Implement Wai262

The Dom Post highlights why the recommendations in the Wai262 report need to be implemented immediately: 

Maori are fighting a flood of cheap, mass-produced “Maori” souvenirs entering New Zealand before the Rugby World Cup, saying the tacky trinkets will leave tourists with a bad impression.

Contemporary Maori artists are banding together to hit out against overseas-made products, which they say mimic Maori tradition despite manufacturers having no links to the culture.

Iwi Art Gallery owner Tia Kirk (my whanaunga might I add) said lack of regulation meant “cheap and inferior” versions were easily available.

“This raises some concern for genuine New Zealand artists and creators of authentic Maori art whose work takes time to create and develop.” However, discerning tourists would easily be able to tell the difference, with real Maori artists using techniques that had evolved with years of training and expertise”, she said.

The WAI262 claim report from the Waitangi Tribunal, issued last month, recommended a commission be set up to hear objections about the use of taonga-derived works on art, with the power to stop commercial use if it was deemed “derogatory or offensive”.

The Waitangi Tribunal recommends the establishment of a commission with the power to regulate the use of Maori art and make decisions surrounding the traditional knowledge that underpins Maori art. According to Carwyn Jones the Tribunal distinguishes between taonga works and taonga derived works. Taonga works have whakapapa (ancestry) and, as a consequence, mauri (life force) and kaitiaki (guardians). Think along the lines of Haka, Waiata and art works. On the other hand taonga derived works possess a Maori element but are generalised, adapted or combined with a non-Maori element. Think along the lines of generic tattoos incorporating koru patterns.

The Tribunal is looking to strike a balance, and a delicate one at that. However, I tend to think the Tribunal is placing too much emphasis on private property rights rather than seeking to properly protect tangata whenua rights to our taonga. I take the view that Maori should have absolute authority over our taonga and matauranga (knowledge). At the end of the day the ability to control imported rip-off Maori art should suffice. Maori should also have the power to regulate domestic supply as well.

If you take a walk around the Rotorua CBD you’ll come across a multitude of cheap, shitty souvenir stores selling fake pounamu and other rip-off Maori art pieces. The same is true of Wellington. There is one store in particular that really pisses me off with the fake items they sell. If you are in Wellington, or plan on visiting, the best place to purchase Maori art is Iwi Art on Tory Street. However, they will be moving to the corner of Willis Street and Manners Street in a few months time.      

The Kingitanga, Wai262 and Mana Policy

The Kingitanga is, supposedly, apolitical; however critics are accusing Kingi Tuheitia of injecting politics into the movement. From Radio New Zealand:

A former head of the Tainui-Waikato Parliament has dismissed suggestions that a meeting between King Tuheitia and the dissident Fiji colonel, Tevita Mara, could politicise the Kingitanga.

The criticism has been raised by people formerly close to the Kingitanga.

But a past chairperson of Te Kauhanganui, Tom Roa, says King Tuheitia met with Ratu Mara out of respect, because the colonel has royal connections.

I agree with Tom Roa. Given Mara’s connections to Fijian royalty – as an aside I didn’t know Fiji maintained a monarchy – Kingi Tuheitia is under an obligation to meet him (Mara). It is customary for the Maori Monarch to meet visiting Royals from the Pacific. The relationship between the Kingitanga and Pacific Royalty is an expression of the relationship between Maori and Pasifika people. Maori are connected to the Pacific through whakapapa and the Kingitanga respects this by maintaining connections with “the royal houses” of the Pacific. Having said that, I do not think Mara, who is under suspicion of torture, deserves an audience with the King. Mara is, to be polite, a sinner who deserves an audience with the Police rather than the Maori King.

----------
 
The Greens are, once again, calling it like it is. From Radio New Zealand:

The Green Party says it's not holding its breath for any genuine Government engagement in response to Wai 262 - the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on Māori culture and identity.

The report says current laws and government policies marginalise Māori and allow others to control key aspects of Māori culture.

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei says she sees little point in her party trying to make the Government do anything, because its response is likely to be fairly weak.

National will not touch Wai262 in an election year. Although the report proved pedestrian, any action taken will open National’s right flank and render the party vulnerable to attacks from the redneck right. It appears New Zealanders are comfortable with National’s approach to Maori and Maori issues, but Maori issues are always explosive and best left untouched in uncertain times. National enjoys a solid grip on the centre and the far right, but as we move closer to the election their grip of those constituencies will loosen. If the Nat’s are perceived to be pandering to Maori they will lose control of the right vote and potentially compromise their stranglehold on the centre. With the deteriorating economy and a resurgent left the Nat’s will play it safe – it would be unwise to inflame the Maori issue. However, the Nat’s may move on Wai262 in an attempt to placate the Maori Party and capture their support post-election. This is a long shot though – John Key already has the Maori Party wrapped around his finger.

----------

The Mana Party have followed through with another policy drop, this time in health, employment, education, cost of living and tax. From what I have read, I’m impressed. Most of the policy is progressive and realistic. I haven’t read all of it nor thoroughly considered all of what I have read, but my first impressions are positive. This is what you would expect though with brilliant minds like Jane Kelsey contributing.

Release of the Wai262 report

Yesterday was a significant day for Maori across the motu (New Zealand). Firstly, Saturday marked the signing of a “relationship agreement” between Tuhoe and the Crown. Treaty Settlement negotiations between the two parties fell apart last year when John Key ruled out the return of Te Urewera National Park and then, quite gratuitously, insulted Tuhoe at a dinner in Ngati Porou. Hopefully the agreement marks the final stages in settlement process for Tuhoe. Secondly, but most significantly, the Waitangi Tribunal released their findings on the Wai262 claim. The report, titled Ko Aotearoa Tenei, deals with a series of potentially explosive issues including the legal nature of tangata whenua relationships with native flora and fauna.

The Wai262 claim was originally lodged in 1991. All but one of the original six claimants have passed on. For a good overview of the history of the claim see this post at Ahi-ka-roa. Today I want to deal with the political ramifications of the report.

Firstly, I must preface my comments and let you know that I have not read the report. I intend to, but then again my intentions do not always translate into action. Give me a break though – the report is massive and doubt that I will have time to even sift through it. Anywho, the Wai262 claim has always been something of a sleeper issue. No one really knew what to expect. Would the claim result in radical recommendations that would challenge the nature of our legal system and challenge the assumptions New Zealanders hold regarding Maori and Maori relationships with their resources and taonga?  Or would Maori, as is usually the case, come out disappointed and the status quo is maintained?

In my opinion, the status quo has been maintained. Of the recommendations I have seen nothing strikes me as innovative or, indeed, effective. The recommendations are certainly sweeping, for example the report calls for action on issues as dissimilar as Maori intellectual property rights and Maori health, yet nothing appears that strong. The report speaks of advisory committees and compulsory consultation, but these are recycled and, in many cases, failed ideas from the 80’s and 90’s. Many Maori, including myself, were hoping for a fundamental shift in the nature of the Maori/Crown relationship and an innovative approach to recognising Maori interests. Advice and consultation are glorious notions and can be effective when the conditions suit and both sides are willing to engage. However, more often than not, Advisory Committees and compulsory consultation relegates Maori to secondary partners. Maori and the Crown, or whoever it may be, never met on equal footing. Advice and consultation is merely a box to be ticked – not a serious step in the process.

Having said that, Maori must realise that the Tribunal is constrained. The Tribunal, and by extension Maori, must work within a Western legal framework. Maori must work for recognition on Pakeha terms, we cannot be recognised on our own terms and seeking to do so does not serve an overarching practical purpose. We cannot expect a system that does not reflect our values or our traditional systems to satisfactorily recognise our rights and interests. The Waitangi Tribunal must also work within the international legal system. The tribunal cannot recommend actions that may offend international legal norms. A good example of Maori rights failing to gain proper, or what we as Maori deem as proper, recognition is the foreshore and seabed. Maori possess mana whenua over the foreshore and seabed and this is recognised by the New Zealand legal system as customary title. Under a Maori system our mana whenua would manifest as complete authority and control over the foreshore and seabed. But under the Western legal framework which Maori operate within mana whenua manifests as rights to perform traditional activities and sometimes rights to control how resources are used. This is unfair, but Maori must also realise that there are competing interests in the foreshore and seabed, as well as other areas where Maori are concerned, and sometimes Maori interests are not dominant.

The Tribunal had 20 years to formulate ideas, policies, mechanisms etc to adequately recognise Maori interests. Of course the Tribunal was, as I have said, constrained. But our legal system allows a fair amount of flexibility. After all Parliament is bound by no one but itself, and even this is debateable, and the Courts are fluid and, for the most part, responsive to social change. The Tribunal did not have to work so unimaginably within existing norms.

Politically speaking, I think the report will fizzle out. We are now witnessing the initial bang, for example Joshua at Maori Law and Politics points out the notorious redneck shedevil Muriel Newman was all over Radio New Zealand spitting anti-Maori venom in every direction, but over time the venom will lose its sting. The report is not, in my opinion at least, radical enough to excite widespread concern among the rest of New Zealand. Don Brash and Winston Peters will do their best to whip up a frenzy, however the conditions a not right. John Key currently leads a wildly popular government with the Maori Party. New Zealanders appear comfortable with the idea of a right wing/Maori government and comfortable with the idea of advancing Maori rights. The best example is probably the signing of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. The UNDRIP was a major and, if you care to read the text, radical step forward in terms of Maori rights. However, New Zealanders were and are comfortable with it. Furthermore, the media treatment of the report is, by my estimate, overall net positive and this will contribute to the public mood.   

The Maori Party and the Mana Party will also make a political football out of the issue. The competition for the tino rangatiratanga vote will largely come down to who can spin the most attractive rhetoric. Hone will almost certainly call for the implementation of all recommendations – he may even rubbish the report as weak. Whereas the Maori Party will probably run the line that they will push for the implementation of the recommendations “at the table”. Both parties have to make the case that they can give better effect to the report. I tend to think the tino rangatiratanga vote will tend towards the harsher rhetoric that Hone adopts. Judging from what I have seen and heard from prominent tino rangatiratanga advocates they are disappointed. Moderate Maori will tend towards the Maori Party rhetoric that stresses result. Although the result may not be all that is hoped for, progress is progress I guess.

Labour’s reaction to the report will be interesting. I have no doubt the Maori Caucus will want to give effect to the report, but the Leaders Office will probably be running scared. Labour will have to pick their position carefully. The party cannot risk scaring off the blue collar redneck vote, while at the same time the party needs to maintain their share of the Maori vote. I guess the compromise position is to welcome the report, but not commit to anything specific.

Once again I have written far more than I intended. For excellent analysis of the report keep your eye on Carwyn Jones at Ahi-ka-roa and Joshua Hitchcock at Maori Law and Politics. These guys are more qualified to speak on the report than I.

Te reo Maori report

A report into the state of te reo Maori was released last week. The report calls for, among other things, funding to be redirected into projects encouraging whanau to speak Maori in the home and a dedicated te reo minister. Pita Sharples has expressed some concern regarding the level of government support the recommendations will receive.

Prima facie, this is a valid concern, however saving the Maori language is not a partisan issue. Most Maori cultural issues are, sadly, wedge issues. But te reo is not - in my opinion at least – the issue enjoys broad public support.

Between now and the election the government must keep Maori onside, especially Maori Party supporters. It is widely accepted that any post election arrangements will involve the Maori Party; therefore the government needs to ensure Maori Party supporters feel comfortable with the idea of a second term National government. To do this the government must build the perception, among Maori only, that the Maori Party is receiving substantial gains rather than casual sops. The government cannot risk offending or alienating the Maori Party parliamentary wing either. There is a problem in been seen to be placating the Maori Party. Firstly, because the party is the Maori, key word Maori, Party. Secondly, any further sops for pet projects or intangible cultural projects could be seen to be inconsistent with the austerity narrative the government is running. Look what happened with the plastic waka for instance. Hopefully, the Maori Party runs hard on this issue. In my eyes any success in this area is a redeeming factor for the Maori Party. Of course it is not wholly redeeming, but a positive step and one I would respect.       

On a side note, Pita Sharples is walking into a minor backlash following accusations that he attempted to gag members of Te Taura Whiri, the Maori Language Commission. Apparently Sharples directed, through a letter to the commission, that he would be the “point man” for the government response to the issue. This is concerning, but somewhat fair. Sharples is the minister and I understand he would want to keep tight control over how the report is presented to the public and the government. However, Te Taura Whiri is an independent statutory body entirely separate from the minister’s office. Sharples has no control over the commission and should not be issuing directives. It is constitutionally offensive. Te Taura Whiri has a right to comment and should, as the Maori language commission, comment. I disagree with some accusations that Sharples gagged the commission - that is an overstatement.

Pita Sharples is not the most effective politician in my opinion. Having said that, he doesn’t need to be. Saving te reo is in the government and the country’s interest.