Public bodies and public criticism

Public bodies and public functionaries aren't immune from criticism. If an organisation or person is performing a public function - like the Kohanga Reo National Trust Board - criticism comes with the territory.

The Kohanga Reo National Trust Board is accountable to the public. They operate with public money for the benefit of a segment of the public. That makes their attempt to stifle criticism anti-democratic, petulant and oppressive. Last week the board instructed their lawyers to inform TangataWhenua.com that they had published allegdly defamatory material. The letter demanded that TW.com remove the allegedly defamatory material. As is their duty, TW.com kept the material up and published the threatening letter.

The board has no moral right to threaten defamation. The criticisms directed at the board are part of the democratic process. The board isn't some private citizen with immunity from criticism. They're accountable to the public. It's a dark day for democracy when a public body attempts to silence its critics.

The board doesn't understand how a democracy works. It's not hard. The Minister of Maori Affairs must step in to clean up the mess that's been created.

Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election will affirm that Māori democracy is strong, diverse and dynamic

E tipu, e rea, 
Mo ngā rā o te ao; 
Ko to ringa ki ngā rākau a te Pāhekā,
Hei ara mō tō tinana.
Ko tō ngākau ki ngā taonga a o tipuna Māori,
Hei tikitiki mō tō māhunga.
A, ko tō wairua ki tō Atua, 
Nāna nei ngā mea katoa. 
Tā Apirana Ngāta, Mema Pāremata mō Eastern Māori 1905 - 1943

This Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election has basically only just begun, with the all the contesting parties  having had their candidates selected by this Monday. But already the massive and highly visible involvement and engagement in the democratic process has been impressive. It shows that democracy is thriving in Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and that is somewhat reflective of the Māori seats across the country. It is clear that whānau are taking their democratic choices seriously, more seriously than in many general seats. They are getting behind their whānau and their candidates and supporting them in what are daunting roles. The high calibre of all the selected candidates is a testament to the talent of the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

The massive engagement in the political process has been clear in many iconic images of the last week. Probably the best example of this was the huge Labour Party selection hui in Taradale. Hundreds attended. In recent years most parties have had declines in membership, so to see the enthusiastic support at the hui for their candidates is fantastic. It is so good that Meka Whaitiri got the job, she will be a great candidate for Labour. But what the media, especially the mainstream media, must realize is that there have been equally impressive starts to the campaigns of all the other parties that are contesting the by-election.

Some of these issues in this post have been raised by Morgan at The Daily Blog and others but I wish to share with you my views on this whole process.

The Māori Party announced their candidate, Na Rongowhakaata Raihania early and got on the campaign trail with him almost immediately. This is just what they needed, a strong display of unity at the start of the campaign. And it's genuine; they are fighting for their voice to be heard in the political spectrum. I am against many of their votes and actions, but we should credit them with playing an important role for Māori in Government. The National Government stirs a lot of anger among our people including myself, but I wouldn't deny the Māori Party's unique position and genuine representation.

The Mana Party has also had a strong start to their campaign. I'm of the view that Te Hamua Nikora is a star candidate. I have heard him in a few radio interviews over the past few days and seen him on TV; he has done well. He has been strong in his affirmation of seriousness and genuine concern for his people of Te Tai Rāwhiti. He has experienced hardship, success and been an inspiration to many young people. His comedy and entertainment only add to his skills, though his style may put off a few, he is an ideal candidate for Mana. I think that Mana and the Greens in particular will get a lot of young people inspired to enroll and vote. The relative freshness and youth of theses parties and their support bases to that of Labour is pretty stark. The photos and messages of support for Te Hamua seem to be coming in from across the country and from Australia are heartwarming. These sorts of issues should be canvassed more in the media, so that we don't all get endlessly told the line that Labour's got it in the bag. It is perfectly fine to say that they begin as front runners, but I really don't think that it's true that the by-election was won in Labour's selection meeting.

And of course the Greens have made a brilliant move in selecting Marama Davidson as their candidate for the seat, which this post goes into more detail about. She is another star candidate. It has pleasantly surprised many, and is a reflection of the growing support for the Greens among Māori. Marama will be able to use the big increase in Māori support for the Greens at the last election as a base to launch off and make even more significant gains. As a male feminist, I see the Greens as being a party that fully embraces and supports mana wāhine. Meitiria Turei as co-leader is the best example of this but other examples include the wahine toa Green MPs both Māori and Pākehā like Denise Roche, Catherine Delahunty, Jan Logie and Mojo Mathers. The Greens have more women than men in Parliament, 8/14, and they have been the strongest advocates of women's rights in Parliament. The entrance of Marama Davidson on to the Green political landscape significantly adds to this factor. The huge enthusiasm from within the Green Party and from Māori activists and voters for her candidacy will act as a platform for the rise of the Greens in Māori seats across the country.

The popular opinion among commentators and the media is that Labour is certainly going to win it and then it becomes a battle for second place. In my mind the high calibre of all the candidates proves otherwise. The fresh and widespread involvement in all parties proves otherwise. The deep felt views about issues such as oil drilling, child poverty and Te Tiriti issues will prove otherwise.

The Māori Option will also be an important factor. I know that many Labour and Green supporters are on the general role, so highlighting the option of moving over to the Māori role will be crucial for their campaigns. I acknowledge that money and party infrastructure is also always important, but the level of commitment from all parties that has so far been displayed will be continued on with during the campaign. This by-election comes at a seminal moment in Māori politics, the choices are all unique and there is strong support for all parties.

I may well be proved wrong on election day, but in my mind this Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election will affirm that Māori democracy is strong, diverse and dynamic. This campaign has the potential to inspire and engage, it has already done so. Marama Davidson, Meka Whaitiri and Te Hamua Nikora all stand a chance of winning this campaign and taking up the seat as representatives of their people. Even Na  Raihania stands an outside chance, despite the apparent decline of his party. I think the vote will be very split, and that the best candidate will come out on top. The result will give good momentum to the winning party for the Māori seats in the 2014 general elections, especially if they are one of the smaller parties.

At the end of the day, every enrolled Ikaroa-Rāwhiti voter will get to exercise their democratic rights in  the voting booths of their communities. They will be able to decide for themselves, after the hoardings and facebook banners go down, who best represents their convictions, their dreams and their aspirations for their whānau. I hope that they look beyond the history of voting in their whānau to ascertain for themselves who will be their best māngai in our House of Representatives in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara.

It is often taken for granted that we even have this most basic of rights, but we must always remember that in many parts of the world indigenous peoples can only dream of the robust, dynamic and democratic nature of our Māori politics in post colonial New Zealand society.


Post by Jack Tautokai McDonald

Fact checking Elizabeth Rata

There are two certainties in life: death and taxes. Benjamin Franklin lent fame to the proverb in a letter to French historian Jean-Baptiste Leroy. In modern times, writers tend to add a third certainty to create a triple or satisfy the rule of three. Vince McMahon (yes, I used to watch WWE) said that the three certainties in life are death, taxes and Randy Savage. He was right of course, but hardly suitable for a New Zealand context. In New Zealand, the three certainties in life are death, taxes and Maori bashing.

In the latest round of anti-Maori opinion, Dr Elizabeth Rata* argues that “tribalism” – meaning the Maori political system pre-1840 – is incompatible with democracy. Rata presents a more sober argument than David Round, but it is based on a false premise – that Maori operated under a system of tribalism and that Maori want to recreate said system.

Rata misrepresents the Maori political system. Maori did not operate under her invented definition of tribalism – the Maori political system was governed by tikanga. Maori society was grouped in three units; whanau, hapu and iwi. The hapu was the main political body led by a central rangatira and several lesser rangatira. Rangatira governed without force and relied on consensus politics to ensure compliance with tikanga. The consensus model was, arguably, as democratic as anything in industrial Europe. Tikanga developed as a result of centuries of practice and was informed by core principles (comparisons can be made with the common law). Tikanga regulated Maori political, legal, social and spiritual behaviour. According to Timoti Gallagher it was “flexible, adaptable and could be interconnected to fit with the demands of the moment or as new circumstances arose”**. This conception of Maori society is at odds with Rata’s make-believe notion of “tribalism”. As a result, Rata’s conclusions cannot stand. With this in mind, let’s pick the article apart piece by piece:

Kin status is what matters in the tribe; citizenship is the democratic status… Tribalism is exclusive. To belong you must have ancestors who were themselves born into the system.

Untrue. Whakapapa regulated belonging, but it was possible to join a hapu through marriage or immigration. Indeed, it was not uncommon for one hapu to subsume another.

Yet how can a traditional tribal system be revived when it was destroyed by democracy? Tribalism and democracy are incompatible - they cannot exist together as political systems in the one nation.

The Maori political system was not destroyed by the introduction of western democracy. Hapu transferred their sovereignty to the Crown in exchange for the protection of rangatiratanga. Crown sovereignty and Maori rangatiratanga have always co-existed, but one is subordinate to the other. Rangatiratanga was never destroyed (despite the Crown's efforts). Rangatiratanga is still exercised within our own "spheres", for example on the Marae or in Iwi governance.

Those wanting to place the Treaty into New Zealand's Constitution must address the implications of the fundamental incompatibility between democracy and tribalism if the constitutional review is to have any real purpose.

Well, that’s not right. Even if, and it’s a huge if, the Treaty were included in a written constitution that doesn’t alter New Zealand democracy. Constitutions remain subject to democratic amendment or destruction and neither the Treaty itself nor its principles diminish Crown sovereignty. The principles of the Treaty demand that Maori recognise and accept the sovereignty of the Crown in exchange for the protection of rangatiratanga and so on. The Treaty does not demand an end to liberal democracy and a return to the Maori political system pre-1840, if anything the Treaty with its reference to citizenship endorses Dr Rata’s definition of democracy.

The place of religion in New Zealand is a good example of the division between political status and identity. Many New Zealanders have a religion but their religious identity is not part of the political arrangements, although the right to exercise their religion is. Race and culture are like religion - an identity but not a political status. We meet in the political sphere as equal citizens not as members of a religion, a race, or a tribe.

An opponent of identity politics – fair enough – but this argument is working against 21st century trends. Former colonial societies are moving towards forms of multicultural or bicultural pluralism. New Zealand is no different. Racial politics is an entrenched part of New Zealand democracy. In 1908 the then Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward rebuked Rua Kenana’s request to enrol on the Pakeha electoral role saying that Maori have “special representation of their own”.*** The representation the Prime Minister was referring to were the Maori seats, established in 1867 by the Maori Representation Act. The seats have and continue to affirm racial politics in New Zealand and are “an institutional endorsement that Maori are a distinct people with a unique place in New Zealand’s constitutional framework."**** Viewed in this light, the Maori seats have meant that the Maori democratic identity has been defined, for over a century and a half, by virtue of our whakapapa Maori. Rata’s argument does not hold water in the New Zealand context. The Select Committee reporting on the then proposed MMP legislation recommended that the Maori seats be retained despite the Royal Commission's recommendation to abolish the seats. Maori feel that the seats are an inalienable right – further entrenching racial politics as a part of our democracy.

Race or cultural identity cannot be included as a political status in a constitution.

Well, that’s wrong. Racial identity is already included in New Zealand’s constitution – in the Treaty and the Electoral Act - and it works perfectly well.

This takes me back to the question of chieftainship. Can chieftainship be exercised in a democracy? The comparison with religion holds the answer. Just as bishops and priests lost their considerable political power to democracy's system of accountable leadership, so too must today's iwi leaders accept the same limitations. Their influence on the political system should be that of any other social organisation or business corporation.

Rubbish. Of course rangatiratanga can be exercised in a democracy. After all, rangatiratanga is subordinate to the Crown’s sovereignty and only binding on those who submit to it. The Crown’s sovereignty – empowered by our democratic system – is binding whether you recognise it or not. Rangatiratanga is no different to any other form of devolved authority – confined and inferior. As for the argument that iwi leaders influence should be equivalent to an ordinary organisation, that ignores the New Zealand context. The Treaty guarantees Maori the right to citizenship (i.e. the right to participate in democracy and the acceptance of the sovereignty of the Crown) and the right to retain and exercise their Maoritanga. Successive governments and courts have recognised this right. The Treaty, various pieces of legislation and the attendant jurisprudence acknowledges that Maori have a special place in New Zealand society. The role of iwi reflects this.

At best, Rata’s piece is faulty because it relies on a false premise. At worst, it’s intellectually dishonest. Rata misrepresents the nature of tikanga and rangatiratanga and displays an impressive ability to think in binary. Unsurprisingly, Rata also demonstrates a poor grip on how democracy evolves to meet different conditions. New Zealand democracy, for example, has evolved to accomodate rangatiratanga and our cultural identity. Canadian democracy is also evolving to meet the special place of First Nations' people. The same is true across other Commonwealth countries and some parts of Asia and South America. Democracy does not have to confine itself to Rata's perfunctory and ostensible definition of the democratic state.

It's a shame that Rata is given a prominent platform to parrot her faulty views. Her regressive pieces go a long way towards justifying anti-Maori and anti-Treaty feeling and undermining sympathy for tino rangatiratanga. The three certainties in New Zealand are no Maoris, no Treaty and no sympathy.


Post-Script: Arihia at Te tau okioki writes: "a Pakeha woman with a massive chip on her shoulder, Rata is well known at home for raving on endlessly in a fact-free kind of way about biculturalism, Maori education, and Maori language. She is highly critical of what she calls 'culturalism' and the 'elite' in Maoridom, and the problems of Maori language education... the evidence she uses to support her claims is decontextualised, inaccurate or a fabrication most of the time and this is made possible partly by her refusal to follow the basic rules of any research... I am angry at Elizabeth Rata because she is an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland on the basis of such poor scholarship, and because she refuses to engage with a range of scholarship or to conduct her own research in ethical or even methodologically robust ways." This somewhat reflects my thinking on Rata's scholarship. Much of Rata's writing is concerned with the intersection of race and politics. Some of her ideas hold true, I think, but most of what I have read is rubbish. 

*I suspect Dr Rata is a graduate of the John Ansell School of Law and Social Sciences. I used to have some time for her despite never agreeing with her arguments and conclusions. She was willing to push into some controversial territory, but the piece in question is intellectually dishonest. It's worth mentioning that Dr Rata is a member of Muriel Newman’s hate group. Check out some of her anti-Maori academic and media writing. Says it all really.

**See Te Kahui Kura Maori, Volume 0, Issue 1 Tikanga Maori Pre-1840. Very accessible and draws on the likes of Justices Durie and Williams and other writers of celebrity.

***See Mihaia, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1979, pg 38. It’s a masterful history book from Professor Dame Judith Binney.

****See Electoral Law in New Zealand by Professor Andrew Geddis (starting at pg 93). Prof. Geddies writes a brief and easily read discussion of the Maori seats.

More disappointment on the MCA

From No Right Turn;

The Māori Affairs Committee has reported back [PDF] on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and recommended that it be passed without amendment.

Say what?

The government has rammed this bill through, prevented the committee from taking advice from the department on proposed amendments, and ignored all submissions. The 500 page summary of submissions was only made available to Labour Members yesterday, and the bill approved without amendment that same day.

National doing what National does best. Shitting on democracy.  

Its worth noting that the Māori Party colluded in this, providing National with the majority to do all this. So much for their commitment to the democratic process, or for "listening to their people". Their people submitted on the bill in good faith. Te Ururoa Flavell helped shut them down and shut them out to aid his National Party masters.

This is unforgivable. Te Ururoa’s actions show disrespect towards everyone who submitted both for and against the bill. His actions completely disregard the concerns of many iwi that opposed the bill and illustrate intense contempt for democracy.

I hope this is the beginning of the end for Te Ururoa. He does not deserve to represent the people of Waiariki nor does he deserve to represent Maoridom.

It is absolutely treacherous to purport to represent Maori interests while on the other hand actively suppressing Maori views. Te Ururoa has made a conscious choice to diminish Maori concerns in favour of political expediency and for that he must go. It appears that, when given the choice, Te Ururoa will choose to advance political relationships and agendas above representing the views of his constituents.

Te Ururoa has sent a strong message to Maori Party supporters: Your views are irrelevant when they do not suit my political aims. Trust is a virtue worth cultivating - The Maori Party knows this, The Maori Party says this but apparently Te Ururoa Flavell does not practise this. Essentially, Te Ururoa has shown that putting ones ‘trust’ in The Maori Party is a mistake.

Hat tip No Right Turn