Waatea with Willie Jackson

I'll be on Waatea Radio today with Willie Jackson sometime after 11 and no later than 11.30pm. We'll be talking about the Maori Party I think.

On a slightly unrelated note, this will be my last post until January. When I'm back I'll whack out my promised election post mortem and I'll update the best and worst performing Maori politicians page.

Thanks for all your support this year. I really do appreciate it. Thanks especially to everyone that's commented and emailed me. You keep me on my toes and, at times, bring me back down to earth. Thank you.

Morgan

Destiny - again

I don’t really want to continue the Destiny theme I’ve been running over the past week or so, but this jumped out at me. From Waatea News:

The head of Destiny Church's social services arm says the church should back the Mana party and its leader Hone Harawira.

George Ngatai from Te Oranga Ake says the church has a policy of not publicly supporting political parties.

But he says Mr Harawira is standing up against the wrongs of the current system.

“Hone is not afraid to challenge anyone and stand up for anything that benefits Maori because if it benefits Maori, if it is good for Maori, it will be good for the rest of the country, and I think we need a lot more politicians ready to challenge that sort of stand,” Mr Ngatai says.

He says the National-Maori Party government has discriminated against Destiny by turning down more than 300 applications for state contracts over the past three years.

First of all, Destiny Church is not the victim of discrimination, a perpetrator of discrimination, yes, but a victim? No. I/S points out that the Church did not meet the criteria for funding. Why? Because no other service providers would partner with Destiny. Other faith-based organisations, or more specifically Christian organisations, deliver government services and even they were unwilling to partner with Destiny. You can’t really blame them can you, Destiny is toxic and their fundamentalist poison is hard to swallow. The government is not in the wrong here – if Destiny cannot satisfy the criteria for government contracts then they have only themselves to blame.

But anyway I want to discuss the bigger issue in this story and that is, obviously, George Ngatai’s endorsement of Hone Harawira. Ngatai’s reasons for supporting Hone are strong, however it seems odd that a Destiny Church member would support someone like Hone. Perhaps Ngatai is not your typical Destiny member. But I think it is safe to assume Ngatai’s stance is not the stance of the Destiny Church. One, because the Church does not, as the article says, publicly support political parties. Two, Destiny’s beliefs emanate from and are influenced by one source – Christian fundamentalism. Destiny’s beliefs are absolutely opposed to what the Mana Party stands for. For example, Mana stands for equality and freedom. Equality between men and women, income equality, equality of right, freedom to practise whatever faith you chose and so on and so on. On the other hand Destiny believes in hierarchy, faith without question, autocracy, the place of men above women and the supremacy of their God and the inherent evil of others. Values and concepts wholly opposed to equality and freedom. My favourite example of Destiny’s opposition to equality and freedom is Tamaki’s claim that women in leadership in New Zealand is the “work of the Devil” and that constructing a Buddhist Temple in Botany Downs is “opening a door from Hell”.

With the above in mind it seems strange that a Destiny member would, politically speaking, support Hone Harawira. However, Destiny is overwhelmingly Maori and Hone Harawira is the most prominent Maori rights activist. I am certain many Destiny members retain a sense of been Maori and respect for their whakapapa. It then becomes understandable that the Church would move behind Harawira, even though he does not share the same beliefs as the Church he does share the same end goals. Tino rangatiratanga does not have to be sacrificed for religion; the two tend to go hand in hand in fact. I think it is commendable that George Ngatai has broken the mould if you will and moved behind a progressive politician. Having said that, his endorsement may not help the Mana Party.

It would turn me off to see the Destiny Church associated with Te Mana. Although the Church’s members may have good intentions, some of the values and beliefs they bring are repugnant. And, as Brian Tamaki said at the Church conference, they want money. This is not about political participation and fancy notions like that. It is about extracting money.

Association with Destiny would deter many potential supporters and current more liberal supporters like me. I would not want to be associated with what Destiny preaches. Such a fusion of supporters, i.e. hard lefties and christian fundamentalists, is impossible. It will not work. Mana might gain a few thousand Destiny votes, but the party will lose the more valuable votes. Meaning Mana would lose activists, potential candidates, bloggers and so on. I wonder how Hone will react to all of this. 

Winston Peters targets the Maori vote (updated)

Has Winston Peters always attracted so much attention in the Maori media? I haven’t been following politics long enough to really know, but it seems like he is quoted several times a week by Waatea News. Was this always the case?

Perhaps what is most interesting is that Winston is speaking to Maori issues rather than generic issues or, for lack of a better term, mainstream issues. New Zealand First is not a kaupapa Maori party nor a party overly concerned with issues which are exclusively Maori. However, Winston appears to be making a concerted effort to be heard on issues affecting Maori. For instance the sale of land to Tainui and East Coast iwi's opposition to oil exploration.

I think Winston has identified the Maori vote as soft. The Maori Party is losing support at a rate of knots; Labour, having failed to regain Maori trust following the FSA 2004, is in no position to pick up frustrated voters; For some odd reason the Greens never penetrate the Maori electorate and National remains, for the most part, hostile towards Maori aspirations for tino rangatiratanga.

With the above in mind I see two options. The dark horse – Hone Harawira – and the old war horse - Winston Peters. Hone Harawira will naturally and rightfully scoop most dissatisfied Maori voters; however the centre right vote is open. Winston’s regular punts in the Maori media are an attempt to hit the centre right in my opinion.

One could politely label Winston a Maori basher. But I do not think he is that simple. He is certainly comfortable with his whakapapa, at ease on the Marae by all accounts and sympathetic towards Maori aspirations for full employment, higher education and so. Maori do connect with Winston on a personal level and he understands the Maori psyche. Taking this into account we can assume Winston will, as he tends to do, ignite a personal following. However, the challenge is build an ideological following. This will be difficult considering Winston's opposition to treaty settlements and affirmative action (to name a few).  A dig at these issues will evoke a less than positive response from Maori.

I think this election is, for Winston, a chance to get back at Rodney Hide, the Nats and the media. But most of all Winston Peters wants to leave on his own terms. He does not want to bow out at the hands of his enemies. This is his show and dammit he wants to write the script.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention when I posted this that Winston has yet to really register with the mainstream media. I would actually speculate that this is a deliberate approach. Winston appears to be taking a community approach to campaigning. He is holding town hall meetings, giving guest lectures - he has given several here at Vic - and targeting niche media outlets (e.g. the Maori media and local rags). He is not holding extravagant dinners or staging political stunts. He does enough to keep his name in the public consciousness, but 'media whore Winston' is nowhere to be seen.    

Will Whanau Ora be Cut?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the government is currently reviewing the Whanau Ora budget. Having said that Key has signalled, albeit in an ambiguous manner, that there are no plans to cut back the scheme’s budget. From Waatea News:

Prime Minister John Key has warned his support parties that the money is not there to fund their pet projects.

He says while there are no plans to cut back the whanau ora scheme for delivering social services through Maori providers, an expected boost in spending isn't going to happen either.

“There are no proposals to trim back whanau ora. The question is just how much more money goes into the programme. I think as a starting off programme it is doing well. There is a great concept behind it and Tariana is working very hard on it,” Mr Key says.

So Whanau Ora will face neither an increase in funding nor a decrease. Fair enough. However, I cannot help but feel this is an empty assurance. Fiscal pressures are mounting and the government is responding with cuts, cuts and more cuts. One would have thought, given the nature of Whanau Ora, that it would be one of the first projects in line for cuts.

Whanau Ora is, as far as I am aware, untested – beyond one or two local pilots that is. The scheme does not enjoy wide spread political support. The public is generally suspicious, yet largely accepting of the fact that a new approach is necessary, and there is no external pressure for change. Lastly, but most importantly, Whanau Ora is the pet project of a dispensable coalition partner.

Given the above, it is fair to assume that the Nat’s will, or at least can, cut the Whanau Ora budget without consequence. So what is stopping them? The prospect of a second term.

At the moment the Maori Party is expendable. However, after the election the Maori Party will probably hold the casting vote (assuming Rodney falls). The Prime Minister realises that he needs to keep the Maori Party on side if he is to have any chance of forming a government post-election and savaging the Whanau Ora budget would decrease his chances of doing so. Interfering with your long term coalition partner’s showpiece policy is beyond dumb. The Nat’s are a lot of things, but not, politically speaking, dumb.  

What sparked this post is the apparent “rumour” that the Whanau Ora budget is up for the chop. From Waatea News:

rumours that funding for the new service delivery model could be cut by as much as $70 million are causing alarm.

Read this with caution. It has come from Malcolm Mulholland, an advisor to Hone Harawira. Keep in mind that it suits Hone to have such a destabilising rumour in the public domain. But also keep in mind that it is entirely plausible given the reasons I outlined in my third paragraph. 

I, personally, am in favour of Whanau Ora. The scheme is practical and necessary. It is universally accepted that New Zealand needs a new model, the question is whether or not Whanau Ora is the right model. It would be a tragedy if the government decided to cut funding – the scheme was under funded in the first place. Ultimately, everything is up for review. But is Whanau Ora really, for want of a better term, superfluous? I don’t think it is.  

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.  

Nanaia joins the revolt

Nanaia Mahuta has come out against Goff. From Waatea News:

Another of Labour's Maori MPs has broken ranks with leader Phil Goff over working with former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira.

Waikato-Hauraki MP Nanaia Mahuta says Mr Harawira has taken similar positions to Labour on issues such as the 90-day bill, raising the minimum wage, and greater protection for employee rights.

“But the real proof is what happens after election 2011 and I’ve been in politics long enough to know that the wind blows both ways and you can’t rule anyone in and out before that day. That’s the day that matters,” she says.

Ms Mahuta has confirmed she will stand again this year, despite stepping back in Labour's rankings for health and family reasons.

Goff needs to get on top of this – there is clearly a huge amount of dissatisfaction among the Maori caucus. As I blogged a few days, Parekura has already come out against Goff. This means Labour’s most senior Maori MP’s have openly defied the leadership and reneged on the accepted party position. This is nothing but sloppy political management on Goff’s part.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of Nanaia’s statement was confirmation that she will stand again this year. This will disappoint the Maori Party. Although Nanaia’s grasp may be more tenuous than previously thought. Make no mistake, Nanaia is an extremely dedicated electorate MP and a well connected and respected member of Tainui, but nothing lasts forever. Fatigue may begin to settle in and a good candidate may, keyword may, clinch an upset. Nanaia can run on her record as an electorate MP (bar her record on the foreshore and seabed) and cruise to victory. So often though there is no correlation between performance and re-election. Success is often a combination of incumbency, personality, reach and circumstance. More often than not ones chances of re-election are situational. Is the public generally favourable towards my/my party’s brand? Does society currently value what I espouse etc… 

Ultimately, I am picking Nanaia will retain her seat based partly on name recognition and partly on the perception that she is a dedicated electorate MP. This time around her connections to the Kingitanga may prove to be a black mark against her given the trouble surrounding the Kingitanga. It is almost certain that Nanaia will not be re-elected on the basis of her involvement on the national scene. She is silent on most if not all issues affecting Maori. I haven’t seen anything from her since I started blogging some three or four months ago. To be fair her focus is her family and good on her for that. 

In any case she will probably win given the state the Maori Party is in. In 2008 the Maori Party brand was at its apex and the party ran incredibly aggressive campaigns in all of the Maori electorates. Even then they could not unseat Nanaia who was, following the seabed and foreshore controversy, exceedingly stained. If politics is indeed situational, and if Nanaia cannot be unseated in the most unsympathetic situation for Labour, then I am not sure she will be unseated this time around. The tide is turning against the Maori Party.    

The case for Maori representation in local government

From Waatea News:

The Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres says all local governments need dedicated Maori seats.

That's one of the main recommendations in the commissioner's annual report to parliament on the state of race relations.

He says the seats are needed to tackle the institutional discrimination against Maori that is still rife throughout the country.

“I'm not that confident many of them will because they will either use that stuff, as they have before, about ‘no privilege’, but actually the Maori seats are provided for in legislation, they work really well in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council,” Mr de Bres says.

The creation of Maori seats would also help address the concerns of the United Nations which wants the government to include Maori more in decision-making at all levels.

I couldn’t agree more. I have blogged previously on the issue of Maori in local government. Rather than paraphrase what I have already written I will reproduce the relevant parts here:

Politics in LG differs significantly from the style of politics practised on the national stage. LG is characterised by political consensus as opposed to political conflict. This is primarily due the absence of party politics which is often viewed as unnecessarily divisive. Essentially the political independence of representatives in LG allows for a non-partisan approach to issues facing the community. This gives rise to a predisposition for pragmatism in preference to ideology. So far so good, right?

The make up of LG should be a concern for Maori and proponents of diversity. The make up of LG largely determines whose interests will be served. Currently, LG is dominated by land owners and business owners who are overwhelmingly white, middle class and male; arguably as ratepayers they could be seen as having the most tangible interest in LG, however more often than not their interests dominate council priorities at the expense of the rest of the community. With this sort of makeup in LG there is a greater focus on material projects such as sewerage systems and roads whilst a reduced focus on the provision of amenities such as parks and pensioner housing. For example, consensus is more likely to come about on issues such as rates rebates for business owners whereas consensus on issues such as pensioner housing will be a lot harder to reach given the makeup and interests of council. This is where consensus politics fails in my opinion. Without diversity of opinion and perspective, a one eyed approach if you will, consensus will only be reached on issues that are within the understanding and interests of the decision makers. Consensus politics also makes it hard to identify who is responsible for certain policies. Therefore, voters find it difficult to punish or reward candidates. This translates to poor electoral accountability in my opinion.

So how does consensus politics affect Maori? Often LG fails to adequately address Maori issues and take into account Maori views. This failure is often masked by consensus politics and the lack of large scale controversies that would follow such behaviour if it occurred on the national stage. Councillors can easily dismiss Maori issues and views on the basis that a consensus has been reached and no controversy will ensure because, usually, the only media taking note is the local newspaper.

Often the views of LG are informed through the prevailing beliefs of the community. Perhaps this is largely good for the community but I do not think it is good for Maori. Many communities are rather unsympathetic towards Maori concerns and views. Their understanding of Maori issues is largely informed by their, and I do not mean this harshly, narrow worldview. Sadly, Maori issues are not approached with any great insight or perception and councillors usually reflect this superficial understanding. Furthermore, unlike an electorate M.P, LG politicians usually only interact, in a political capacity, with like minded people, for example their church group. Therefore, their political judgements are informed by people with similar beliefs and backgrounds. This is not conducive to representative government.

Maori are continually excluded from local government and this exclusion is the chief cause of voter apathy. The representation of only a certain section of the community is undesirable. This problem could be addressed through the creation of Maori seats in LG. Maori seats give effect to the Crowns treaty obligation to act in partnership with tangata whenua and acknowledges their special status and role as kaitiaki. Maori seats also ensure diversity of viewpoints in LG. However, I am not in favour of Maori seats on all Councils – I favour having Maori seats only on regional councils and the Auckland supercity. The model pioneered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has been a success and should be emulated.

I should probably add that I now believe that Maori seats should be included on all councils – not just the Auckland Council and regional councils.   

They really don't like each other

The degree of animosity between Hone Harawira and his former colleagues is not surprising. Of particular interest is this quote from Hone:

 “Parliamentary Services came across yesterday to tell my executive assistant he’d been approached by the party leadership who said no, he’s not going to have that office, we want him completely out of the way so it was their decision, not Parliamentary services,” Mr Harawira says.

This is interesting. If this allegation is true then it clearly demonstrates the depth of resentment between Hone and the leadership of the Maori Party. It was well known that the two sides have had a fractured relationship well before the SST column and resulting controversy. But who could have imagined that in less than three years the party would splinter and the two remaining sides are left playing dirty politics amongst themselves. As a further illustration of how bad things have got consider this from Waatea News:

(Hone) is pleased with the support he has received from Labour and the Greens, and the only four people in the country he does not get on with are Maori party president Pem Bird and MPs Pita Sharples, Tariana Turia and Te Ururoa Flavell.

Ouch. Funny how Pem Bird is implicated. This shows that the parliamentary wing was working in cohort with the institutional wing of the party. Clearly Pem Bird holds no reservations in terms of giving effect to National Party directives i.e. to remove Hone.

Of course Hone is not the only one throwing around some mud. From Waatea News:

Party co-leader Tariana Turia has labelled the Tai Tokerau MP an embarrassment for missing the second reading vote on the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.

An embarrassment to who? Admittedly it was a bad look for Hone but ultimately his absence was inconsequential.

The rift between Hone and the Maori Party is probably deeper than many of us know. We can speculate as to what went wrong and when. Who was involved and so on. But this is probably counter-productive. Maori need to look forward. The question is who will take us forward. Hone or the Maori Party. My bet is on the former.

C'mon Tariana

From Waatea News;

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says the party is prepared to live with any electoral fall-out from its wrangles with rebel Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira.

Political commentator Matt McCarten has suggested Mrs Turia and Mr Harawira may be the only two Maori Party MPs left standing after the election, as the row over whether the party is right to support the National government affects support in the wider Maori population.

Mrs Turia says the comments by the former Alliance president should be read in the context that he has been advising Mr Harawira behind the scenes.

“He has a bias and he is showing it. As far as we’re concerned, and we can only guage it by what the electorates are reporting back to us, it is true we will lose some members and it is also true we will gain some members,” she says.

Mrs Turia says the Maori Party leadership is not letting the complaint against Hone Harawira divert its attention from other important work needing to be done.

Firstly, I think Matt is wrong in this instance. Pita is fairly secure in Tamaki Makaurau while Te Ururoa Flavell, although less secure, will prove hard to dislodge. Shane Jones will struggle to pull back Pita's majority in the electorate. I have always thought Pita enjoys more of a personal rather than political following in the electorate, therefore The Maori Party’s political decisions will have a negligible effect on voter behaviour. On the other hand Te Ururoa does not enjoy a personal following rather an iwi following. Te Arawa will vote for their man while some other iwi within the Waiariki electorate, for example Tuhoe and Ngati Awa, casually endorse him. Mita Ririnui has signalled that he will stand down following the election, hopefully Labour stand a credible candidate with the connections and intellect required to really challenge Te Ururoa. Personally, I would like to see Annette Sykes stand (not for Labour though). I have already outlined in a previous post that I think Rino Tirakatene will snatch Te Tai Tonga. Rahui has failed to impress, although she does well as Tariana’s minion. I think Ngai Tahu endorsement is one of the keys to success in Te Tai Tonga. I do not know which way Ngai Tahu is leaning but given their opposition to the MCA bill one could assume favourable feeling towards The Maori Party is limited. I am curious to know what Marty Mars, who is more qualified to speak on Te Tai Tonga issues, thinks.

Secondly, Turia is correct, Matt has been advising Hone and for some I believe. Perhaps this gives credibility to the new left wing party rumours. More than likely it is just Matt offering help to a personal friend. Where Turia errs is in suggesting Matt’s column is spin. That is an overly cynical and politically charged suggestion that I do not even think Turia believes. Reading over the column even the most partisan supporter would admit the column is astute.  

Thirdly, expecting to gain members is wildly optimistic. The Maori Party’s brand is tarnished. The perception that the party is ‘selling-out’ is firmly rooted among Maori and non-Maori too. Reversing that perception will take many months. The word kupapa is often thrown about when discussing The Maori Party. Obviously, there is a depth of negative emotion surrounding the party – who would want to associate with such a party? The party is beginning to resemble electoral poison.

Lastly, Turia speaks of “other important work needing to be done”. Ahhh, and what work is that? Prison privatisation? Asset sales? Weakening work rights (90 day law)? Dumping huge costs on already struggling Maori families (ETS, ACC changes etc)?

Or were you referring to doing something about the Maori unemployment rate? The shocking Maori health statistics? Violence in the Maori community? Child poverty? Maori failing in the education system?

I wonder, but something tells me you had the first list in mind.