Foreshore and seabed claims rolling in

I think it’s a non-story, but reaction will be strong in the usual quarters:

Inquiries by 3 News show Maori are now claiming customary title to more than 20 beaches, and three Maori groups are making claims on one small island - Motiti Island, in the Bay of Plenty.

The three different groups are competing against each other for effective ownership - customary title of the coast.

The Motiti claims are among 21 different areas of coastline now under 24 claims for title under the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.

Well, this isn’t surprising is it? The intention of the act is to “provide for” and “recognise” customary interests. In other words, the act invites applications. The bigger question is, I think, how many of these claims are going to be successful. Scanning the various claims I would argue very few.

There are claims lodged with the court and claims lodged with the government. A claimant can apply for, or negotiate which may be the more appropriate word, for a recognition agreement with the government or apply for a recognition order from the court. In my opinion, applying for a recognition agreement with the government offers the higher chance of success. The court must follow what is, and authorities agree, a rigid legal test. On the other hand the government avenue offers more flexibility. The government is not constrained by precedent, legal principles and so on. The government is, it should be noted, constrained by politics though. Politics may, you can argue, be more restrictive than the law. On balance, however, politics is more flexible than the law and, as a result, offers a greater chance of success.

There are 12 claims lodged with the Court and 12 lodged with the government. Most of the latter have transferred from applications under the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Of those claims before the court, the only ones I can see succeeding are in the Eastern Bay of Plenty where Whakatohea and Te Whanau-a-Apanui exercise undisturbed rangatiratanga and wrapping around the coast where Ngati Porou are in a similar position. In other words their rangatiratanga has – arguably of course – never been extinguished. It can also be argued isolated parts of the Northland and Stewart Island remain under Maori control.

However, applications from the Taranaki and Hawkes Bay will face significant hurdles as will applications in the Bay of Plenty from Ohope tracking north through to the Coromandel. In these areas the non-Maori population is significant and, as a result, Maori rangatiratanga has probably been extinguished in the eyes of the court and the government. Having mentioned the Bay of Plenty I should note that, as mentioned, claims in the Eastern Bay of Plenty (east of Tirohanga) are strong as are the claims to Motiti Island. Motiti remains an almost exclusive Maori community.

It’s interesting to note that there are applications from whanau and hapu as well as iwi. In the case of Motiti Island there are three competing claims.

Interestingly Patrick Gower also notes that:

But it is not just more of the coast under claim, it is now the delicacy on your plate too - the great Kiwi pastime whitebaiting.

Under the claims lodged, three groups want customary rights to whitebaiting in southern Taranaki near Hawera.

But the Government says other law overrides the new foreshore law and they will not get it.

“If they wanted to claim for whitebait under the Marine and Coastal Area Bill they would literally be pushing whitebait up a river,” says Chris Finlayson.

Tariana Turia disagrees and thinks the claim may have some substance. She may be right. Although whitebaiting is a customary right, it occurs outside of the area considered part of the common marine and coastal area. However, it can be argued that whitebaiting falls within s62 – rights conferred by customary marine title. But - to point out the bleeding obvious - Chris Finlayson has already denied the claim (see the above quote). The chances of Finlayson going against the above statement and approving the claim are, I think it is fair to assume, minimal.

Essentially, these are questions for the court or the government to decide; whatever way they fall there will be political consequences, but that's not going to worry Maori and the more success we have the better.

The week in Maori Politics (updated)

This post will be the first in a series summarising the week in Maori politics. Maori politics is taking a backseat – even more than usual – which is, to be fair, expected.

Monday:

The week kicked off with the Mana Party lending support to lowering the Maori retirement age to 60. The Maori Party did great work to initially highlight the fact that life expectancy for Maori is lower than that for non-Maori. Many Maori men will pay tax their entire working life but never reach the retirement age. Fundamentally, it’s about equity and equality. Maori should have the opportunity to collect the pension at the same rate as non-Maori.

The Maori Party also announced their idea to insert a “Treaty clause” into the Overseas Investment Act. The clause would give Iwi, I believe, a right of pre-emption on land the Government is intending to sell to overseas interests. I like this idea, but would like to see it extended to non-Maori New Zealanders/organisations too.

TVNZ (Te Karere) Te Tai Tokerau poll results were also released on Monday. The poll put Hone ahead of his rivals. Poll results from Maori electorates must be analysed with care (the sample is small, usually no adjustments for income, age and sex sampling error and non-landline voters are missed), having said that the results from this poll seem consistent with what I have perceived on the ground.


Tuesday:

A quiet day in Maori politics, the highlight was the Mana Movement and the Maori Party releasing their lists. Surprising, but encouraging, to see two young (I won’t say rangatahi) women highly placed. Misty Harrison is ranked at number 5 on the Mana list. If Mana get a very good result Misty will be in. Kaapua Smith is ranked number 2 on the Maori Party list. It’s very unlikely she will make it in. The only scenario I can see is if the Maori Party win only one seat and get a better than expected share of the party vote.


Wednesday:

On Wednesday the Nat’s released their welfare proposals and the Maori Party stated that it would not be a deal breaker. The Te Tai Hauauru debate was held in Whanganui and Tariana confirmed her position as the favourite while Jack McDonald, the 18 year old Green candidate, confirmed his position as a rising leader. It’s bloody encouraging to see so many young Maori succeeding. Think Jack, Ngaa Raauira Pumanawawhiti and Natalie Coates.


Thursday:

Mana led with their proposal to give a $1000 Christmas bonus to workers earning $30,000 or under. This is consistent with the party’s idea to pull NZ troops out of Afghanistan and use the money to provide breakfast and lunch in decile 1-5 schools. Top notch idea if you ask me. At my decile one Primary School I knew of several kids that would turn up to school having not had breakfast or having packed no lunch. Often I’d have to share my lunch with my mates because they were too poor to afford food. Often when they did have food it was because their parents had given them a few dollars to buy rubbish like pies and chips. The same thing happened at my decile 7 high school. And that was a decile 7.

The Maori Party also announced they would support asset sales under certain conditions, namely that if the assets go to Iwi under some mechanism then the party would support the sales.


Friday:

The leading news this morning is that the Maori Party may revisit the Marine and Coastal Area Act if Iwi are unhappy. Of course the announcement was given to Rahui Katene (most TV appearances, announcements etc have been given to Rahui to increase her profile – she is in the most marginal seat after all). The Maori Party know Iwi are unhappy with the Act. Wasn’t it something like all the Maori submissions but one were against the Act? It is a smart position for the Maori Party to take. I think many of the soft Maori Party supporters who can’t bring themselves to vote Maori Party again will revaluate their voting intentions after this, quite significant, announcement.

The Maori Party also told Radio New Zealand that:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says National's poorly designed employment policies, including the 90-day work trial, are affecting the vulnerable. 

She is particularly concerned that, in the three months to September, unemployment for Maori rose from 13.7% to 15.1% and went up to 13.8% for Pacific Islanders.

The Maori Party is trying to put a bit of distance between them and the Nat's. The leadership knows that their deal with National is unpopular and that many Maori do not approve of the Government's policy direction. Again, smart politics from the Maori Party, but I doubt it will make this much difference so late in the game.

Radio New Zealand also reported on a Te Tai Tonga debate in Dunedin while Kelvin Davis informed Waatea News that Hone's supporters are setting a bad example up North.

Labour has, and continues to be, pretty quiet. Mana and Maori are left to direct Maori political discourse. C'mon Labour, step up.

If there is anything I missed feel free to leave a comment.

The Maori Party decline

Metiria Turei delivers her usual good analysis. From Waatea News:

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei says the Maori Party will be punished by voters for being so close to National.

 

Ms Turei says after 15 years of parliamentary politics, the Greens have learned how to get its policies and programmes accepted without being in government.

“The problem for the Maori Party is they’ve got no leverage. They can’t make National do anything. So they can’t stop them doing bad things, they can’t make them do good things, everything the Maori Party gets is because National wants, allows them to have it. And a party like them who were campaining on their tino rangatiratanga, their independence as a Maori force, that was a big cost,” Ms Turei says.

I agree. I do get annoyed, although only slightly, when Maori Party supporters start to attack the party for bedding down with National in the first place. Remember, it was Maori Party supporters who sanctioned the unholy alliance after the party undertook an extensive tour across the motu consulting with Maori Party members and Maori generally.

At its most basic, the Maori Party forgot one thing: the voters are always right, even when they’re wrong. Turia, Sharples, Flavell and Katene may have thought they could rationalise their actions - think the MCA Act, the ETS and the tax switch (GST increase etc) – but the voters thought otherwise. Turia and co. have spent the past electoral cycle trying to justify their legislative actions. One would have thought after years of attempting to bend Maori to their (as in the Maori Party caucus) view that they would have conceded defeat and, in an act of self preservation, bowed to dissenting opinion.

Hone Harawira once told me, and the evidence suggest that this is true, that not a single strategic thought ever crosses the minds of the Maori Party caucus. The chief example of this, for want of a better description, strategic famine came during the passage of the Marine and Coastal Areas Act (MCA Act). Despite widespread opposition from the Maori the party pushed ahead with the Act. The majority of submissions from Maori were opposed to the Act, Maori in the media made it clear that they were not happy with the Act and that they feel Maori were not either and, most significantly, a hikoi, reminiscent of the hikoi of 2004 which gave birth to the Maori Party, left the far north and arrived at the steps of Parliament delivering grief and despair. Despite this, and more, the party pushed ahead and signed their own death certificate.

It takes an especially foolish person to tell their supporters they are wrong. It was not like the party was taking a principled stand. They were just fulfilling a promise in the emptiest sense. That promise was to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Repeal it they did, but replace it with something acceptable and durable they did not. As soon as Mana comes within a whiff of government the MCA Act is gone and it will be open season on the foreshore and seabed debate – again.     

The Maori Party often try to justify their position and say that it is better to be at the table than not. Well, firstly, they are not at the table – they’re Ministers outside of Cabinet. Secondly, is it better to be at the table when your supposed partner prostitutes you? Much like when National used the Maori Party to pass the ETS. Or is it better to be on the outside picking away and earning victories where you can? Much like the Greens.

The Maori Party will pay for their stupidity. The tide is going out on the Maori Party and rising at the feet of the Mana Movement. I often wonder why we, as in Maori, fail to succeed in maintaining successful kauapapa Maori parties. Is it some sort of post colonial condition? Or are we useless politicians? Or maybe these things take time (we are still young after all). Honestly, I don’t know, but I’m hoping Mana will prove sustainable and that Maori in “mainstream” parties begin to take a more prominent role.    

On an unrelated note it appears I was on Closeup last night (the 27th), not Monday night, if you're interested here is the link.

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."

Pita Sharples vs. Shane Jones

Interesting results from Horizon: 

A new poll reveals Maori Party co-leader leader Pita Sharples huge majority in the Tamaki Makaurau electorate is being seriously eroded.

Horizon Research says his majority of 7,540 appears to have slipped to about 1,140.

I do have concerns in terms of the methodology Horizon uses, having said that I think their results are an accurate indication, albeit a slightly inflated indication, of Maori feeling in Tamaki Makaurau.

The Maori Party will be very worried. There was always going to be a reflex backlash as a result of the Hone Harawira expulsion and the passage of the MCA act. What is perhaps unexpected though is the extent of the backlash.

Pita appears to have destroyed his personal brand. The Maori candidate vote is a personality vote first and foremost. Party association is, in most cases, a secondary concern. Pita has always maintained a strong personal following, his connection to the Maori Party was of little consequence. However, it appears the situation has changed and Pita is now the focus of blame for the perceived mistakes the Maori Party has made. As a co-leader, this is to be expected.

In my opinion, the decisive moment came at Waitangi. Waitangi weekend was, for want of a better term, the ‘peak’ in the Hone Harawira saga. The Maori Party were copping criticism from the left, right and Maori. Pita personally attacked Hone and the defining moment came when Pita actively sought a replacement for Hone while he was still a member of the parliamentary team and the Maori Party itself. This exposed Pita as a double dealer and, this may be a strong description, a backstabber.     

This was an almost fatal blow. Pita was once regarded as a statesman, a skilled negotiator and a good natured go between for Maori and Pakeha. Yet at Waitangi he cultivated an image of a ruthless politician, a man poisoned by government.

The process re the MCA act reinforced the image of Pita the politician, not Pita the rangatira. Thousands of Maori submissions were ignored at the select committee stage, a hikoi to Parliament was casually disregarded and there was no acknowledgement that the MCA act is contrary to Maori aspirations. If the Horizon poll is indeed accurate, then Pita - perhaps unjustifiably - appears to have fielded a significant amount of the blame.

So who wins out of this? The answer’s easy… Shane Jones. According to the poll Pita enjoys 47.8% support while Shane follows at 42.1% support. This puts Shane within striking distance. Shane needs to convert roughly 1200 voters. This is easier said than done, but probable nonetheless.

I cannot honestly say I know which way it will swing. Shane and Pita, in terms of character, are fairly oppositional. Shane is confrontational and verbose while Pita is calm and is not prone to rhetorical tangents. Shane is not scandal free and neither is Pita. Both were held in high-esteem and have suffered a fall. But perhaps the defining factor will be Pita’s connections across the electorate. He is, and will remain, a respected kaumatua – in spite of his political failures. He has been involved with urban Maori for decades, with the local tangata whenua for decades, as well as every other Maori organisation in Auckland that you can think of. Shane does not enjoy such extensive contacts. He enjoys Nga Puhi whakapapa, but will that be enough to pull him through? Probably not. If forced to pick a winner, I say Pita. I will qualify that though and say that it could really go either way. Nothing is certain and anything can happen between now and the election.

Shane needs to ensure his campaign infrastructure is in place. He needs to be able to pick and date and run hard from then. The narrative also needs to be formed now and consistently hammered. If Shane can cultivate the perception that Pita is compromised, then the election is his to win. If he fails to devastate Pita’s brand, he has no show.

I am torn a little here. I do not want to see the Maori Party prop up a second term National government. But I do not want to see them destroyed. I think the party deserves a chance to reform. Ultimately though, I think preventing a second term National government is more important than any feeling towards the Maori Party. Movements can be rebuilt, but it is much harder to rebuild lives.   

Annette Sykes vs. Te Ururoa Flavell

I am glad that Annette Sykes is still considering running against Te Ururoa in Waiariki.  From Waatea News:

Former Maori Party adviser Annette Sykes says her local MP Te Ururoa Flavell has betrayed Te Arawa people with his support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

The Rotorua lawyer says Mr Flavell was sent to parliament by the Waiariki electorate to roll back the confiscation and discrimination of Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act.

But she says the work he did on the new Act failed on that count.

“None of those compromises justify in any way the confiscation of the lands of the people of Te Arawa from Matata to Maketu and for me it’s a betrayal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is established but also the foundations on which the Maori party established,” Ms Sykes says.

She is considering standing against Mr Flavell in Waiariki if former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira creates a new Maori political party.

As a Kawerau boy, I like to think I have a deep understanding of the Waiariki electorate. The seat is winnable, but winning will require a huge effort. At the last election Te Ururoa enjoyed near unanimous support with 68% of the vote. This is an almost 10% increase on his 2005 result. However, the circumstances this time around are vastly different. The political landscape is about to change with the formation of Hone’s new party and the relationship between Maori and the Maori Party is strained.

Say what you will about the Maori Party, but bear in mind that they are not amateurs. The party maintains campaign infrastructure in all of the Maori electorates, for example a ready pool of volunteers, key Marae/Runanga contacts, mailing lists, enrolment statistics, street by street voter analysis etc… Te Ururoa is also, in my opinion at least, a commendable electorate MP. Although he has performed disgracefully with regard to the MCA act – he remains committed to Waiariki.

The challenge for Annette is to bring together an experienced and knowledgeable team and replicate the campaign infrastructure the Maori Party has in place. The next step would be to define the message e.g. A vote for te Ururoa is a vote for National and then focus on soft areas where support for the Maori Party is thin and where tribal links to Te Ururoa do not exist. I am thinking of Kawerau, Tuhoe (Ruatoki, Taneatua), Opotiki, Te Whanau a Apanui (Te Kaha, Omaio), Whakatane and Taupo.

Kawerau is a strong Labour town, in 2005 Steve Chadwick just managed to retain Rotorua thanks to Kawerau voters. Among Maori voters the same is true i.e. support for Labour is strong. I am not sure how the candidate vote went, however I think it is safe to assume that Annette, like me a former Kawerau resident, will have no trouble in winning support. As a staunch tino rangatiratanga advocate she will cruise to victory in the Tuhoe rohe as well. People from Whakatohea (roughly the Opotiki area) and Te Whanau a Apanui (from about Torere to the East Cape) are also furious with the Maori Party. The party has refused to back the people over mining off the East Coast. Te Whanau a Apanui has had to rely on the Greens for political support and groups like Greenpeace for protest/public relations support. A vote against the Maori Party will be almost a reflex action up the coast. I am unsure what way Whakatane and Taupo will swing. But I will say, and this is speculation on my part, that these two centres are marginal. Rotorua will almost certainly back Te Ururoa based on his good record as an electorate MP there. Tauranga is probably anyones game. However, I think neither Annette nor Te Ururoa will win there. At this point I am putting my money on Louis Te Kani, the Labour candidate. Louis is a well respected local barrister and a genuine nice guy. By the looks of it he is held in high regard in the local Labour region as well. Given the MCA act betrayal I am not sure any coastal iwi, like the iwi of Tauranga Moana, will vote for the Maori Party or any Maori Party candidate. While on the other hand the harsh rhetoric of Annette Sykes may turn off many of the working class Maori voters in Tauranga.

It is conceivable that a three way race will benefit the Labour candidate. I do not think this is the case though. As Te Ururoa has drifted right he has vacated the left. Annette needs to focus her efforts towards left leaning voters and tino rangatiratanga voters. Te Ururoa and Loius Te Kani will be left to fight over the limited number of right wing voters in the electorate.

The Maori Party is under pressure following the MCA act and the continuing decline in Maori living standards. Many Maori are looking for a new political vehicle. One would think that Maori would, almost naturally, return to Labour. However, Labour still lacks credibility on Maori issues following the foreshore and seabed raupatu. Labour has yet to repent and Maori will not return until they do. This means the time is ripe for a third way. A new political vehicle. Annette Sykes and Hone Harawira could be that third way. They must keep in mind though that Labour will not remain idle forever and time will soon ensure that the sins of the Maori Party are forgotten. Timing is crucial. Annette and Hone must make a decision soon or risk losing the window of opportunity. Labour will soon reclaim the left and crowd out any competitor. Annette and Hone must act while both parties are in disarray.

So Waiariki is there for the taking. So long as Annette musters a professional team and executes a professional campaign. The Maori electorates are huge, therefore reach is essential. Annette cannot rely on the 6 o’clock news or Maori TV. She must get into every corner of the electorate and push her message hard. This is a terrible generalisation, but most Maori are not informed voters. Voting is often an intuitive exercise. Annette must give them no reason not to vote for her.

For the sake of Maori, the Maori Party must be stopped. The Maori Party is the key to a second term National Government – so the weaker the Maori Party, the less likely we will have a second term National Government. Your people need you, Annette.