Why I am standing for Te Tai Hauāuru - Jack McDonald

Ko Taranaki te Maunga
Ko Taranaki te Tangata
Ko Taranaki te Iwi
Ko te puna i heke mai ai te tangata
E kore e pau te ika unahi nui

The threads of my whakapapa from across the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate weave together to bind my identity – my Māoritanga. A product of Te Tai Hauāuru, I am ready to stand up for our whānau and our whenua. I am ready to provide a new generation of political leadership.

I pay tribute to Whaea Tariana Turia, who has served our electorate with a power and distinction that is rarely seen in the political world. She has been our MP for 12 years, and has for that time been at the forefront of the fight for mana motuhake and has set a benchmark for Māori political representation in Parliament.

No one can replace Whaea Tariana's leadership, but her retirement offers Te Tai Hauāuru a rare opportunity; the opportunity to force a generational shift in our leadership and to chart a distinct course based on new ideas and a fresh outlook.

While attending the Rātana celebrations on the 24th of January I announced that I will be seeking the Green Party candidacy for Te Tai Hauāuru and standing for the Greens’ list.

~

As an uri of Taranaki Iwi and Te Āti Awa, many of my tupuna embarked on the heke that travelled from one end of the electorate to the other; from Taranaki maunga to the coastlines of Kāpiti and Mana. I have lived all my life in the small coastal town of Paekākāriki and I currently serve my community as the Chair of our Community Board and as our representative at the Kāpiti Coast council table.

Green representatives at Rātana Pā 2014

I stood in this electorate for the Greens in the 2011 general elections. It was the first time the Greens had stood a candidate in this electorate, so I had some very clear objectives in mind; spreading the Green kaupapa across the rohe and strengthening the position of the Greens in Māori communities. We were successful in our objectives; tripling the Greens party vote in Te Tai Hauāuru and securing third place in the electorate vote.

I have always believed that the Greens' values are remarkably similar to our values as Māori. And because a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a core part of our party's charter, the Greens are the strongest and most principled advocates in Parliament for honouring Te Tiriti and building a strong Treaty partnership.

~

It’s never been more important that we have strong Green representation in Te Tai Hauāuru. With both National and Labour supporting risky deep sea oil drilling off the Taranaki coast, it’s vital we send a message that we can’t risk destroying the environment which sustains our economy and our well-being. I stand in solidarity with hapū, iwi and community groups that are standing up to the drilling interests.

The extractive industries produce few jobs, while our two biggest industries, primary production and tourism, both rely on our clean, green brand. We also know that continued reliance on a fossil-fuel based economy will lead to increased carbon emissions and a more unstable climate.

There is an unique opportunity for iwi heading into the post-settlement era to be at the forefront of innovation and the transition to a sustainable economy. Greens propose a fairer Treaty settlement process, support for Māori small business and a massive investment in research and development and clean energy.

A strong Green Party will be able to hold both major parties to account. We have proven that we can make change from across Parliament, without compromising our values and our convictions. A party vote for the Greens will ensure there is a social and environmental conscience at the heart of a new progressive government.

It's time to talk about colour: why we have to reject labels like 'white Maori'

Manuera Benjamin Riwai Couch: a former All Black, Minister of Maori Affairs
and the first Maori after the abolition of the half-caste rule to win a "European"
(now called general) electorate. Couch is perhaps the father of the ideologies about
Maori development that run through National's Maori MPs. HT Te Ara.

We hardly talk about skin tone. That’s not because we live in a post-racial society, but because our identity as Maori is grounded in whakapapa. Aesthetics don’t define Maori-ness.

But that doesn’t mean colourism is a non-issue. The reverse is true. Colourism is encoded in our colonial memory and the heady hangover remains.

In New Zealand “half-castes” were privileged over “full-blooded” Maori. But the division between full-bloods and half-castes – or dark skins and lighter skins - wasn’t unique to New Zealand. We inherited it.

In the early days of colonialism Britain would divide its slave labour according to skin tones. In the fields of the American South slave owners would privilege light skinned slaves over dark skinned slaves. In South Africa the difference in skin tone (and other features) determined whether a person was black or coloured. Blacks had to carry dompas, coloureds didn’t. In Australia the Half-Caste Act gave states the power to remove “half-caste” children from Aboriginal care and assimilate them into white society.

Early commentary on half-caste Maori cast them in a positive light. Josiah Firth, an early New Zealand farmer, went as far as to celebrate half-castes. He wrote:

“The Half-Castes of New Zealand are in general a fine type of men and women… They are of fine physique, the women being often very handsome…” 

“I have employed Maori half-castes as stockmen, boatmen, and one, as Captain of a river steamer, and I never had better servants”.

But the full blooded or the dark skinned Maori was a paradox. Writing in the early 1900s a perplexed Professor John Brown tried to get his head around Polynesian beauty standards that didn’t value whiteness:

“The finest type of European faces might… find their match in these islands of the Pacific, [but] these were not the most admired by the dusky races, just as the fair skin that sometimes appears amongst them was not admired”.

In an effort to try and explain why Polynesians beauty standards favoured dark skin and “flat noses” Brown argued that it was a result of conquer and intermarriage by and with Melanians who were “negroid” in appearance.

From the early days of settlement and into the 20th century New Zealand society has tried to classify and understand Maori according to skin colour, blood quantum and – but to a lesser extent – cultural practice (i.e. assimilation). But the most telling factor in whether a Maori was half-caste or, well, just a Maori depended on whiteness.

I hope it’s obvious why this matters: skin tone was and is loaded with social and political assumptions. Today there’s a difference between being labelled a “white Maori” and just “Maori”. They’re categories based on appearance, but the first category carries an unearned privilege over the second. Whiteness means full integration and acceptance. Just being Maori implies browness. There are a set of assumptions attached to being brown. Think of the warrior gene.

In a Euro-centric society whiteness can be monetised. Overseas research has indicated that a relationship exists between skin tone (colourism) and upward mobility. A Brazilian study found that people with lighter skin and mixed ancestry have higher rates of social mobility. Anecdotally, the same could be said about New Zealand. Skin tone can have a tangible effect.

Rejecting this is hard. But it starts with self-identification: owning our own identity and using whakapapa as the true measure of identity. What’s external isn’t important when whakapapa is adopted as the only measure of identity. If we can cut ties with labels like half-caste, white Maori, plastic Maori and the others, then we’re half way there.

But rejecting the assumptions that come with being, say, outwardly white is more difficult. The social assumptions attached to being coloured remain. Every Maori who can pass as white has witnessed the racism that seeps through when people think they’re in safe company. Changing that requires a cultural shift. But that comes later. The first step is for us to reject classifications based on appearance and embrace whakapapa as the true and only measure of identity. Other measures minimise people's identity as Maori. Once we get over the hang over from colour in the 19th and 20th century, then we can take on the rest of society.

Egalitarianism, conformism and the Pakeha Party

There’s a great contradiction in the Kiwi heart: a conflict between equality in theory and equality in fact.

Egalitarianism is New Zealand’s founding myth: sometimes a symbol of Kiwi exceptionalism, other times a cultural touchstone in “the cultureless society”. Often a driver of social innovation and progress, but never offered on another person or groups terms. If Maori want access to New Zealand’s egalitarian sympathies, they must assimilate. There’s no room for Maori participating as Maori.

And so the Pakeha Party is born. David Ruck whitesplains to NZN:

"I know that there's huge issues to do with the Treaty and the history, but this isn't really about that. It's when certain Maori start asking for things that only they will be entitled to - that's what's annoying me, and obviously a lot of other people out there as well."

“It’s when certain Maori start asking for things”. Certain Maori. Ruck doesn’t enjoy John Ansell’s rhetorical flair, but he’s adopting the distinction between Ansell’s grievers and achievers. Ruck is pushing the distinction between Maori who advocate for the right to participate in New Zealand society as Maori and Maori who conform.

New Zealand society fluctuates between progressive social policy and provincial and suburban conservatism. Women’s suffrage, the welfare state and Treaty of Waitangi advances weigh against 6pm closing times, weekend trading bans and the Springbok tours (which cut both ways, to be fair).

However, there is a constant: assimilation (now better described in its less connotative and 21st century form - conformism). New Zealand society extends its benefits to those who conform to its norms. However, for many Maori that is not an opportunity worth taking. Maori battled against assimilation ideologies in the 19th century, integration ideologies in the 20th century and the option of conformist ideologies in the 21st century is neither dignifying nor sensible. The Maori renaissance demonstrated that Maori can participate as Maori, even if we failed to convince parts of New Zealand that this a good thing.

None of this is to say that the Pakeha Party – or any of its many sympathisers – is attempting to destroy Maori culture or Maori themselves. In its simplest form egalitarianism is about equality in theory rather than equality in fact. Dedicated representation for Maori (to use one example) grates against the notion that no man, woman or group should enjoy more or separate rights. Dedicated Maori representation might lead to equality in fact (Maori interests in the electoral system are protected and expressed in the Maori seats), but (technically) it isn't equality in theory. Maori enjoy a form of representation that is closed to non-Maori.

The reality the party misses is that the law makes distinction between people and groups all of the time. Distinctions based on age – think of the pension and various statutes that extend rights to children (e.g. the Children Young Persons and their Families Act). Distinctions based on relationship status – think the disparity in treatment (legal and social) between couples in de facto relationships and married couples. And distinctions based on ethnicity. The list doesn’t end there. If the Pakeha Party’s logic is extended to its natural conclusion the party must be arguing for less employment, more crime and lower life expectancy. What about abolishing the age of criminal responsibility? Special treatment for kids after all. The vicious irony of the Pakeha Party arguing for the law to treat them the same as children would be lost on no one.

The party will come to nothing. The 1Law4All party already exists, but with a more coherent set of principles and ideologies (if woefully misguided). Lew Stoddart pointed out on Twitter that a Facebook like isn’t equivalent to real world support. It’s hard to determine what a like means. Is the person liking the page to take the piss, to keep up with what’s being said (even if he or she disagrees with the page) or a casual indication of support? A like is easy and safe and Facebook is a petri dish of trolls. Eddie at the Standard outlines the issue well too.

The best thing to do: forget about the Pakeha Party, but think about the Kiwi character and how that gives rise to anti-Maori sentiments. Kiwi egalitarianism cuts both ways - it's a force for progress and regression.