Native Affairs continues its ground-breaking journalism

I was really looking forward to Native Affairs’ season premiere last night, and it didn't disappoint. In comparison to the mainstream current affairs shows – it was exceptional. It was always going to be interesting to see Native Affairs post Julian Wilcox as presenter. But if last night’s show was anything to go by then they made an excellent decision to appoint Mihingarangi Forbes as the presenter of New Zealand’s best current affairs show. Even with her significant experience and talent it was going to be a big task to match up to Julian Wilcox. But in her first political interview for the show she did just that. She continued Wilcox’s practice of asking the hard questions while being respectful and she naturally brought her own style to the show.

The show began with an informative and lengthy story on Tonga’s maritime transport. It is a significant issue that I knew very little about, but as viewers we were given all sides of the story (although Foreign Affairs Minister Murry McCully didn't agree to being interviewed). There were interviews with the Tongan Minister of Infrastructure, concerned locals, the owners of the ferry companies. It became clear that the New Zealand Government had a lot to answer for. New Zealand and World Bank officials had wrote scathing reports on the safety of the Tongan ferries but at the same time have not helped the small island nation by providing the resources required to ensure safety. Our aid to the nation is being spent on upgrading the airport, which will improve tourism, but will do little to help the day to day life of Tongans. They are too poor to travel by air and so are forced onto unsafe transport. It was good to see Phil Goff in support of getting New Zealand aid focused on the issue. Hopefully this story will push the Government to help the Tongans.

Then there was a wonderful story on Tame Iti’s return home. It was so good to see him at home with his family, and especially with his mokopuna. In my opinion, the defaming of the people of Te Urewera as terrorists and the imprisonment of Tame and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara have been some of the greatest injustices in 21^st Century New Zealand. And still Tuhoe and the whānau of Ruātoki haven’t received any kind of an apology for what was a disgusting abuse of state power.

And then we had Mihingarangi Forbes’ interview with David Shearer about his goal to win the back the Māori seats. I was especially pleased to see that Native Affairs were going to do this interview because I had some concerns after David Shearer's reshuffle that he wasn't doing enough to promote Māori talent, and I blogged about it last week. Forbes asked pretty much all the questions that I was eager to hear the answer to. While Shearer said a few good things, he didn't really answer any of the questions directly and he didn't set out any plan or vision for the way forward. He did say that he was looking to get more young Māori and more wāhine Māori selected as candidates, which will be really positive if he can see it through. He mentioned that his housing, health and education policies would be popular with Māori but he didn't announce any particular initiatives aimed at Māori communities. It would have been good to hear what he would do differently to the National/Māori Party Government on job creation, as he mentioned that 25% of young Māori aren't in education or employment  It was positive to hear that he intends to genuinely work with the Mana and Māori parties. Overall, I wasn't convinced by Shearer’s interview, especially with his inability to address that fact that he has only two Māori MPs in his shadow cabinet. But at least he's engaging and it seems that hes looking at strategies for moving forward. 

It would be good to find out in a subsequent interview with Shearer whether he will repeal the Takutai Moana Act. The Act, which was supported by the Māori Party, repeated many of the same injustices of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The inferiority of customary title in relation to freehold title is racism in our law and as it stands the Act constitutes modern day raupatu. Just last week Metiria Turei said on Radio Waatea that she's keen to repeal that Act. If Shearer wants to win back all the Māori seats, then committing to repealing the Takutai Moana Act would be a good place to start.

I really enjoyed Native Affairs last night. There were also good stories on the North Island drought and Te Matatini star Jeff Ruha. With a season premiere like that, we have a lot to look forward to this year. The full show can be viewed on the Native Affairs website or individual stories can be on viewed on their Facebook page. 

I think we would all be doing better if our Māori MPs were more like our Māori journalists!

Colin Craig on Maori (and I'm on Twitter)

With Craig and the Conservative Party in the news recently, I’ve been searching for clues to their approach and opinion on Maori issues. Yesterday I stumbled on this interview Craig gave with Claudette Hauiti from Waatea Radio. The interview is one of the more in-depth and instructive that Craig has given and, arguably, indicates that Craig is pragmatic when it comes to things Maori.

I initially expected Craig and the Conservative Party to be openly hostile on Maori issues. Given the segment of the electorate Craig is targeting, I thought anti-Maori sentiment would be a given. Take, as one example, this pamphlet the Conservative produced last year. The pamphlet explains “why National is wrong on the foreshore and seabed” and proceeds to attack the Maori seats, The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and treaty settlements.

However, in contrast with the above pamphlet, Craig took a more pragmatic approach to Maori issues on Waatea. Much of the interview consisted of, for want of a better term, cuddly responses from Craig. For example, when describing his time in the Maori department at AUT, Craig reckoned that “everyone was everyone’s friend” and it was “a wonderful experience for me”. Thankfully, however, Hauiti managed to pry some very instructive answers from Craig.

On education, Craig supports Kura Kaupapa and Kohanga Reo saying that we need a “variety of educational institutions” and “schools should have the freedom to do what works”. Although this position clashes with the Conservative Party’s opposition to policies that “divide us based on race”, for example the Maori seats, it indicates a pragmatic approach to Maori issues. Kura and Kohanga work, that’s undisputed, and it is encouraging to know that Craig supports what works. It would be easy, and perhaps politically expedient, for Craig to oppose Kura and Kohanga on ideological grounds.

If anything, the above indicates that Craig’s ideology is flexible and that, for a politician at least, is an asset.

Hauiti also asked Craig whether he thought, and I’m paraphrasing here, Maori held the key to their own destiny. In other words, does he support Maori self-determination (tino rangatiratanga). At first, Craig didn’t recognise what was implicit in the question. When the question was put to him for a second and third time, he didn’t give a straight answer. Actually, Craig’s answer was contradictory. At first he started speaking about individual responsibility, which I read as meaning that the individual has the key to their own destiny rather than Maori as a collective, but then Craig went on to endorse Maori organisations and their efforts in Maori development which seemed to indicate that he does endorse Maori formulating solutions for Maori. I find it difficult to reconcile those two positions.

Interestingly, Craig thinks the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was wrong and that every New Zealander should have “the right to go to Court on an issue”. However, Craig is opposed to Maori customary title holding the foreshore and seabed should be held in the commons, read owned by all New Zealanders. However, Craig endorsed customary rights to fishing, usage and so on. Again, this is a contradictory position. It recognises that Maori have special rights, for example fishing rights, however the Conservative Party's position is that everyone has the same rights. Again, this indicates a degree of pragmatism on Craig’s part. Perhaps aware that the party will have to rely on and, if elected to Parliament, work with Maori, Craig is attempting to find positions that will satisfy his target market and at the same time provide a base for working with Maori politicians.

On the question of how well the Conservatives will represent Maori, Craig reckons “very well” and says that for “New Zealand to succeed we need Maori to succeed”. If you had to attribute that comment to someone, you’d probably pick Hone Harawira before Colin Craig. In another moment that could have come from Hone Harawira or Tariana Turia, Craig claims not to put much faith in the free market. On the subject of Maori unemployment, Craig does not believe “the free market is going to sort everything out”. Instead, Craig believes in creating initiatives “that work” (what works is a common thread throughout the interview) and he does not want people “forced into situations where they have to put their hand out”.

At the end of the interview Craig says he supports Whanau Ora, but before he can qualify/explain that answer he was cut off. Again, this may indicate an openness to what works, but we can’t know for certain without a more wholesome answer.

In all, it was an interesting interview. I don’t necessarily agree with Craig’s positions, but he appears open to Maori ideas – or at least not openly hostile. This could, of course, change with time and change in response to shifting political circumstances. But, for the moment, Craig poses no threat to Maori progress.

*Just a reminder I'm on Twitter now. You can follow me here. 

Shortland Street reinforces negative Maori stereotypes

A few days ago I was unfortunate enough to catch a few minutes of Shortland Street. I tend to avoid soap operas wherever possible - especially Shortland Street. I always think of Shortland Street as a retarded mix of the Young and the Restless and Home and Away – two of the most unpleasant shows around. Now a few days back SS ran a storyline where a bunch of stereotypical Maori attempted to charge a nice middle class family for access to some shitty beach in West Auckland.

The nice middle class family was Pakeha, obviously, and the damn Maoris were dressed in rugged trackies and leather jackets. The latter is a thinly veiled suggestion that the Maoris were gang affiliated. The Maoris spoke as if they had a mouthful of kumara and were made to stand jake the muss like while the Pakeha family asserted their god given right to access kiwi beaches free of charge. This is a rednecks wet dream and was, and I hate to admit this, quite funny. However, my initial amusement quickly turned to embarrassment and disgust. Stupid little storylines like this serve no purpose. It was in no way a reasoned or profound comment on society. It was nothing more than a cavernous statement reinforcing mainstream stereotypes of Maori.

SS often attempts to pass comment on contentious issues, for example a number of lesbian characters were introduced to the show when the civil union bill was causing a stir. However, the writers often fail when attempting to address serious issues. The writers routinely display less perception, subtlety and skill than a 4^th form drama student. Ultimately, the entire storyline was nothing more than scaremongering. The MCA act is still a contentious issue and SS has managed to create further hostility and tension. The issue requires long term resolution – not lame antagonism.

The shows Maori advisor has come out attempting to defend the story arc: 

Mr Raerino, the current cultural adviser, said he had not been sure about the storyline when he first saw it.

But he was comfortable when he followed it through to its conclusion - it turns out the camping ground's owner was sending sewage into the sea and the Maori group was aiming to hit the owner in the pocket to force her to change her ways.

It is too late. The show clearly places the viewer on the side of the family wanting to access the beach for free. The good guy/bad guy dichotomy is established in unequivocal terms. The problem is that the viewer is conditioned, not only by the show, but by society to take the side of the family attempting to access the beach. New Zealanders are assaulted with images and messages of Maori as parasitic creatures. Think about the rhetoric surrounding treaty issues – it’s hardly flattering stuff. Think about the imagery many New Zealanders hold of Maori – poor, often criminal and always less educated. Most people are prone to imagining Maori in unpositive terms. Maori are expected to be staunch, unreasonable and now there is a commonly held expectation that Maori will block access to beaches.

Although the storyline resolves itself in favour of Maori (theoretically speaking – I tend to think otherwise). It doesn’t matter because the reflex action to criminalise Maori is so ingrained. And the initial direction of the story arc reinforces that. It is almost impossible to see Maori in a different light considering the fact that many viewers are conditioned to see Maori in such a stereotypical light. Whether the Maori charging access were morally right and arguably pretty savy is inconsequential. The viewer will see what they want to see and what they are programmed to see and writers reinforced the negative message very, very powerfully.

This is why I never watch SS. The show is a joke. Stick to dry love stories and pedantic everyday dramas. Don’t try and be The Wire. Your writers aren’t Jon Stewart. I don’t think I can put it any better than this facebook commentator:

"Maori are just low-hanging fruit for these uncreative ignorant hacks."

Harden up, Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armstrong has it wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hikoi 2.0

I remain unconvinced that a hikoi is a step forward in terms of opposition to the inadequate MCA bill. First of all, I doubt that Wikatana Popata possesses the organisational skills required to co-ordinate an effective, not to mention large scale, protest. I also doubt that he has skilled people behind him. One could argue that he proved his leadership ability and organisational skill at Waitangi, however there is a significant difference between organising a group of 200 people with whom you have personal connections and co-ordinating a protest connecting politically inactive and disparate groups across the North Island.

Secondly, the government is immovable. If anything a hikoi is a gift to the government. Hikoi are a great way to create anti-Maori sentiment. The government will appear strong and principled in the eyes of non-Maori if it refuses to shift position and offer Maori no further concessions. The government has nothing to fear from a hikoi, it’s none of their voters protesting after all. Certainly it is a golden opportunity for the government to stick it to those cry baby land grabbing Maoris. An easy PR victory.

Thirdly, the Maori Party appears immovable as well. Their logic is clear – this is the best that can be achieved at this point in time. Although I disagree with such a defeatist attitude there is a small pinch of truth to it, but that does not make it right. The party’s challenge to their people is essentially – come up with a better way forward or shut up. Therefore, I do not think a hikoi which is offering no answers will be of much interest. Unless of course that hikoi involves a significant amount of people. Which brings me to my next point.

There is not a significant amount of popular discontent with the bill. Yes, many iwi are disappointed, yes, many of the party’s members are disappointed and, yes, many Maori political commentators are disappointed. Yet disappointment among these groups has not translated to popular disappointment. In tough economic times concepts such as mana whenua are relegated to the back of people’s minds. Wages, benefits, prices and so on dominate people’s political thinking. Correcting historical injustice and delivering on the promise of the treaty is such an intangible concept. It lacks immediacy and is ultimately a secondary concern for many Maori.    

In the end I support the idea of a hikoi against the MCA bill. Whether that hikoi will result in any gains is open. I remain sceptical. Having said that I do hope to be proved wrong and The Maori Party should be very, very worried.  

Hat tip Whenua Fenua Enua Vanua

Maori Party Propaganda

Marty Mars has reproduced an interesting panui he received from The Maori Party. Taken at face value the piece appears to be standard political material, nothing controversial or new, just restating what is already in the public domain. However, a few points caught my attention, specifically;

(The Bill) Allows iwi to claim customary title. Customary title is a property right that includes customary interests plus all minerals except gold, silver, uranium and petroleum; all newly found taonga tuturu, development rights, and a right to develop a plan which regional councils must recognise and provide for.

The MCA bill does allow iwi to claim customary title; however s33 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (FSA 2004) allows iwi to claim territorial customary rights (TCR). s32(1) defines TCR as “customary title or an aboriginal title that could be recognised at common law”. So what is the difference between the FSA 2004 and the MCA bill? As far as I know, not much. TCR and customary title, or customary marine title (CMT), are basically the same thing under the common law. The key difference I suppose is the MCA bill clearly defines the rights associated with CMT under s64(1) while the FSA does not define any rights associated with TCR rather under s37(1) a successful applicant group must enter into negotiations with the Attorney-General and Minister of Maori Affairs “for the purpose of negotiating an agreement as to the nature and extent” of TCR. So under the FSA 2004 customary rights are conferred via order-in-council, after negotiation with the relevant ministers, whereas under the MCA bill rights are conferred via legislation once the relevant criteria are met. In sum, not much difference, but I personally think the MCA bill approach is superior. 

The peice also claims;

Restores the right of access to court. If negotiations with Ministers do not reach agreement, tangata whenua can take their title claims to court.

First of all – right of access to the courts was not extinguished. s33 of the FSA 2004 reads; 

High Court may find that a group held territorial customary rights

The High Court may, on the application of a group, or on the application of a person authorised by the court to represent the group, make a finding that the group (or any members of that group) would, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 13(1), have held territorial customary rights to a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed at common law.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted this, and I do not think I have, does this section not grant The High Court power to determine whether iwi posses customary title? Why then is The Maori Party claiming to have restored access to the Courts? Bizarre.

I also want to address this point;

The Crown has to prove customary rights were extinguished, not iwi.

While s105(1) of the MCA bill reads;

Burden of proof

The applicant group must prove that it is entitled to the customary interest that is the subject of the application.

This section clearly sets out that it is the responsibility of iwi to prove customary rights were not extinguished. It does not fall upon the Crown to prove otherwise. Why has The Maori Party made such a wild claim when the bill clearly states that the opposite is true. Is The Maori Party deliberately misleading Maori? Have I missed something? I am leaning towards the former.

I also took issue with this statement; 

The Bill does not settle the issues, but it keeps them alive.

I disagree - the bill definitely settles the issue. No party will revisit such a toxic electoral issue unless they are moved by the majority to repeal it. Debate around Maori property rights always breeds controversy and discord. No government will reopen a can of worms as unpredictable as the foreshore and seabed. Labour will not go anywhere near the issue because National will savage them. While a second or third term National government will lack the political capital required to revisit the issue without alienating their support base.

I have run out of time so I will quickly conclude. It appears The Maori Party are engaging in some good old fashioned political propaganda. Well done to them for recognising the power of the blogsphere and reaching out to Marty Mars. However; if the party is going to put stuff out in the public domain it should make a greater effort to ensure the material is accurate. I hesitate to say the party is making a deliberate effort to mislead people, maybe I missed something,. Either way, The Maori Party should tread carefully.   

Death spiral

 

The Marine and Coastal Area Bill is deeply flawed. The Bill is riddled with drafting errors and ultimately will not restore mana whenua. So naturally I was disappointed to see the Bill returned without amendment.

I half expected Te Ururoa to adopt a degree of independence from the Nats on this select committee. Sadly, he, and his mates, had formed a common intention. The question I find most intriguing is when did the two parties decide they were going to use their majority to return the bill unchanged? I am merely speculating but I think it was done a number of months ago, perhaps when the select committee commenced. I would also postulate that the complaint against Hone Harawira was an attempt to silence him before the bill was returned to the House. I think Te Ururoa and the leadership did not think it likely that Hone would hold on for so long. I imagine they thought he would quickly shoot himself in the foot and the matter would be dealt with relatively swiftly. As we know the opposite has happened and Hone is beating them at their own game. Given that Hone was not expelled before the bill was due to be returned the leadership needed another way to silence him – suspension from caucus. Hone’s behaviour over Waitangi weekend provided an excellent excuse for doing so. Now he cannot speak out on behalf of The Maori Party, he is something of a castaway. But that’s enough speculating – back to the select committee.     

As a select committee member Te Ururoa’s role is to facilitate public scrutiny and consultation. Furthermore, Te Ururoa, as a self proclaimed Maori representative, has a responsibility to act as an agent for Maori interests. I expect him to exercise his own independent judgement but ultimately it is more important that he act as a conduit for Maori concerns. However, Te Ururoa has put political considerations ahead of his moral and democratic responsibilities.

The MCA bill is not an elite concern. The implications of implementation will be far-reaching. The bill affects all Maori and all New Zealanders. Therefore, it was almost an imperative that the Maori Affairs Select Committee took into account the views of submitters and reflected that in their report. What the committee has shown is that policy formulation is an insider’s job. Influence over policy is only open to members of government and those with institutionalised access to it, for example the Iwi Leaders Group. This theme is becoming all too common across Maori Party policy. Access and consequently influence is granted only to the elite (iwi leaders) while ordinary Maori are excluded (I have touched on the subject of the Iwi Leaders Group limiting Maori political participation here).

It cannot be said enough that what Te Ururoa has done is nothing short of disgraceful. Annette Sykes sees it as a betrayal and I agree. It is disappointing that Te Ururoa has not rationalised his actions nor made any attempt at all to at least defend what he has done. It makes you wonder if he is not reacting to the situation is he even anticipating it?

 

The party must surely be doomed. It has no money, it is losing talent and in due course will probably lose members. Surely Moana Jackson, a prominent critic and conscious within the party, will leave. It is difficult to say if many will follow but I would not rule out the possibility of mass exodus. The Maori Party is descending down a corridor to destruction. Only they can save themselves, although I doubt they have the self awareness and foresight required to do so.    

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

Goff - FAIL

What does one make of Phil Goff’s decision to withdraw support for the Marine and Coastal Area Bill? Crass opportunism? Genuine concern about the content of the bill? Well I certainly can’t tell.

Although I do not support the MCA on the grounds that the test for customary marine title is far too high – borderline unachievable – I do not support Goffs decision to withdraw Labour Party support. But one has to say that it is a clever end of year move by Goff. The foreshore and seabed becomes a very topical issue during the holiday season and without doubt conversation will pop up around the BBQ, the dinner table and the beachfront about the MCA bill. Goff has ensured that those conversations include his name. He has also stolen some of NZ First and ACT’s thunder and provides accommodation for disappointed Maori who are looking for a better deal. On the other hand the move could be interpreted as a dog whistle to the rednecks. That was my initial feeling I received from the six o’clock news. It was not until I read Goff’s press release that I realised the move was more than just redneck bait.

So which group will see Goff’s move as in line with their interests? Maori or rednecks? Well, plain and simple Maori do not trust Labour on this issue. Goff’s move will be interpreted as divisive politics and a return to the populist 2004 attitude that swept the Labour Party. If his intention was to woo disillusioned Maori he has failed terribly. However, if his intention was to pick up a few redneck votes then I think he has succeeded somewhat. Any opposition to the bill will be seen by rednecks as aligning with their views. Certainly Goff’s rationale (opposition to backroom deals) is in line with the concerns expressed by the likes of the Coastal Coalition. The gross irony is the F&S Act 2004 allowed for backroom deals as well – the Court process became a mere formality.

Although I believe Goff intentions were more complex than laying redneck bait that is all I think he has achieved. I have never liked Goff and now I dislike the man even more. No issue is more divisive and emotional than the foreshore and seabed and I look down on Goff for igniting the politics of division in the run up to Christmas.

Evaluating The Maori Party - Part 2

Whatarangi Winiata, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples

In the previous post I examined what I considered were some of the policy successes of the Maori Party. I reinforced the idea that the majority of their policy gains were purely symbolic, although somewhat powerful, they did not translate into tangible benefits for ordinary Maori. In this post I will detail where I think the MP has failed.

The MP failures have been numerous. There have been the small yet largely irrelevant defeats such as the debacle surrounding the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights, Maori seats on the Supercity (arguably this was an important battle) and the Governments bad faith actions surrounding the Tuhoe settlement. And there have been larger failures. In my opinion their most significant failures have come in the form of what they have voted for. By voting for a bill you are endorsing its aims and its content. No one cares if you disagree with it but are compelled to vote for it. When you vote for a bill you sanction it and you are associated with it.

There are four laws I think the MP should have never supported – the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the governments tax changes, the changes to ACC and the 90 day right to sack bill.

The ETS presented NZ with a golden opportunity to lead the world and justify our green credentials. We missed that opportunity. Instead we were given, due to the support of the MP, a weak, backwards and potentially economically crippling piece of legislation. The ETS epitomised everything that is wrong with law making under a National government. It was short sighted, visionless, rushed and inequitable. The legislation is so flawed in that it will dump huge costs on households whilst showering our biggest polluters with subsidies – or exempting them altogether. Households will face an increase in prices across the economy including power and petrol costs. Maori households will be hit hard. Voting for a piece of legislation that will offload considerable costs onto Maori households and lead to perverse environmental outcomes due to warped incentives is anathema to kaitiakitanga and is not an example of manaaki on the part of the MP. Pita Sharples admitted that the MP were voting for the ETS on the grounds that it would avoid short term suffering and lead to benefits for iwi. The later reason is used frequently by the MP to rationalise their actions – the “it will benefit iwi” excuse is a cop out. The MP should vote according to what is best for Maori in the real world. Unfortunately, symbolic wins (see the previous post) are only worth so much when you live from meal to meal.

Voting for the increase in GST was another blow for Maori households already struggling in the recession and will do nothing to help most Maori as the increased tax revenue is been used to finance tax changes that will mainly benefit those on high incomes. This was just another cost increase the MP were willing to inflict upon Maori. Hone Harawira was the only member (with the backbone some would say) to vote against the changes on the grounds they will hurt the poor (especially Maori).

The changes to ACC that the MP voted for will also affect Maori heavily. An increase in levies has led to further increases in the price of essential commodities such as petrol. Combine this with the ETS and the increase in GST that the MP voted for and a very ugly picture begins to emerge. If it were not such an absurd suggestion one would begin to believe that the MP actually wants to increase the cost of living for Maori. Entitlements were also affected. I cannot find a reliable source but I imagine that their rationale for voting for changes is that iwi will have the opportunity to cash in on ACC contracts and the like via the governments privatisation agenda.

The MP has also voted, on more than one occasion, to weaken work rights. The most serious of those in my opinions is their vote for the 90 right to sack law. This law will, again, affect poor Maori – those in the working class and especially those in entry level jobs. 

Another more secondary failure comes in the form of the MP’s silence on a number of important issues concerning Maori. Including drilling on the East Coast and welfare changes. This is very concerning and perhaps shows a disconnection between Maori on the ground, and I hesitate to use this word, and the ‘Maori elite’ in the form of the MP and iwi leadership. 

Therefore, I believe, the MP has caused a considerable amount of damage to Maori households. The increase in costs Maori households are facing due to the ETS, tax changes and increases in ACC levies will encourage the growth of the Maori “underclass”. Couple this with weakened work rights and it’s a recipe for instability and a decline in the quality of life of Maori. Although these laws were not created by the MP they have adopted the policies by voting for them. It may seem unfair to attack the MP over these policies, given they are National Party policies, but their support has been crucial. They could have at least mitigated the effects on Maori by refusing to vote for the ETS for example. They had the chance but sadly they failed.

Unlike the policies I detailed in the previous post the policies mentioned in this post are tangible and paint a picture of a somewhat irrational and conservative party. One that does not appear to be doing the best by Maori. At the end of the day no amount of symbolism will pay for rent, feed, clothe and keep the children warm. Symbolism will not create jobs.

However, I certainly do not think these failures will spell the end of the MP. I actually think, if they can manage the F&S issue well, that they will make considerable electoral gains. Hone will without doubt retain his seat. He’s something of a minor celebrity up north. Pita will also cruise to victory. He has, for a number of decades, been one of the most prominent members of the Maori community in Auckland and is held in high regard by many. Te Ururoa will also have a rather easy run to victory. He is vastly more popular than Labour’s Mita Ririnui – Te Ururoa has a strong following in Rotorua. Tariana will also most certainly roll whoever Labour puts in front of her. Even though I do not know her electorate as well as I do the others I am fairly confident in that prediction. Rahui may have a close fight to retain her seat if Labour puts forward a credible candidate with the backing of iwi. Rahui’s support for the new F&S bill will have lowered her in the eyes of Ngai Tahu who oppose the bill. Parekura has vast connections on the East Coast and is well liked up the Coast. By virtue of his whakapapa he will more than likely scrap through for another term. Nanaia is in a similar position. Her connection to the kingitanga will guarantee the support of tribal Maori. With that been said if the MP puts up candidates in the two former electorates of the calibre of Derek Fox and Angela Greensill then they will have a very real chance of seizing all seven Maori seats.

To conclude, it may seem like I do not approve of the MP’s unlikely coalition with National. I do. I just think the MP has failed to manage the relationship as best they could and as a result of that poor management they have done considerable damage to the lives of many Maori. But that aside, it was a brilliant tactical move on the part of the MP – unexpected and very, very clever. Make no mistake; the gains the MP has made are only possible because they are happening under a National Government. Were Labour in power National would be howling “reverse racism” and fuelling racist sentiment and Labour would have almost certainly crumbled under the pressure. The coalition also followed one of the worst few years in race relations in New Zealand’s history (Orewa, F&S etc…) and was a powerful sign of maturity in our politics.

Without doubt the MP has transformed the face of New Zealand politics. Maori issues are now in the spotlight and are a permanent part of the political landscape. This sort of progress is invaluable and has us taken hundreds of years.

My hope is that, in future, the MP will really live by their motto:

He aha tem ea nui? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata

What is the most important thing? It is people, it is people, it is people

Evaluating The Maori Party - Part 1

                                                        Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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