWlg1yLZcrUQD4X2g7BcvW75fjqcY5yP8EieYnH4V4OC-LZQcqsJ5fEWiTMFk034mjmMYi9nMYn8ivm4ts55bdHZlTtTHYeQ2MXNHOxpHyKhsOWsUUiaDekDCHdOimkcRbrU0XjKG/s1600/kohanga+kids.jpg" height="232" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Who's the Kohanga serving? h/t <a href="http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/7531/inside-a-kohanga-reo">Te Ara.</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
And the unfortunate becomes <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9846680/SFO-to-look-at-kohanga-reo-arm">the farcical</a>:<br />
<br />
<em></em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em><blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Serious Fraud Office has been asked to investigate allegations of misspending by the commercial arm of kohanga reo, less than 25 hours after Education Minister Hekia Parata put her credibility on the line by promising taxpayers there had been no impropriety. <br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
In a humiliating U-turn yesterday, Parata and Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples announced the SFO had been asked to investigate after a trustee from the Kohanga Reo National Trust passed on "fresh allegations" of misspending involving subsidiary Te Pataka Ohanga (TPO). </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The development followed a shambolic press conference late on Tuesday evening in which Parata said she was satisfied no public money had been spent inappropriately, despite allegations that TPO general manager Lynda Tawhiwhirangi used her work credit card to buy a wedding dress, an $800 Trelise Cooper dress, a 21st birthday gift, and make a $1000 cash withdrawal as koha for a tangi she did not attend</div>
</blockquote>
</em><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What makes the issue more bizarre is that EY wasn’t instructed or empowered to investigate the original claims. The Dominion Post details some of the claims in the paragraph above, but others were omitted. For example, why did Te Pataka Ohanga give low interest loans to Kohanga Reo board members?<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
Parata and Sharples insisted that the Kohanga Reo National Trust purchases services from Te Pataka Ohanga – a subsidiary of the trust. The argument goes something like this: the relationship between the trust and its subsidiary is private and cannot warrant public scrutiny. But that reasoning is artificial. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The trust and their supporters can create academic distinctions, but it doesn’t change the nature of the trust <em>and its operations</em>. The trust might fall outside of the core public service, but it’s performing a <em>public function</em>. Public organisations must be subject to public scrutiny. </div>
<div>
</div>
That seems obvious and it leads to a series of questions:<br />
<div>
</div>
<ul>
<li>Why was EY not permitted to investigate the original claims? When the story broke the Prime Minister <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9283967/Parata-calls-meeting-over-accusations">offered assurances</a> that if there was “inappropriate behaviour” then persons concerned would “have the book thrown at them”. The review appeared to sidestep the “inappropriate behaviour” and “the book” seems to be a referral. The Auditor-General was probably the better investigator; </li>
<li>Also, what new information prompted the referral to the Serious Fraud Office and the Department of Internal Affairs? It seems more likely that the Prime Minister’s office prompted the referral. The issue threatened coverage of Key’s trip to China and might’ve damaged the government’s credibility. There’s no reason for a National government to die in a ditch over a Maori organisation; </li>
<li>Lastly, what’s Parata and Sharples connection to board members? It could be their personal relationships that lead them to protect the board. If you pick apart the fabric of Maori society you'll find important seams that connect and overlap. </li>
</ul>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The behaviour of the board and its subsidiary has been dreadful. Perhaps it’s the predictable effect of lifetime appointments. But I think it goes deeper. There’s a rot in Maori governance. From poor governance at Maori TV to the Kohanga Reo board, Maori aren’t being served. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Would a rational and skilled board <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11221178">re-attempt to appoint Paora Maxwell</a> after the staff revolt? Clearly the board didn’t consider rudimentary factors like workplace culture and staff satisfaction. Would a rational and skilled board sanction a $50,000 koha to a board member? That’s more than triple the <a href="http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/maori/census-snapshot-maori.aspx">median income for Maori</a>. I’ll tell you what kind of board would – one that isn't fit for the job. </div>
<div>
</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-37301491466053116052014-03-17T07:00:00.000+13:002014-03-17T07:00:03.170+13:00The cycles of Maori politics<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I’m going to make the call: all
things remaining the same, the incumbents in the Maori electorates will retain
their seats. Here’s how it’s looking.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Te Tai Tokerau</strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour:
Kelvin Davis</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mana: Hone
Harawira<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Tamaki
Makaurau<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour:
Shane Taurima (probably)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mana: tbc.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Maori Party:
possible candidates include Bronwyn Yates, George Ngatai, Te Hira Paenga and Tūnuiarangi McLean. The selection hui is scheduled in May.</span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Hauraki-Waikato<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour:
Nanaia Mahuta</span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Waiariki<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour: the candidates are Katie Paul, Ryan Te Wara and Rawiri Waititi. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mana: tbc (at
the AGM I believe between 11-13 April)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Maori Party:
Te Ururoa Flavell</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Te Tai
Hauauru<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Greens: Jack
Tautokai McDonald</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour: Adrian
Rurawhe</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Maori Party:
Chris McKenzie</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Ikaroa-Rawhiti<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour: Meka
Whaitiri</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mana: Te
Hamua Nikora</span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Te Tai Tonga</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Greens: Dora Langsbury</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour: Rino
Tirikatene</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour has a clear run in Hauraki-Waikato and Te Tai Tonga. There are few - if any - viable challengers. Mana and the Maori Party have missed the window of opportunity and it seems that Tamaki will fall Labour's way while Ikaroa looks increasingly safe. Te Ururoa and Hone appear safe too. </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Te Tai Hauauru is the great uncertainty. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Labour, Mana and the Maori Party can't hope to run viable campaigns in the seats they haven't selected candidates in. The election is six months away and the window of opportunity has passed. At this point, any campaign against the incumbent is nominal. Maori politics is relationship based and its difficult to build a political relationship with the electorate with only six months on the clock. That's leaving aside the other, more practical issues, like campaign personnel and strategy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But the bigger picture is important too: conflict characterised the last decade in Maori politics. Think of Closing the Gaps, Orewa and the Foreshore and Seabed Act. </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The cruel irony is that the Maori Party has resolved much of that conflict - Whanau Ora has replaced Closing the Gaps, National has abandoned its Maori bashing tactics and the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been repealed and replaced - yet Labour will be the beneficiary. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">That's terribly unfair. But while stability returns to Maori politics, the Maori electorates appear to be reverting to type: Labour-led. Maori politics runs through cycles of uncertainty. When uncertainty and instability arises the Maori electorates turn against Labour. It almost happened with Matiu Rata while it actually happened in the 90s with New Zealand First and the 2000s with the Maori Party. The Young Maori Party was born amidst uncertainty and low confidence among Maori, but when certainty and confidence returned Labour and Ratana swept the Maori seats. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">There was a window of opportunity when Mana and the Maori Party might have challenged that cycle. But I think that window has passed. The best they can hope to do is retain what they have. </span><br />
</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-69445563758676889762014-02-27T10:01:00.001+13:002014-02-27T10:03:45.631+13:00"Property rights for some are property rights for none"Writing about anti-Maori propaganda is exhausting. It’s not exhausting in the sense that it’s back breaking work; rather it’s intellectually – and, more importantly, emotionally - draining. I’m often writing against stereotypes that have been a century in the making. Stereotypes that are encoded in New Zealand’s colonial memory. Consider this from <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11210482">the Herald</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b>Iwi's right to stall consents raises fears </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>New rule for work on cultural and heritage sites introduces process `based on race'.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>A new rule requiring homeowners and businesses to seek iwi approval to work on sites of cultural and heritage value to Maori is set to be debated by councillors today.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Groups and politicians across the political spectrum are concerned the rule creates a dual resource consent process - one conducted by Auckland Council and the other by Maori.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Under the council's draft Unitary Plan, applications to carry out work on 3600 sites of "value to mana whenua" must obtain a "cultural impact assessment" from one or more of 19 iwi groups.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If iwi do not agree, applicants must apply to the council for a resource consent.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Waitemata councillor Mike Lee said the rule is likely to mean extra costs for people and create a parallel regulatory framework based on race.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Employers and Manufacturers chief executive Kim Campbell shares Mr Lee's view that it could lead to an unacceptable dual resource consent process.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"As it stands, the proposed Unitary Plan's cultural impact assessments would add uncertainty, cost and time delays to the issuing of resource consents," Mr Campbell said.</i></blockquote>
<br />
Note the framing in the headline: iwi’s right to “stall” rather than iwi’s right to be consulted. In the opening sentence the mandatory quote - “based on race” – is included. But then, as a measure of insulation against accusations of scaremongering or racism, the story shifts to an issue of “process” and “cost”. These are the rhetorical parachutes <a href="http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/anne-tolley-agent-of-colourblind-racism.html">I’ve written about before</a>. <br />
<br />
But the story is about neither process nor cost. This is about property rights. Iwi haven’t gained the right to stall development – they’ve regained a small measure of the property rights they lost to force and intrigue. This is a contest of property rights. The story doesn’t acknowledge the iwi property right – the right to a small measure of pluralism over sites of significance – but it acknowledges the title holder’s – read Pakeha’s - right to develop with no impediments. <br />
<br />
Title holders retain the ordinary property rights, but where sites of significance are involved the ordinary property rights are subject to iwi consultation. In principle the iwi right works like a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement">conservation easement</a>. Except iwi don’t have the power to veto. It’s an ordinary consultation right. David Taipari gives a different example: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>David Taipari, chairman of the council's Independent Maori Statutory Board, said the rule was no different from those protecting built heritage, saying it was important that people did not destroy or affect archeological or sites of significance to mana whenua. </i></blockquote>
<br />
And he’s right. But also note that this single paragraph is the only attempt at balance. The result is obvious: the title holder’s right to develop is framed as the important right while the iwi right to conserve is not framed as property right, but some sort of unearned privilege. But this isn’t a case of the council or the government creating new rights for iwi. The council is recognising a small right that has always existed.<br />
<br />
If this story was framed as a contest of property rights it wouldn’t be as sexy. It's not even a case of race. These are sites significant to New Zealand, surely. The stereotype of iwi winning special rights is deeply embedded. Some people go off about it without thinking (it’s a reflex action). Others have more sinister motives (to sell papers, maybe). I don’t care. Maybe it’ll be less exhausting if I care less?Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-91428911381239535702014-02-24T07:00:00.000+13:002014-02-24T23:09:53.125+13:00The meaning of Winston Peter's race talk<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfXoI_eg1M31cY4D67XaylM209-PztS44PKo2T-wGtQXI70uxAQKBI93ywGM4j19HyxilYugkH8Zck1YyxRN-2KV4VIijYbFju8kkVew9JGlg2m2UiM4uO0qDUYAaICEKqsEslmBqmusja/s1600/Winston+and+NZ+First.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfXoI_eg1M31cY4D67XaylM209-PztS44PKo2T-wGtQXI70uxAQKBI93ywGM4j19HyxilYugkH8Zck1YyxRN-2KV4VIijYbFju8kkVew9JGlg2m2UiM4uO0qDUYAaICEKqsEslmBqmusja/s1600/Winston+and+NZ+First.png" height="272" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is from Winston Peter's state of the nation speech. <a href="http://nzfirst.org.nz/speech/real-state-nation">Don’t act surprised</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>We have the Chinese community, the Pacific Islands community, the Sri Lankans, the Indians - the list is endless. All hyphenated New Zealanders…</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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…</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>That doesn’t mean abandoning identity. The Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dalmatians never did, nor did the Dutch.</i></blockquote>
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
If Colin Craig’s “<a href="http://officialinformationact.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/colin-craig-what-is-not-to-be-done.html">entire political movement and history is based on feelings of humiliation</a>” 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”. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Consider this: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Freezing works closed, the Ministry of Works, Forest Service, Government Print and so many others.</i> <i>When the Forestry Service was privatised, thousands of jobs were lost and 80 per cent of those jobs had been held by Māori.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Heartland New Zealand had the heart ripped out.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Tens of thousands of Maori were thrown on the industrial scrap heap.</i> <i>Along with unemployment came the twin curses of alcohol and drugs which are creating mayhem among Maori…</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Along with the new age economics of selling everything and bringing in more immigrants, a new political arrangement was entered into.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>This is the politics of appeasement to radical Māori demands.</i></blockquote>
<br />
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 <i>other</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-17793177432391124402014-02-18T07:41:00.000+13:002014-02-18T09:43:25.202+13:00Shane Taurima: political neophyte? Patrick Gower has thrown a <a href="http://www.3news.co.nz/TVNZ-manager-resigns-over-fundraising-revelations/tabid/1607/articleID/332566/Default.aspx">rat among the kiwi eggs</a>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>3 News can reveal state broadcaster TVNZ is being used as a campaign base by Labour Party activists.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>They've even held a meeting in TVNZ's Maori and Pacific Unit aimed at fundraising for Labour.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The unit's manager, Shane Taurima, has held ambitions to become a Labour MP and his staff have been arranging Labour Party business, using TVNZ facilities like email.<br />Mr Taurima has resigned following the revelation.</i></blockquote>
<br />
How did several experienced journalists miss the headlines they were creating? The use of TVNZ facilities was minor, but it should have created doubts. The stench of a story should have suffocated every journalist in the meeting room. <br />
<br />
I stand by the claim that the use was relatively minor. But the political ineptitude isn’t. There’s a story on two levels: principled and practical. Is it ethical to remain party political while maintaining editorial control at a public broadcaster? On a practical level, does the issue speak to poor political judgement?<br />
<br />
I think Shane checked his views at the door. His work confirms that. But perceptions demanded he resign. How could he remain objective? <br />
<br />
Well, he remained balanced. Objectivity was a red herring. Journalism demands balance. The myth of objectivity was only a self-serving political attack. Shane didn’t sacrifice his professional skills or values. But the perception that he was tainted – a perception that’s given substance in the latest story – ran too deep. <br />
<br />
Shane didn’t make the rod for his own back in front of the camera or in the control room - he made it in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti selection. When he revealed his political ambitions – and social democratic inclinations – he drew a target on his head. In hindsight he should have resigned permanently the moment he announced his candidacy. On a practical level he could have and did remain – I don’t think anyone can question his professionalism – but on a political level the decision to remain was stupid. Does this cast doubt on his suitability as a political candidate? <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Post script: Shane has released a <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11204642">gracious media statement</a> explaining his resignation. </span>Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-32399979674661553692014-02-12T18:00:00.000+13:002014-02-12T19:32:53.436+13:00Kaupapa Maori politics: a definition<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXuYsjOGAFalGTuBh56PmBNBnmgxMj8UwKHsmgSZhgVjndt9qmLX65NftRsMFLBVu5PFZj0MULITSVjTYrnFRHPb1DwDucWnyqRuF6yUdVR4m3nz1PEg6t-Cu4tuVwxLI9ycKDFt-j3lc7/s1600/TR+flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXuYsjOGAFalGTuBh56PmBNBnmgxMj8UwKHsmgSZhgVjndt9qmLX65NftRsMFLBVu5PFZj0MULITSVjTYrnFRHPb1DwDucWnyqRuF6yUdVR4m3nz1PEg6t-Cu4tuVwxLI9ycKDFt-j3lc7/s1600/TR+flag.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The tino rangatiratanga flag: the symbol of kaupapa Maori politics?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It’s election year. Expect to regularly encounter politicians who represent “kaupapa Maori politics”. But don’t expect a definition. No one – or no one I’m aware of - has bothered to properly explain what kaupapa Maori politics means. The definition has always been intuitive and subjective. Maybe that's why it's used only as a rhetorical tool when it should be used as an ideological claim too.<br />
<br />
Kaupapa Maori research is well defined. But kaupapa Maori <i>politics</i> isn't. My take is this: kaupapa Maori politics provides a Maori account of power-relations – one underpinned by the Treaty partnership; a Maori account of the desired future - one where bicultural and multicultural pluralism is valued through mana motuhake (self-governance); and a Maori account of how politics should work – through consensus politics as exemplified in the Maori Party’s constitution.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We also know some of the governing principles - for example kotahitanga - some of the doctrines - think integration of Maori into New Zealand power structures and integration of Maori values into public policy - and some of the symbols - for example the tino rangatiratanga flag.<br />
<br />
That’s a wordy and passive definition. It's also quite unclear and underdeveloped. I’d welcome others who have a different take or can build on what I've written to comment below. It might be useful to hammer this out before the election season proper. Kaupapa Maori politics shouldn’t be an empty rhetorical tool. It should be an ideological claim. </div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-70896398985632197782014-02-05T07:43:00.000+13:002014-02-05T07:43:02.585+13:00Myths of nationhood: why I'm not "celebrating" Waitangi DayBehold, Waitangi Day Bingo:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBU6ilW-yYN4Pgx-nU6PrCgaeHmkLKhZS_jSWjfw1Rju2vJ4mVDXfhUAEMKOdeZygaWKNEfVgSjIqkdDJYHf4XeRo55GCBiVp_2i6OadYXyVYXKVLWf5DLQjCWdJ2h-vvz_AKEUW42UKpK/s1600/Waitangi+Day+Bingo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBU6ilW-yYN4Pgx-nU6PrCgaeHmkLKhZS_jSWjfw1Rju2vJ4mVDXfhUAEMKOdeZygaWKNEfVgSjIqkdDJYHf4XeRo55GCBiVp_2i6OadYXyVYXKVLWf5DLQjCWdJ2h-vvz_AKEUW42UKpK/s1600/Waitangi+Day+Bingo.jpg" height="640" width="536" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">h/t @ColeyTangerina and @Megapope</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Bingo is a witty critique of Waitangi Day clichés, but it’s also something more: this is the geography of Pakeha myth-making. Each box is a false political claim. Prepare to hear each claim repeatedly and under the worn robe of “debate”. <br />
<br />
Waitangi Day angst isn’t new. Respected columnists will <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10863715">declare</a> the day “broke”, less-respected columnists might announce it’s “a day of lies” while others will broadcast accusations of reverse racism. But most will plea for unity. Yet navigate the calls for unity with caution. Underneath the plea is a denial – Maori have no right to protest their lot. This is the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day.<br />
<br />
In 1973 the third Labour government introduced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Day_Act_1973">the New Zealand Day Act</a>. Although Waitangi Day had always been acknowledged, that acknowledgment wasn't codified in a public holiday. New Zealand Day – a misnomer – was intended to become the foundation of national identity. A splendid celebration of nationhood.<br />
<br />
Except it wasn’t. There could never be unity without equality. The betrayal of the Treaty went too deep, and the collateral effects of Treaty breaches went too far, for Maori to accept a celebration of nationhood that didn’t exist. In 1973 <a href="http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/nga-ropu-tautohetohe-maori-protest-movements/page-2">Nga Tamatoa occupied Waitangi with black armbands</a>. They declared the day one of mourning for the broken promises of the Treaty including the loss of millions of hectares of Maori land.<br />
<br />
In later years protestors stormed the grounds. <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/columnists/rawiri-taonui/261525/i-RAWIRI-TAONUI-A-day-of-naval-gazing-i">Tame Iti</a> spat at a Prime Minister. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titewhai_Harawira">Titewhai Harawira</a> reduced another Prime Minister to a shaking wreck. <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3547949">An aspiring Prime Minister</a> ate mud. <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6368974/Key-leaves-Waitangi-due-to-protesters">The Popata brothers</a> had a go at the current Prime Minister. It’s easy to argue that Waitangi Day represents “grievance”. But it’s more than that. Waitangi Day is the nexus between the national story and Maori realities.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib3PUKRD7dmrv0pmYlNCAl1JC-kFHyhuVdSQ3e38Acxe0PJDfn9em5QyrQ1DSdHGl4vRO_Ub7IvDTHaXjRIKS9YbSlqGjv4MPSjCOuEOZTqywFGqRbbTY-fXekctLaG4rPSxW1Nbac9Pfe/s1600/1981-protestor-copy.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib3PUKRD7dmrv0pmYlNCAl1JC-kFHyhuVdSQ3e38Acxe0PJDfn9em5QyrQ1DSdHGl4vRO_Ub7IvDTHaXjRIKS9YbSlqGjv4MPSjCOuEOZTqywFGqRbbTY-fXekctLaG4rPSxW1Nbac9Pfe/s1600/1981-protestor-copy.gif" height="316" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Two world views collide: the spirit of activism and the fist of oppression.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
For more than a century Pakeha society had a monopoly on the national story: the Treaty was a rat-eaten relic, Maori were destined to assimilate and New Zealand had the best race relations in the world. Waitangi Day was a celebration of New Zealand exceptionalism rather than an acknowledgement of broken promises. <br />
<br />
But the Waitangi Day of Pakeha imaginations isn’t real. Waitangi Day is where Maori pushback against the myths that society clings to: the Treaty is a living document, Maori retain their identity and New Zealand has poor race relations. The health, wealth and education gaps exist and they exist off the back of the broken promises of the Treaty. Waitangi Day is where Maori can reveal New Zealand's separate realities. <br />
<br />
But the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day won’t acknowledge that. It’s easier to switch the conversation than acknowledge that one group is dominant over the other. This is the new assimilation – the battle for history and contemporary meaning. There is a regular plea to make Waitangi Day “our” day. The layers of meaning are clear: Waitangi Day belongs to monocultural nationhood, not multicultural pluralism. Sit down or shut up. That disrespects Maori realities. But it also misunderstands the Treaty itself: the Treaty didn't create New Zealand - that came later - the Treaty created a bicultural relationship.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to celebrate the birth of a nation or protest the failed promise of that nation. I'll quietly honour the legacy of resistance and those who are getting it done. I'll acknowledge that colonisation isn’t a distant tragedy, but an on-going process. Maori know it because they experience it. Pakeha might not, but that’s no excuse to deny Maori their agency on Waitangi Day. Myths have many authors, but reality can expose them. That’s what Waitangi Day is about most of all. </div>
</div>
</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-77129095316947737772014-02-04T08:30:00.000+13:002014-02-04T08:30:00.920+13:00Why I am standing for Te Tai Hauāuru - Jack McDonald <i>Ko Taranaki te Maunga</i><br />
<i>Ko Taranaki te Tangata</i><br />
<i>Ko Taranaki te Iwi</i><br />
<i>Ko te puna i heke mai ai te tangata</i><br />
<i>E kore e pau te ika unahi nui</i><br />
<br />
The threads of my whakapapa from across the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate weave together to bind my identity – my Māoritanga. A product of Te Tai Hauāuru, I am ready to stand up for our whānau and our whenua. I am ready to provide a new generation of political leadership.<br />
<div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDJxTYLe09KgVoOp-PTS0511Tq3wyzC58N6Yt3bTmTxTawgWa_yPKNpPOuxJ68IOzWALC2cNC3MLqJzqOEPLZxC2_nhyphenhyphenPaAeYwfpLWdN2xWNfkAUHJQ6LYKAYdsPU0KQieo2N3OBFJULey/s1600/Jack+McDonald+profile+ratana+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDJxTYLe09KgVoOp-PTS0511Tq3wyzC58N6Yt3bTmTxTawgWa_yPKNpPOuxJ68IOzWALC2cNC3MLqJzqOEPLZxC2_nhyphenhyphenPaAeYwfpLWdN2xWNfkAUHJQ6LYKAYdsPU0KQieo2N3OBFJULey/s1600/Jack+McDonald+profile+ratana+2.jpg" width="178" /></a>I pay tribute to Whaea Tariana Turia, who has served our electorate with a power and distinction that is rarely seen in the political world. She has been our MP for 12 years, and has for that time been at the forefront of the fight for mana motuhake and has set a benchmark for Māori political representation in Parliament.<br />
<br />
No one can replace Whaea Tariana's leadership, but her retirement offers Te Tai Hauāuru a rare opportunity; the opportunity to force a generational shift in our leadership and to chart a distinct course based on new ideas and a fresh outlook.<br />
<br />
<div>
While attending the Rātana celebrations on the 24th of January I announced that I will be seeking the Green Party candidacy for Te Tai Hauāuru and standing for the Greens’ list. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
~<br />
<br /></div>
As an uri of Taranaki Iwi and Te Āti Awa, many of my tupuna embarked on the heke that travelled from one end of the electorate to the other; from Taranaki maunga to the coastlines of Kāpiti and Mana. I have lived all my life in the small coastal town of Paekākāriki and I currently serve my community as the Chair of our Community Board and as our representative at the Kāpiti Coast council table.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg75sEvztDbMzX6XFRrmS7wSm9H0GS2p1SaYiFe2Gr1P6GEvVl8WXtg8G0mpY0AD05Tked98RUpRIpdrdGUIZdTatMUVlx7KdSJa0elEUADpaFmxvAfZ8epoJ8wF_R9D6MtMl4-JFDrc7kZ/s1600/282930_740567229301807_426494848_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg75sEvztDbMzX6XFRrmS7wSm9H0GS2p1SaYiFe2Gr1P6GEvVl8WXtg8G0mpY0AD05Tked98RUpRIpdrdGUIZdTatMUVlx7KdSJa0elEUADpaFmxvAfZ8epoJ8wF_R9D6MtMl4-JFDrc7kZ/s1600/282930_740567229301807_426494848_n.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Green representatives at Rātana Pā 2014</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I stood in this electorate for the Greens in the 2011 general elections. It was the first time the Greens had stood a candidate in this electorate, so I had some very clear objectives in mind; spreading the Green kaupapa across the rohe and strengthening the position of the Greens in Māori communities. We were successful in our objectives; tripling the Greens party vote in Te Tai Hauāuru and securing third place in the electorate vote.<br />
<br />
I have always believed that the Greens' values are remarkably similar to our values as Māori. And because a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a core part of our party's charter, the Greens are the strongest and most principled advocates in Parliament for honouring Te Tiriti and building a strong Treaty partnership.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
~</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It’s never been more important that we have strong Green representation in Te Tai Hauāuru. With both National and Labour supporting risky deep sea oil drilling off the Taranaki coast, it’s vital we send a message that we can’t risk destroying the environment which sustains our economy and our well-being. I stand in solidarity with hapū, iwi and community groups that are standing up to the drilling interests.<br />
<br />
The extractive industries produce few jobs, while our two biggest industries, primary production and tourism, both rely on our clean, green brand. We also know that continued reliance on a fossil-fuel based economy will lead to increased carbon emissions and a more unstable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an unique opportunity for iwi heading into the post-settlement era to be at the forefront of innovation and the transition to a sustainable economy. Greens propose a fairer Treaty settlement process, support for Māori small business and a massive investment in research and development and clean energy.<br />
<br />
A strong Green Party will be able to hold both major parties to account. We have proven that we can make change from across Parliament, without compromising our values and our convictions. A party vote for the Greens will ensure there is a social and environmental conscience at the heart of a new progressive government.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-KN5r3DDC5WOJzZ7QZ-W_vzHnZ5dTTv_BXoZmisBYHkW_3DfqNtuYz_aCfNukO7gVCnfmqmNVSO8v21Ds3mh06z_0H9MgF0vbysk2dfxbRuDWlgz1C6zzjAoGfKACh5tEvMCTHHHuCnUU/s1600/parihaka.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-KN5r3DDC5WOJzZ7QZ-W_vzHnZ5dTTv_BXoZmisBYHkW_3DfqNtuYz_aCfNukO7gVCnfmqmNVSO8v21Ds3mh06z_0H9MgF0vbysk2dfxbRuDWlgz1C6zzjAoGfKACh5tEvMCTHHHuCnUU/s1600/parihaka.jpg" height="208" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-k2_CkoPFpzM%2FUu-GL2z8O_I%2FAAAAAAAAAYk%2FHoivREurrkg%2Fs1600%2FJack%2BMcDonald%2Bprofile%2Bratana%2B2.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDJxTYLe09KgVoOp-PTS0511Tq3wyzC58N6Yt3bTmTxTawgWa_yPKNpPOuxJ68IOzWALC2cNC3MLqJzqOEPLZxC2_nhyphenhyphenPaAeYwfpLWdN2xWNfkAUHJQ6LYKAYdsPU0KQieo2N3OBFJULey/s1600/Jack+McDonald+profile+ratana+2.jpg" -->Jack McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156105867554444192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-87616961113062822592014-01-31T08:04:00.000+13:002014-01-31T08:22:21.725+13:00Anne Tolley: an agent of colourblind racism? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZiTo4HMaWuWHR9CdiIVJAt9Su6w-LeBvnjkkest_kK7aHTJd3XVH6OYC_xfoVYRQwrynqU0xPFjsqJIfwJLveWD530ZhN-4VWA3fLzLdNyjT3heaEMLuq5EPpZ0ev_VLaCZLnXNo7OfTB/s1600/MetiriaTurei.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZiTo4HMaWuWHR9CdiIVJAt9Su6w-LeBvnjkkest_kK7aHTJd3XVH6OYC_xfoVYRQwrynqU0xPFjsqJIfwJLveWD530ZhN-4VWA3fLzLdNyjT3heaEMLuq5EPpZ0ev_VLaCZLnXNo7OfTB/s1600/MetiriaTurei.jpg" height="299" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Green co-leader Metiria Turei: stereotyped and slandered.</div>
<span id="goog_1260395361"></span><span id="goog_1260395362"></span><br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9667761/MPs-clothes-jibe-leads-to-racism-call">Stuff.co.nz</a>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Tolley said she was insulted by Green Party claims that she was out of touch.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I'm actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designer jackets and tells me I'm out of touch," Tolley said.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>It is not the first time National MPs have attacked Turei's choice of clothing. Justice Minister Judith Collins said last year on Twitter that a speech by Turei was "vile, wrong and ugly, just like her jacket today".</i></blockquote>
<i><br /></i>It’s easy to think that racism is an act that belonged to other people, in another time, in another place. Except it isn’t. And it never was. <br />
<br />
Some New Zealanders are aware of the realities of the racial hierarchy: the wealth gap; the employment gap; the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gap. But less New Zealanders appreciate the language of racism. Not the language of niggers, kikes and kaffirs. But of "semantic moves" - of coded insults and racist premises.<br />
<br />
We live in the age of racism without racists. Racism comes with its own stigma. People want to avoid that. But rather than change their behaviour, society has invented rhetorical parachutes. Suddenly racism can’t exist without racial words. Racism becomes the use of "Wogistan", but not the history and ideas that sustain it.<br />
<br />
Tolley didn’t need to mention race. Her attack is loaded with social, political and racial assumptions. The unspoken context is that Metiria, a Maori woman who lives well and dresses better, is acting out of turn and out of step with her community. How can she be in touch with her community when she isn’t living like them? The premise is that a Maori woman cannot dress well and claim to represent her people. Because Maori live exclusively in poverty, amirite. <br />
<br />
But Tolley can. She dresses like her community, lives with them and – it seems – perpetuates their prejudices. The premise is that her community is well off and that gives her the right to live well, dress well and hold power. Tolley is constructing a self-serving stereotype. A world of (literally) black and white where binary assumptions can be made about how racial communities live. <br />
<br />
Metiria explains further: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I think they seem to think it is all right for them to wear perfectly good suits for their professional job but that a Maori woman from a working-class background is not entitled to do the same. I think it is pure racism."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><br /></i><i>Ask how the attack was racist, Turei said she shopped at the same place some of her opponents did.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><br /></i><i>"They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work," she said.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><br /></i><i>"I buy my clothes from some of the same shops they do. I think they find that they can't cope with that and I think it's because I'm a Maori woman from a working-class background."</i></blockquote>
<br />
The common refrain is Tolley didn't invoke racial terms, ipso facto, she isn't racist. But it takes a determined effort in self-deception to strip Tolley’s remarks of their racial <i>context</i>. Metiria doesn't conform to Tolley's idea of what and who Maori should be, therefore Metiria is out of touch with her community. That's racial stereptyping. That's colourblind racism.<br />
<br />
A hijacked version of colourblindness has become the dominant racial ideology in New Zealand (and across the west). Because of that most New Zealanders are hyper-attuned to racialism. But what they refuse to acknowledge is when racial stereotypes – stripped of their overtly racial words – are projected onto individuals, situations and communities. Like, say, when the assumption of Maori poverty is projected onto a Maori politician.<br />
<br />
There are several comparisons: when people discuss the warrior gene it can be framed as “science” and not a narrative used to explain inherent Maori criminality and violence. Welfarism can be used as morse code - a way to talk about Maori dependency without explicitly racialising the prejudice. Positive discrimination can be used to attack the growth of the Maori worldview in universities. The subtext is clear. It's colourblind racism.<br />
<div>
<br />
If there's no such thing as race - "I don't see in colour" - there can be no such thing as racial disadvantage. We're all a lump of humanity that cannot be distinguished. But this sort of colourblind racism is self-serving. It preserves the status quo and ignores why some people are better off than others. Where the colourblind ideologies of liberalism aimed to control for prejudice in society, the colourblind ideologies dominant today work to validate prejudice.<br />
<br />
Master Republican strategist Lee Atwater (father of the Southern Strategy) <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy">explains</a><u> </u>how racial discourse had to change (and did): <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”</i></blockquote>
<br />
Racial ideologies are highly contested. Rejecting colourblind racism is a political struggle. Colourblind racism seeks to silence multicultural pluralism and, instead, celebrate a kind of monocultural nationalism that can't include non-conformists. That serves the status quo. Racial progress is stalled. We can't allow the racists to create their imaginary future. And calling Tolley on her (conscious or unconscious) racism is part of that.</div>
Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-13120246717296294062014-01-28T13:53:00.000+13:002014-01-28T20:50:27.650+13:00The pot calling the kettle brown: why Winston Peters can't talk about "separatism"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmBC1gEgf_j0vVEedBqW-Rs2SdyaDs8g5HwhRYGtSAVK-45qk7bP7w68-xCD0Fmw33oBTZNN60zSsR5jBN0exfOQvr7GdFreTwEuwKN0KQqYZWIM5zbSY1gqQ84EtsZvIEmE79BuTDbhxS/s1600/WinstonPeters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmBC1gEgf_j0vVEedBqW-Rs2SdyaDs8g5HwhRYGtSAVK-45qk7bP7w68-xCD0Fmw33oBTZNN60zSsR5jBN0exfOQvr7GdFreTwEuwKN0KQqYZWIM5zbSY1gqQ84EtsZvIEmE79BuTDbhxS/s1600/WinstonPeters.jpg" height="285" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Winston’s <a href="http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/peters-wins-no-friends-calling-maori-policies-apartheid-5806840">up to his old tricks</a>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>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.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"What Maori need is housing, decent healthcare, decent education system and first world jobs and wages," Mr Peters says.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The Maori Party has abandoned that for sociological objectives which are of no interest to Maoridom at all.<br />"Apartheid policies are based on racial preference. This is, too."</i></blockquote>
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
It might seem counterintuitive, but in 1991 - the year Winston was sacked as Minister of Maori Affairs - “<a href="http://www.kaupapamaori.com/assets/SmithC/kimihia_te_maramatanga_chpt5.pdf">busloads</a>” of Maori arrived in Wellington to protest the move. Odd, you might think, for a person who opposes Maori policy. Except it isn’t. <br />
<br />
There’s rhetoric and reality: there is the party leader who <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10638253">argues that</a> “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 <a href="http://www.kaupapamaori.com/assets/SmithC/kimihia_te_maramatanga_chpt5.pdf">Ka Awatea</a> report, created the foundations of Te Puni Kokiri and – a few years later - contested the Maori seats. The pot is calling the kettle brown. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_public_management">New Public Management model</a> (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.<br />
<br />
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. Morgan Godferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16151402259122819244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8687643215117543088.post-59595710258562001882014-01-26T20:16:00.001+13:002014-01-26T20:16:38.842+13:00Winston’s comments overshadowed the real issues at Rātana<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">It’s a real shame that Winston Peters decided to launch his <a href="http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/peters-wins-no-friends-calling-maori-policies-apartheid-5806840" target="_blank">latest dog-whistle attack </a>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. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia-er6Lj7kkugCOy2jJ1VMFy1O86aQi9eOk57k-xwCC8wouZO7TFgQSSk8Nc91G9guHO1MIwojVtYmV96FfHne_3wiq43Sp7MX2sEZhpbjeVRA4ga45EWl0jw-ZSSgp71L4TFehkAm0cCM/s1600/temepara.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia-er6Lj7kkugCOy2jJ1VMFy1O86aQi9eOk57k-xwCC8wouZO7TFgQSSk8Nc91G9guHO1MIwojVtYmV96FfHne_3wiq43Sp7MX2sEZhpbjeVRA4ga45EWl0jw-ZSSgp71L4TFehkAm0cCM/s1600/temepara.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Te Temepara Tapu, Rātana Pā</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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. </span><span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><b>Kōtahitanga and the Labour-Green relationship </b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQSUst2ObfjXaEfJkDVS7UdbC3111LRTOeNQsDaqY-Vvw6HChR-WIsBV2ppi_DYrMDRyA_joegF1MASBUa1-JBtAkG3uEalQhPc20FxrSsPunPkWXLM_ZqtEGDqBUScAm8xqbo8hAYR_I8/s1600/MPs+at+R%C4%81tana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQSUst2ObfjXaEfJkDVS7UdbC3111LRTOeNQsDaqY-Vvw6HChR-WIsBV2ppi_DYrMDRyA_joegF1MASBUa1-JBtAkG3uEalQhPc20FxrSsPunPkWXLM_ZqtEGDqBUScAm8xqbo8hAYR_I8/s1600/MPs+at+R%C4%81tana.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Labour the Greens being welcomed on to Rātana</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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. </span><br />
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">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.</span></div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
Post by Jack McDonald</div>
Jack McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16156105867554444192noreply@blogger.com1