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.     

Terror raids in Te Whanau a Apanui 2

In a follow up to my previous post on potential police raids in Whanau a Apanui. Tangatawhenua.com reports:

“The (police) are planning a raid on Te Whanau a Apanui. The Police are currently recruiting as many Maori within the Police Force to ‘soften’ the impact of the raid on this small Maori community.

Make no mistake this is a repeat of the brutal scare mongering tactics that were applied to the Tuhoe raids October 2007 and remeber the shambles of that operation? Taxpayers money has been spent and is still being spent on an unfounded and unjustified case that is yet to produce any hard evidence or results.

The proposed raids on Te Whanau a Apanui are a direct response to a community who are trying to stand up for their own rights. They oppose oil drilling off their coast and this is how they are being treated! Their concern is for all New Zealanders, they know if Petrobas is granted permission they are the first in a line of many who will ravage much more than the East Coast.  We need to show our support.

Our source is very reliable as they were approached by the police force to join the mission but refused as they whakapapa to Te Whanau a Apanui. This is serious.

All phones to the east coast community are tapped and people are being marked.

This is outrageous and unnecessary.”

A raid would be a naked political act. This issue is politically charged and will, inevitably, attract a political response. When Maori interests and mainstream political interests clash the police are always willing to do their duty and suppress rangatiratanga. The Tuhoe raids made it clear that fantasy forms a sufficient cause for action – concrete evidence counts for nothing when political interests are at play.

A few weeks ago I speculated that we may see a repeat of the raids in this post:  

“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.” 

I guess the Police just love playing James Bond. Never mind knocking on some doors in Te Whanau a Apanui and having a chat with some of the ‘suspects’. No… The police would rather get out their guns and play silly buggers. If the police suspect something untoward is going on then the sensible step is to engage with Te Whanau a Apanui on reasonable basis – i.e. face to face in a non-threatening situation. There is no reason to blow this issue to Mars. But the police just love the “us and them” storyline and the “white vs. black” dichotomy. They’re stuck “deep in the forest”.

Pass this story on. Keep it going and launch it into the mainstream consciousness. Let’s blow the lid on this thing.  

Terror raids in Te Whanau a Apanui....

Some disturbing news from Te Whanau a Apanui:

Our team have been given a heads up from an inside source that the Police are mobilising to hit Apanui with raids, like the Tuhoe ones. Maori cops have been asked to take part in an Armed Offenders operation. We… have made contact with Police personnel to say that if they have concerns they can raise it with us directly in open korero, and that raiding our people is not necessary or desirable. Whanau, we hope this is not true. We sincerely hope it is not true. However if it does come to pass we know we have nothing to hide, we have been open about our opposition and our reasons for it, and have put all of our information out in the open. Again, standing up for our mana is not a crime, and we haven't been engaged in any illegal activity. If this does eventuate whanau we stand together, as always, and we ask that people DO NOT retaliate or get agitated by the Police - do not get trapped into the game. Keep our whanau, mokopuna and kaumatua safe at all times. Video record anything you can. Stay calm, stay on the kaupapa.

I tend to think this is more than just speculation. In my opinion it is plausible, if not probable, that the Police are keeping a close tab on the tribe with a view to suppressing continued protest action. The Police will undoubtedly construe some warped narrative and, like last time, arrest a bunch of naïve Maori activists, skinny environmentalists, pacifists and small time riff raff. Another kick in the guts for Maori and another embarrassment for the police.

If you support Te Whanau a Apanui please share this. Over facebook, twitter, blogspot, wherever – just get it out there.

Some thoughts from the East Coast...

I spent the Easter weekend on the East Coast in between Te Kaha and Waihau Bay. The weather was a bit shitty at times, but that didn’t detract from the fact that the coast is one of the most beautiful parts of New Zealand. Life is unassuming and the people are modest. The people and the land lack any pretentiousness, you know where you stand and things are what they seem. There are no posers, no hideous glass towers, no rabble - life is simple and modernity is sparse. It is almost a nostalgic picture, a snapshot in time, New Zealand as it used to be, but more especially Maori as they used to be. Life is simple.

Perhaps this description is overly romantic. But in my mind it holds true. And I do not want to see it threatened. The locals do not want to see it threatened either. Driving up from Opotiki to Te Kopua you are left in no doubt as to the position of the locals. Protest graffiti is scattered across the road, signs dot the roadside and banners hang proudly from homes, fences and sheds and shacks. One of my favourites was “Mean Greenpeace Mean”.

This isn’t going to go away, but sadly I find it hard to see Te Whanau a Apanui winning. Having said that, the circumstances are capricious. Sudden change may occur. Especially if the public swings behind Te Whanau a Apanui. We all remember the schedule 4 back down. In that case the public responded to a very powerful narrative cultivated by the opposition (Greenpeace, the Greens, Labour etc). But can Te Whanau a Apanui and Greenpeace replicate that? Hopefully. Mining schedule 4 land also personally touched middle New Zealand, it was not an exclusive concern. Does oil drilling in the Raukumara touch most New Zealanders? Hopefully. Do New Zealanders accept that the rewards from oil drilling offset the risk? Hoepfully not. This is not a Maori issue. It is an environmental issue.

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.    

Weekend thoughts

A few comments:

Parekura Horomia should stand as a list candidate only. If Labour wants to retain Ikaroa-Rawhiti a succession plan needs to be put in place. As an aside, the Maori Party should be doing the same in the interests of longevity. If they do not they will be a one hit wonder and Labour will step in once Turia, Sharples and Flavell have gone. But back to Parekura. I think an anointed Labour Party candidate would do well. So long as Parekura campaigns alongside him or her. In the last two elections the Maori Party came reasonably close to snatching the seat. The sudden lose of Parekura would translate to a Maori Party victory in my opinion. However, if Parekura can transfer his personal following over to the next Labour candidate the Maori Party will remain outside of striking distance. 

On the subject of Parekura, he is on the right side of his constituents in saying maintaining traditional lifestyles outweigh any perceived economic gains. On other hand, the Prime Minister is on the wrong side of tangata whenua in saying they must consider the economic benefits. The risk posed is unacceptable. The local people should have a greater say in whether oil prospecting and extraction occurs. The locals will shoulder the risk, yet receive little in return.

Were a disaster to occur it will be the local people who are directly, and almost immediately, affected. I will not be affected here in Wellington nor will the Prime Minister. I will lose nothing, but I probably would have benefited through the increase in economic activity, while the local people will lose their recreational ground, their food basket and ultimately the lifestyle that has sustained them for almost one thousand years. The value of their property will plummet, their quality of life will plummet and an exodus would occur. The whenua and the moana would become a sparsely populated wasteland.

Most readers will have heard about Jamie Lee-Ross and his call for the abolition of the Maori seats. Veronica Tawhai, a politics lecturer at Massey University, rebuts Lee-Ross. I encourage you to read it. There is also an excellent discussion over at Big News. 

The Maori Statutory Board (MSB) funding drama is now resolved. Both parties appear to have compromised and an agreement has been reached. The MSB played the situation very well. The board was always in the stronger position. The Council could not afford to have the issue dragged out in the public domain. That would have been, politically, very damaging. Hopefully the MSB can get on with the job now. 

Orders served

Protestors off the East Cape have been served with a notice stipulating that they must not come within a certain distance of the Petrobras ship. As I said yesterday, this is more than outrageous. The threat of criminal sanction is very, very serious. Criminal sanction is the ultimate in moral judgement and legal punishment. It is beyond comprehension that the government is willing to invoke the criminal law in a case where no tangible harm exists, where the behaviour is non-threatening and where criminal sanction will effectively inhibit socially acceptable, and arguably desirable, behaviour. But most importantly there is a reasonable alternative to criminal sanction – working with the protestors. To be fair there probably is no common ground to be found and Te Whanau a Apanui/Greenpeace will not compromise, but the government should have, at the very least, tried before sending in the guns. The government has jumped ahead and invoked what should have been an option of last resort.

This is Greenpeace after all. A group of pacifists, environmentalists and other anti-violence types. The same could be said of Te Whanau a Apanui – they are the kaitiaki (custodian), not a taua (war party).   

There is one positive so far though. The Maori Party has finally come out in support. Credit to Te Ururoa Flavell (better late than never). However, I think he did undermine his point somewhat when comparing the government’s actions to Gaddafi. Hyperbole is effective when used well, but I think he may have taken the idea of exaggeration for effect a wee bit far. However, the point behind the rhetoric was strong and obvious.

This issue is only going to get messier. I am in two minds as to whether the government can win. The rangatiratanga of Te Whanau a Apanui will not stand against the might of the New Zealand state and win, but with the help of iwi katoa, politicians and the public the government must back down.  

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.   

Expect to see more of this

A protestor obstructs Petrobras

Brief thoughts on a few issues

I know I claimed to be taking a break in the run up to exams, but there are a few interesting issues that need to be covered. In this post I’ll cover a few (briefly):

1. The Electoral Commission has announced that Louisa Wall will replace Darren Hughes in Parliament. This will come as no surprise to anyone. Louisa was the Labour Party hierarchy’s preferred choice and they made no secret of it. Parachuting Louisa into Parliament makes practical sense, however, as I said on Native Affairs, I do not think that is in the spirit of MMP. The biggest practical advantage is that membership of the House will serve as a form of incumbency and provide a good base for her campaign in Manurewa. Louisa will make an excellent MP in my opinion, but she is no Darren Hughes. She will be the seventh Maori MP in the Labour Party caucus and the twenty first Maori MP in the current Parliament.
2. Whaimutu Dewes is calling for an overhaul of Maori land law. I am not qualified to pass comment on the merits/drawbacks of this suggestion, however I think it makes sense. Dewes makes the point that the one size fits all approach is inadequate, as it tends to be in most circumstances.  
3. Rumour has it Willie Jackson is seriously considering standing in Tamaki Makaurau. This topic deserves an entire post but I do not have the time so I’ll skim over it. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Willie would merely split the vote and clear the way for Shane Jones to take the seat. However, I disagree. Shane’s recent success in the polls is not an indication of a personal following or approval with the Labour Party. The voters of Tamaki Makaurau are clearly disillusioned with Pita Sharples and Shane Jones is the only other option. He receives Pita’s former supporters by default. Shane actually has done nothing. And nothing has worked only because he is the only other candidate. I am of the opinion were Willie to stand he would receive most of Pita’s votes. Willie is, in terms of character and politics, more aligned with Pita than Shane. The difference is Willie lacks the recent political baggage that Pita carries. It must be kept in mind that Shane still lacks credibility among women and, to a lesser extent, the general public. The margin of error was 11% too. That is a considerable range. Ultimately, without knowing Willie personally it really is hard to predict whether he will stand.
4. Parekura Horomia has acknowledged Te Whanau a Apanui, but has not come out in support of their stance or in opposition to oil prospecting generally. This is disappointing yet expected. A step in the right direction to be fair. Parekura is right to highlight the strength of Te Whanau a Apanui resolve, but timid in refusing to offer forthright political support. Te Whanau a Apanui cannot confront and permanently deter Petrobras, one of the largest oil companies in the world, without significant political and public support. Protest and confrontation is a short term barrier and cannot continue forever nor escalate into direct and possibly illegal confrontation. If Te Whanau a Apanui can attract further political and public support it will have a cumulative effect and they could just beat Petrobras. It will be a long, long, long shot though (I hope to blog further on this issue some time after my tests).

        

Winston Peters supports Te Whanau a Apanui

Te Whanau a Apanui have found an unlikely ally:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is backing Te Whanau a Apanaui's protest against oil exploration off the East Coast.

Mr Peters says New Zealanders have no confidence the government has properly weighted the environmental and social risks.

“The key issue is, have we been asked or consulted on this issue and the answer is no. It just went ahead like what Gerry Brownlee tried to do on the national parks, when they got rolled. That’s what they tried to do,” he says.

Mr Peters says the royalty rates are so low that that New Zealanders stand to make very little if Petrobras does discover oil.

Prima facie, Winston is an unlikely source of support. However, this issue touches our nationalist sentiment, naturally it is core New Zealand First policy.

I wonder when the Maori Party will follow suit. No time soon judging by this comment From Tariana Turia:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says it's up to individual iwi whether they want to oppose mining and oil exploration.

Of course it is. But when iwi chose to oppose, and oppose vehemently, then the Maori Party should support iwi.  

“Those who don’t want to have either oil exploration or sand mining, that’s their business. We’re not in Parliament to speak for the hapu and iwi. That’s their job to uphold their rangatiratanga and that’s what they’ve chose to do and that’s their right,” Mrs Turia says.

This is an odd comment. Let’s think back to the ETS. The Maori Party were speaking/acting on behalf of iwi (at their request apparently). The Maori Party acted as a medium between government and the self proclaimed iwi leaders. The same thing happened with regard to mining Maori land. However, different rules seem to apply to Te Whanau a Apanui. The Maori Party has refused to back Te Whanau a Apanui.

Te Whanau a Apanui cannot uphold their rangatiratanga against the might of the New Zealand state. No iwi can, has or ever will. The Maori Party, as the strongest Maori political entity, is obligated to act in the best interests of Te Whanau a Apanui. A failure to act, or a remission of responsibility, is a cop out.    

The Maori Party claim to act on behalf of Maori. Maori, as in the collective. The party quite often speaks of iwi katoa. It is now becoming apparent that this was just fanciful rhetoric. If faced with a choice between political expediency and principle, the Maori Party will side with expediency.  

Sad. That is the only way to describe the Maori Party’s position on this issue. Sad.

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.   

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