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.

Shane Jones, oil drilling and sustainable development

Last month while on a visit to Taranaki with Andrew Little, Shane Jones made his latest attack on the Green Party. Taranaki is one of the biggest parts of my electorate Te Tai Hauāuru and is where I whakapapa to.

Jones, in his capacity as Labour’s Māori Affairs and Regional Development spokesperson thought it appropriate to distance Labour from the Greens so called “anti-development” agenda.

Jones seems to think that oil drilling and gas exploration are popular in Taranaki, even though they aren't on the East Coast. Well, Mr Jones is simply wrong. We as Māori, whether we are from Taranaki, Gisborne, Kaitaia or Dunedin, have a fundamental commitment to the protection of Papatuānuku.

What makes his argument even more disingenuous is that the Greens don't even oppose most shallow oil drilling in Taranaki. We oppose risky deep sea oil drilling that has no adequate environmental safeguards. We do support a moratorium on fracking and we know that the oil and gas industry is not the answer to our youth unemployment problem.

By painting the Greens as the opposition to economic development on the basis of their opposition to oil drilling, Jones is doing a disservice to prominent Māori values and perspectives. Māori and the Greens have a holistic world view. We can’t have a prosperous economy and high quality of life without a healthy environment at its foundation.

So these comments from Jones really won’t fly in Te Tai Hauāuru:

"Sustainability is as much about sustaining the livelihood of people as it is about guarding the ecological habitat of the Hochstetter's frog. As long as I am in politics as a Maori politician I am going to be unambiguous in standing up for jobs and people,"

The Greens do stand up for jobs and people, consistently. Indeed their track record on these issues is much stronger than Shane Jones’. Sustainable development and jobs aren't mutually exclusive concepts. They work hand in hand.

Interestingly, Mr Jones also said that ‘he occasionally found common cause with New Zealand First it was only with the aid of a telescope that he might do the same with the Greens’. So he would prefer to work with a party that is consistently anti Māori rights and self-determination than with the Greens who present a vision completely compatible with kaupapa Māori. This is astounding.

Labour really needs to rein in Shane Jones if a coalition between Labour and the Greens is seen to be palatable for voters. Labour won’t enter Government with New Zealand First alone.

Most of Jones’ own party seems to understand this, including the Māori caucus. Moana Mackey, who is Labour’s spokesperson for Energy, has been critical about the lack of regulation and safeguards in place for deep sea oil drilling and Meka Whaitiri MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti came out against it during the by-election campaign. In her maiden speech she said:

“Regional development is critical to the success of the nation’s sustainable economic growth, and more needs to be done at the regional level. In Ikaroa-Rāwhiti it is about people as much as it is about market drivers. 
Oil exploration and dams that wipe out complete valleys are not sustainable. There are alternatives, and greater investment in regional research and development will show that. Developing high-level strategic goals with community movers and shakers encourages ownership and, therefore, commitment.”

Well said. This is such a stark contrast with Jones’ vews. Maybe Labour should make Whaitiri there Regional Development and Māori Affairs spokesperson. Her attitude is more in step with the times we live in.

Labour's new leader is going to have to provide clarity on their deep sea oil drilling policy and their wider economic development framework.

The key to the future of the Māori economy is investment in research and development and Māori innovation. Global investment in clean energy will reach $800 billion by 2015. It would be transformative for the Māori economy if we could get even just a small piece of this action.

Post by Jack Tautokai McDonald

The Rena Disaster

The Rena disaster goes to show New Zealand does not have the capacity to respond to even the most minor of oil spills. New Zealand does not have the policy mechanisms or the capacity to deal with an actual spill and the consequences thereof - not even a minor spill. Hekia Parata should take note. If she approves oil extraction in the Raukumara this could end up happening to her moana and her whenua in Ngati Porou, but to the power of x1000.

The response from the authorities has been typical New Zealand - casual as anything. The hope for the best approach. The authorities have sat around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to tell them what to do, but that someone, read John Key, has taken the same hands off approach he takes to dealing with his Cabinet and his Governments policy. The Prime Minister needed to provide the impetus in the immediate wake of the disaster because the backwater hicks at Maritime NZ had no idea how bad this could get nor any power to do anything substantial. A state of emergency should be declared immediately and the resources we do have should be deployed now. Or even better the resources should have been deployed straight after the fact. It blows my mind that the Government declined the offer from Lancer Industries to pump oil from the ship. WTF.  

The effect the disaster will have on the moana and the whenua will be devastating. Not only will the oil affect the health of the moana and whenua, but the toxic, and ineffective may I add, dispersant the authorities have used will also damage the moana and whenua. The dispersant used is four times more toxic than the oil itself. The disaster is going to severely affect customary and recreational activities. Most worryingly the disaster is going to affect the spiritual health of the Iwi of Tauranga Moana. When the land is healthy the people are healthy, when the land weeps the people weep. The spill is going to devastate kaimoana as well as the spiritual guardians of Tauranga Moana. I am not sure what the spiritual guardians, kaitiaki etc, of Tauranga Moana are, but I know some Iwi hold, for example, the Stingray as a prominent spiritual guardian.        

Local Iwi should be given a more prominent role in determining the response, who should be held to account and how the consequences will be dealt with. Naturally, given we have a National Government at the helm, Maori have been sidelined. Only today have Maori been given a place on the response team.

If New Zealand doesn’t have the capacity to respond to a minor oil spill from a container ship, how the hell will we deal with a spill, either minor or major, from an oil rig? This is the deathblow against the Government’s dream of oil extraction. Hekia cannot now, as a woman immersed in her culture and well aware of the effects of a disaster on Papatuanuku, push ahead in her role as Minister for Energy and Resources. There will be immense pressure coming from her Iwi Ngati Porou and her whanaunga in Te Whanau a Apanui, but there will also be pressure coming from Cabinet. It’s going to be interesting to see whose interests she prioritises, I’m leaning towards Cabinet.   

Of course, not only are Maori furious, but so is the rest of New Zealand – especially the people of the Bay of Plenty who have had their backyard ruined, meaning their summer is down the drain too. Last night Minister for the Environment Nick Smith got an ear bashing, and rightly so, from angry Tauranga residents. And what about compensation for the businesspeople who have lost their livelihoods? John Key is deflecting the issue in typical fashion; he doesn’t want to front the hard issues.

Before I end this post, here’s something to chew on:

Our ineffective PM

Key insults Te Whanau a Apanui

The Prime Minister has meet with representatives from Te Whanau a Apanui and Ngati Porou. From Waatea News:

Ngati Porou and Te Whanau a Apanui representatives met Prime Minister John Key today in what Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples is hailing as an example of what can be done by being in government.

Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell arranged the meeting so the iwi could express their concerns over oil prospecting off the East Coast by Brazilian company Petrobras.

Well, this sounds promising, but consider this from Stuff.co.nz:

A meeting with concerned East Coast iwi this afternoon will not change the Government's stance on coastal oil exploration in the area, Prime Minister John Key says.

So the Prime Minister will not budge. If so, what is the point of the meeting? The Prime Minister’s position renders the meeting pointless. The meeting is not even symbolic when the main actor comes out and utterly disregards the possibility of progress.

Pita Sharples has hailed the meeting as an example of what can be achieved in government. However, nothing has been achieved. The Prime Minister has brushed iwi aside before they even walked in the door. The meeting is, at best, empty symbolism. A real achievement would be to influence the government’s position on the issue. Ultimately, the Maori Party appear determined to justify the criticism that they are merely making symbolic gains as opposed to substantive gains.

The Maori Party is in government to manipulate policy and pressure the government on Maori issues. The Maori Party is not in government to organise token gestures.   

To be fair, the Maori Party cannot influence what John Key says and kudos must go to Te Ururoa for organising the meeting (even though it is a farce). In reality no amount of discussion will deter the National Party; oil drilling is a Tory’s wet dream. Only a leftwing government will stop oil exploration and prevent oil drilling.     

Not enough

From Waatea News:

Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell is putting up a private members bill that would give iwi a veto on offshore oil exploration and development.

The Waiariki MP says the bill is a response to the Government’s lack of consultation with Te Whanau a Apanaui and Ngati Porou before it licensed Brazilian oil giant Petrobras to prospect in the Raukumara Basin of the East Cape.

I think Flavell realises he completely misread the depth of feeling surrounding this issue as well as the level of opposition coming from the environmental movement and Maori in general. His reputation in Waiariki is compromised as a result. Initially, Te Ururoa Flavell declined to support Te Whanau a Apanui despite continued pleas from the tribe. He finally, and possibly reluctantly, moved when the government dispatched the navy. He had no choice really, but he should have moved behind Te Whanau a Apanui sooner. Of course he expressed concern some time ago re the lack of consultation, but he refused to provide tangible political support beyond a single press release and maybe a murmur or two in the House. Enter stage left, Hone Harawira. Harawira, as he tends to do these days, stepped in to claim the ground the Maori Party had vacated. He attended the powhiri for the flotilla and made it pretty clear he stands in solidarity with Te Whanau a Apanui.

Although I agree with the purpose of the bill I cannot help but feel it is a sop. I think it is reasonable to assume the government will not support the bill and Te Ururoa is not so naïve as to believe otherwise. The Maori Party is part of government, albeit a small and expendable part, does it not follow that they can tap the minister on the shoulder and say “hey, we need to talk” and then sort it all out without recourse to private members bills.

The bill is too little too late. Te Ururoa will not regain the ground lost. The dogs are out too. Shane Jones has come out strongly with this clever press release and Turia has responded. But ultimately Te Whanau a Apanui will not buy any of the rhetoric or casual sops. Symbolism is, at the moment, not enough. Te Ururoa’s bill actually doesn’t remedy the situation. It is a response after the fact. It doesn’t put a stop to oil exploration either.  

I hoped to be proved wrong. I really do. The bill would be good. And credit where credit is due. Te Ururoa is doing the right thing. Not enough to save his reputation up the coast though.    

Protest in the Raukumara

Drama on the high seas continues with news that the government has now dispatched the Navy, the Air Force and the Police in response to the protest action occurring in the Raukumara Basin.

It should concern us all that the government is willing to invoke the coercive powers of the state in response to a minor and non-violent protest. Such powers should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. The protests occurring off the East Cape are not exceptional by any definition. The protestors have engaged the Petrobras ship on a number of occasions, however disruption only occurred on one occasion when a lone swimmer, yes a lone swimmer, disrupted the survey line. Do you think this warrants direct government intervention? The protestors do not pose a threat to the New Zealand people nor the integrity of the state. The rule of law is, as far as I can tell, not under threat. Having said that, arguably, the government is threatening the rule of law through the exercise of what appears to be arbitrary power. Another salient point is also made over at Pundit: that it is not the place of the executive government, read Cabinet, to dictate to the Police what, where and when they should investigate perceived offences. That is constitutionally repugnant and very dangerous in practise. The basic notion is that the law makers should have no role in law enforcement. The government, in seeking to prevent continued protest, not through legislation but through law enforcement, seriously oversteps the mark.   

    

Ultimately, it is beyond reason that the government is invoking the full power of the state in response to a non-violent protest occurring extraterritorially. Proponents of liberty and freedom should be concerned.

What I also find interesting is that Petrobras has not lodged an official complaint with the police nor has the company requested government help. Intervention in the Raukumara Basin is a government initiative. Clearly the government feels the protestors pose a threat to government rule. Any protest action which undermines a lawful government enactment is a challenge to that government’s integrity and legitimacy. Given the authoritarian nature of the current government it should come as no surprise that they have, when threatened, responded with a show of force.     

Without doubt the surveillance capabilities of the state have been activated. If the protests continue in to the medium term we can probably expect to see a repeat of the Urewera raids. Te Whanau a Apanui will not back down and the rhetoric will only harden. Of course Te Whanau a Apanui and Greenpeace will never turn to militancy, but the Police and SIS will construe some narrative indicating planned militant action.  

What really gets me about this issue is that the government is putting the rights of foreign oil interests ahead of the rights of tangata whenua. This is not unexpected, but it was at least reasonable to expect a more equitable balance between the interests of tangata whenua and the interests of foreign corporates. Sadly, tanagata whenua have been disregarded – which is true to form really.    

Greenpeace and Te Whanau a Apanui cannot allow the government to dictate the terms of this debate. Opposition cannot succeed without widespread popular and political support. I am unsure where the public stands on the issue at the moment, but Phil Goff, and by extension Labour, Winston Peters, the Greens and the Maori Party have indicated support for the protestors (yes, the Maori Party – mean). Now the protestors need plurality public support. Petrobras has deep pockets and long hands, they will throw everything they have at this. It will be a hard fight… but tino rangatiratanga never comes easy.   

Goff, Maori wards and Te Ururoa Flavell

Here are a few things that caught my attention over the weekend: 

• E tu Ake, one of the largest ever exhibitions of ancient taonga and contemporary Maori art, is know open at Te Papa. The exhibition will run through to June and will then begin an international tour. You should check it out if you have a spare few hours. 

• It is encouraging to see Phil Goff attack the government over the Petrobras permit. Goff was very careful in terms of how he framed his attack, he did not attack the fact that the permit was granted; rather he directed his attack at the fact that the government has no mechanisms in place to deal with a disaster. Both Goff and Parekura Horomia have indicated “soft” support for Te Whanau a Apanui. I wonder when the Maori Party will?

• The Palmerston North City Council is considering Maori wards. This is excellent news. Maori are woefully underrepresented in local government and the makeup of government largely determines whose interests will be served. Consequently Maori issues are ignored and Maori views are not taken into account. Maori are continually excluded from local government and this exclusion is, in my opinion at least, the chief cause of voter apathy. I hope the PNCC have the guts to stare the down the inevitable redneck opposition. I also hope, should the Council go through with the idea, that it sets a precedent.

The last point I will address is, in my mind at least, the most significant.

• Did anyone else find it bizarre that Te Ururoa Flavell has taken to defending the government over the AMI bailout. This from TeUruroa:                                                                                                       

Maori Party whip Te Ururoa Flavell says the government's $500 million bail-out of AMI insurance is in keeping with the spirit of whanauangatanga seen throughout the response to the Christchurch earthquakes.

“We've seen that demonstration of that whananugatanga in the last couple of months and this sort of move by the government is along the same lines of whanau supporting whanau and one could say that New Zealand is a whanau when it comes to catastrophies,” 

It is not the job of a minor coalition partner to defend government action, especially when that action is not related to policy contained within the coalition agreement, or in this case the Maori Party/National confidence and supply agreement. The AMI bailout does not touch on any of the Maori Party’s core policy nor is it clearly Maori related. So why bother defending the bailout?

I tend to think it has something to do with softening the government’s image. The Maori Party will almost certainly prop up a second term National government; however the leadership knows that supporting a second term National government is unacceptable to Maori. Therefore, the Maori Party needs to coat the Nats in brown i.e. put a Maori spin on government action. Maori will feel more comfortable with the idea of a second term National government if they perceive that government to be working in a manner consistent with Maori values.

Expect to see more of this

A protestor obstructs Petrobras

Deception

It appears that Hekia Parata is a liar. From The Gisborne Herald:

Gisborne District councillor Manu Caddie accused her of lying, or “deliberately misleading the public”, in an article in The Gisborne Herald on Saturday in which she said the exploration permit would involve only 2D and 3D data gathering, not drilling.

But Manu Caddie says this was a blatant lie.

The permit signed last year by her predecessor allowed the company to drill one exploratory well within 60 months of the commencement of the permit, he said in a written statement.

To her credit, she later acknowledged her dishonesty:

She acknowledged this morning that the exploration permit granted to Petrobras allowed Petrobras to drill an exploration well.

However, she did no forget to offer a pretext:  

“A decision on whether an exploration well will be drilled is dependent on the outcome of the 2D and 3D seismic survey” she said.

Hekia is in an uncomfortable position. On a personal level, her people (Ngati Porou) are firmly against oil exploration and any consequent activities. However, on an ideological level, the idea of mineral exploitation appeals to Hekia’s neoliberal tendencies. This is possibly an oversimplification, but the choice appears to be between representing the views of her people or toeing the party line. It’s a shame she did not chose the former.      

Does Hone really care about New Zealand?

Hone Harawira is appearing more sensible by the day:

(Hone) says rather than considering environmental issues, the Maori Party believes mining is ok if iwi want to mine.

“We need to put that aside and say is mining in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. When they talk about the iwi, the Maori Party just talk about the iwi leaders but the iwi leaders are not actually the iwi, and iwi are very rarely consulted and you will find in most cases where an iwi are actually consulted in terms of the people who live there, they are 90 percent opposed to such activity,”

“We need to put that aside and say is mining in the best interests of the people of New Zealand”. This quote represents a big shift in Hone’s thinking. Previously, Hone focussed exclusively on what was best for Maori, however following the Maori Party split he has adopted a broader approach. In my opinion a focus on the interests of all of New Zealand, as opposed to just Maori, represents a certain maturity. It is also a signal that Hone realises a new party is only viable if he takes a broader approach incorporating the interests of the country as a whole. Therefore, I think this quote lends further credence to my prediction that Hone will form a left wing party as opposed to an alternative Maori Party.  

Stop the drilling

This is reassuring. From Waatea News:

Te Whanau a Apanui has put out the call for a water-borne protest against Brazilian oil giant Petrobras's plans to prospect in the Raukumara basin.

Spokesperson Dayle Takitimu says vessels with links to the Nuclear Free Flotilla, Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, and Coromandel Watchdog are expected to be part of a flotilla leaving Auckland for Cape Runaway on Sunday in the hope of encountering Petrobras survey boats.

She says unlike some other iwi, Te Whanau a Apanui isn't interested in deals with miners.

“It's not about the money or greater ability to invest or joint venture with these companies. Whanau a Apanui just don’t want this activity occurring on our back doorstep when there is so much risk involved,” Ms Takitimu says.

Unlike some other iwi, Te Whanau a Apanui appears to be in touch with what the people want. This, in my opinion, comes down to the fact that Te Whanau a Apanui does not operate under the imposed Runanga model. Te Whanau a Apanui’s governance model shares more in common with traditional approaches rather than the typical western approach that the contemporary Runanga framework emulates. Maori customary practice, I hesitate to call it law, tends to place greater value on absolute consensus. Whereas under the contemporary Runanga framework decisions can be given effect at the whim of the majority. In some cases, I’m thinking of you Tuku Morgan, decisions can be simply imposed. Of course this is not to say that the traditional Maori approach is superior, I actually feel that the opposite is true, it is more accurate to say that the Runanga framework is flawed and some corrupt and misguided individuals are, for want of a better term, working the system.   

Some iwi, Tainui and Ngai Tahu in particular, blindly adhere to notions of economic growth. Cultural considerations are paid lip service while consultation is, for the most part, nonexistent. It appears Te Whanau a Apanui is considering cultural imperatives, e.g. kaitiakitanga, as well as the broader consideration of risk. This is a sensible, and indeed very Maori, approach that I wish other iwi would follow. Sadly, the self proclaimed iwi leaders are captured by a corporate agenda and see nothing beyond power and return.

I am very familiar with the East Coast and I feel personally connected to this issue. I feel that it is entirely understandable that the locals do not want to shoulder the considerable risk. Yes, returns will probably be substantial. But in the case of a disaster, the loss will be significantly greater than any alleged returns. Consider this from Gordon Campbell:

New Zealand has almost no capacity to cope with the impact of a major oil spill, or any adequate and enforceable means of compensation. Given the degree of uncertainty, do we have any way of telling whether the returns will justify the risk.

Putting aside local opposition, the government should be looking at implementing mechanisms to cope with a worst case scenario, as opposed to diving in head first.  

As far as I am aware the government has not consulted local iwi with regard to the exact nature and extent of activities occurring off their coast, the possible returns they may receive and the risks oil exploration, and consequently extraction of course, would pose. This isn’t good enough, but what we have come to expect from National.  

As usual the Maori Party is nowhere to be seen on this issue. Why? Because there is a clash between the flaxroot and the good little indigenous corporates. The Maori Party cannot be seen to be taking sides. Hone is siding with the flaxroot. If the Maori Party were to follow suit then that is an acknowledgment that Hone is right. Furthermore, the self proclaimed iwi leaders, as I have pointed out numerous times, exercise an enormous amount of control over the policy development and the day to day direction the party takes.

I will try and keep on top of this issue and I will blog if there are any developments. This is a big issue and as such it requires a big discussion. Pity we didn’t get one though.  

Hat tip mars 2 earth