Parata should think of her mana

Hekia Parata isn’t one to back down, it goes against her instincts. She’d be smart, however, to take a step back and reverse the decision to close Moerewa School. The Ministry and the Minister’s Office are losing the PR battle and Hekia’s mana is diminishing. Parata refused to front Native Affairs on Monday, however she gladly took a less stringent interview on Te Karere that day. Other than that interview, Parata has attempted to keep her hands clean, but she’s taken a battering in the media rather than appearing above the fray.

The previous Education Minister, Anne Tolley, ordered the school to close its senior unit. As a brief aside, the government is, I’m told, merging and closing rural schools as a cost saving measure. For example, in the Eastern Bay of Plenty (pop 50,000) two primary schools have closed, a merger between an intermediate and high school is scheduled and one primary school has become a year 1-13 kura. An anecdote, yes, but instructive nonetheless.

Anywho, the Ministry is citing alarmingly low pass rates as a justification for closing the senior unit. However, given there are less than 20 students spread across three different achievement levels, even one person failing will bring down the percentage significantly. Before audit, the pass rates were 93%, 83%, 100% and 100% at level 1, 2, 3 and university entrance (UE) respectively.This is well above the national average for Maori. After audit, however, the pass rates were 11%, 33%, 33% and 100% at level 1, 2, 3 and UE respectively. Strangely, NZQA awarded the students UE, the requisite standard to enter university, but did not award level 3 meaning those students cannot go to university. This is a perverse situation.

Of those students that failed, they only failed by a small number of credits. Usually, if a student fails an internal assessment, they’re given a chance to redo the standard. However, in this case, the students that have failed will not get that chance, a chance that all other NCEA students get.

The most appropriate course of action would be for the Ministry to work with the school to improve marking and moderation and then give the students a chance to gain the small number of credits they need. At level 1 all of the students gained the requisite 80 credits overall to pass, but failed to gain the required numeracy (maths) credits. This is common across all schools and is usually rectified internally, but again those students aren't getting the chance.Instead, the students are been thrown to the dogs as a result of the Ministry’s excuse, and it’s an excuse, to shut the school.

On Monday the Moerewa senior unit will open its doors for term 2. This move has the support of the local community, the local board, the school staff and the students. Many in the community believe Tolley’s, and now Parata’s, directive is punishment for the schools vocal opposition against National Standards. In a letter instructing the school to close its senior unit, Tolley noted the school’s refusal to implement National Standards. 

When a small problem like the above arises in a school the Ministry, or in this case NZQA, would usually work alongside the school to smooth over the problem. However, this hasn’t happened. In fact, the low pass rates excuse was only dreamed up under Parata only two weeks ago. Last year the Ministry weren’t even citing a coherent excuse to shut the school. Now neither the Ministry, NZQA or the Minister's Office will enter dialogue with Moerewa School and the community.

This decision smacks of a politics, not policy. Parata should do what’s right, and retain what’s left of her mana in the eyes of Maori, and keep the school open.

Here's the link to the Native Affairs interview (episode 06/06)

Pig Brutality (updated)

Prominent protesters are accusing the Police of brutality. The protesters, which include John Minto and Joe Carolan, were protesting the eviction of state house tenants in Glen Innes. Apparently Minto was beaten and female protesters were handled violently with one woman entering a seizure as a result of the Police's heavy hands.  Of course, this is exactly what the Police do with protest, especially the blue nappied babies they recruit for South Auckland. They're desperate for recruits so they, more often than not, recruit brain-dead males fresh from failing to gain university entrance or any meaningful academic qualification. I've always said, you become a cop if you're too dumb to do law and too soft to join the military. For more see this from TW.com and Socialist Aotearoa.  

UPDATE: Hone Harawira will be helping lead the protest tonight.

Native Affairs tonight

I'll be on Native Affairs tonight with Sandra Lee probably. The show starts at 8.30pm on Maori TV.

Best and worst performing Maori MPs

Iv'e finally updated the best and worst performing Maori MPs page. There's no particular order to the list. Simon Bridges and Shane Jones feature in the best performing list, while Labour's Maori Caucus and Pita Sharples feature in the worst performing list. You can see it here

The trouble with a tribal parliament

Interesting news from RNZ:

Some members of the Te Arawa tribe are looking at the possibility of creating a "tribal parliament", says the chairperson of the Rotorua-based Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Toby Curtis.

Initially floated a few years ago, the concept gained momentum at the trust's annual meeting in March, and Mr Curtis says an organisation has been set up to investigate the details of setting up a single tribal body.

And:

Tainui iwi would be willing to help the Te Arawa iwi set up a tribal parliament in the Bay of Plenty, says spokesperson, Rahui Papa.

(Mr Curtis) says the Kauhanganui or the Waikato-Tainui Parliament model appeals to him, because both tribes have similarities.

That’s a worry. Te Kauhanganui (TK) has proved ineffective as a governing body. Te Arataura, the executive committee, has acted (often against the wishes of the majority of the tribe) without restraint from TK. It would be stupid to model a Te Arawa parliament on TK.

The complexity of many iwi structures breeds internal instability. Often there is no clear hierarchy, powers and responsibilities overlap and tribal members are excluded from the day to day running of the tribe’s assets and, quite often, denied the benefits of those assets.

I cautiously, very cautiously, support the idea of tribal parliaments. However, the autonomy of the hapu must be retained. Under the Tainui model Marae and hapu are largely irrelevant in the face of the Tainui superstructure. Te Kauhanganui, Te Arataura, Tainui Group Holdings, the Kingitanga and so on overshadow and diminish the role of the Marae and hapu. Power is centralised and then dispersed among subsidiaries, for example Tainui Group Holdings.

One element of the problem is that specialist legislation is not in place to create suitable iwi structures. Many iwi structures work within the framework of, for example, the Incorporated Societies Act, rather than an act relevant to Maori needs. This is one area where the Maori and Mana parties are very quiet. Labour has made some noises around evaluating post-settlement iwi structures, but has not released any detail.

Racism and Redneckery on the North Shore

Racism, bigotry, redneckery: it’s all on display in Devonport, an upmarket suburb on Auckland’s North Shore. The local residents have their hackles up over a treaty deal that will include a 3.2ha block at Narrow Neck. The block is currently used by the Navy.

Under the settlement, Ngati Whatua will be given the opportunity to purchase the block. Once the land passes into Ngati Whatua's hands, local residents fear the tribe will develop the land. This is unfounded. The Navy will continue to lease the land for the next 15 years at least. With this in mind, the character of the area will not change in the medium term. Put simply, the status quo will remain.

Even if Ngati Whatua refuses to extend the Navy’s lease, district plan rules prevent intensive development. Under the recreation rules in the North Shore District Plan, this plan is still operative in the absence of the Auckland Unitary plan by the way, any development on or adjacent to reserve land is restricted in height, must be compatible with “the character of the reserve”, the “qualities” of the area must be maintained and so on and so on. Effectively, planning rules prevent development that will detract from the purpose and character of the reserve. The resident’s fears of commercial development are unfounded.

Under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMP) the block was to be included in the adjoining reserve when the Navy vacated. However, the Act also stipulates that this is not operative if the land is or becomes subject to a treaty claim. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about selling the land to Ngati Whatua. As it happens, the Herald reveals that the land was subject to a treaty claim interest when the HGMP passed. Discussions over including the land in future treaty settlements begun in 1995 and were referred to in a 1999 court case that led to the creation of the HGMP. The Waitangi Tribunal also flagged the land in their Tamaki Makaurau report and the Herald referred to the possible sale as early as 2006. So, to be fair, the residents can’t argue that the sale of the block has come out of the blue - the land was earmarked for treaty settlement purposes before the HGMP was even formulated.

Access to the adjoining reserve will not and cannot be restricted. Nagti Whatua have publicly assured the residents that access will not be restricted, even though Ngati Whatua can’t restrict access to the reserve. The block is currently closed to the public and does not, even though it is closed, prevent access to the adjoining reserve. The block is only 3.2ha adjoining not blocking, key words not blocking, access to the 11.9ha reserve – access to the 11.9ha remains unaffected by the deal.

The Treaty Negotiations Minister, the excellent Chris Finlayson, has no obligation to consult the residents of Devonport, contrary to their belief. This is a matter between Maori and the Crown – not Maori and the community. Even if there was an obligation, former North Shore MP Wayne Mapp fulfilled that obligation when he briefed the local board last year. However, according to Dr Mapp, the local board failed to, excuse the awful pun, take it on board.

Finally, the government and iwi have secured approval from the Hauraki Gulf Forum. It was the Gulf Forum that secured the areas marine park designation so surely they are the most appropriate group to consult and seek approval from.

Residents, the local board and the Auckland Council are lodging submissions to the Maori Affairs Select Committee. It's shame to see the Auckland Council, most notably Len Brown, buy into the hysteria and misinformation. Only last year the Mayor delivered a "warm" speech and waiata at the signing of the deed of settlement.

There are a host of misconceptions surrounding the settlement – most driven by the bigoted residents and the filthy local rag. What underlies objections to land transfers, or in this case land purchases, is racism. Many New Zealanders have an unfounded fear that Maori will restrict access, develop the land in ways that will negatively affect the community and so on. I’d challenge anyone who operates under this mind set to point to more than one example where Maori have blocked access to previously public land, urupa (cemeteries) and other waahi tapu (sacred) sites excluded. Restricting access runs contrary to Maori values. After all, there is no such thing as private property in Te Ao Maori.

The racist residents should keep in mind how Maori suffered significant losses. As one example, shortly after the Treaty was signed the Crown bought 3000 acres of what is now downtown Auckland for 281 pounds. Within six months, it had on-sold 90 acres of that land for 24,500 pounds.

(For a level head see this report from Native Affair's Semiramus Holland). 

Kawerau, Tuhoe, the relativity clause and Te Arataura

I’m back to semi-regular blogging this week. I’ve had a few things on my plate that have pushed blogging back. Anyway, here are my thoughts on a few things I’ve missed.

----------

Ths Sunday Star Times (SST) has crowned Kawerau the beneficiary capital of New Zealand. Of the 6940 residents, 1324 are on a benefit. In other words, an unhealthy 19% of the town receive a benefit. In 2010 Simon Collins christened Kawerau the DPB capital of New Zealand.

Unfortunately, the SST quoted Mayor Malcolm Campbell. Any decent Mayor would acknowledge the problems the town faces and formulate solutions, but not Mayor Malcolm Campbell. Instead, Campbell offered an excuse and then a falsehood. Firstly, he claimed that beneficiaries are “staying put” which seems to imply he thinks that numbers are artificially high. The problem has nothing to do with the inflow and outflow of beneficiaries, the problem is intergenerational unemployment and, who would think, a lack of jobs.

The Mayor continued claiming that there is “huge employment here”. This is, at best, a half-truth. The main employer is the Kawerau Mill, and the Mayor is right in saying most mill employees live outside of Kawerau. However, the number of jobs at the mill continues to fall (a trend that begun in the 80’s) and the jobs that do exist are skilled. There are few job openings as most mill workers tend to stay put, sometimes for decades. Put simply, there aren’t any jobs due. The forestry industry, probably the second largest employer in the town, is in decline as well.

The Mayor’s solution is to create an “exclusion zone”. In other words, the Mayor would like MSD to prevent beneficiaries from moving to Kawerau. I oppose this idea in principle. However, brushing aside principle, for public policy reasons it’s a sensible idea. I understand that the Mayor probably doesn’t want to increase the rate of ghettoisation of the town. Nevertheless, rather than invent ways to keep beneficiaries out, the Mayor should focus on inventing ways to get beneficiaries into jobs.

----------

Tuhoe is Te Urewera, Te Urewera is Tuhoe: Tamiti Kruger, the tribes lead negotiator, is confident Tuhoe and the Crown can finalise a settlement package that includes the ownership, or worst case scenario management, over the Ureweras. Inclusion of the Ureweras is the only acceptable outcome for the tribe.

The point I want to make, however, is that the Urewera issue is, for want of a better term, a secondary one. Some form of self-governance, kawangatanga if you will, is the issue with the most significant consequences.

I’m in favour of transferring local government functions and powers to the iwi. Think the Urewera District Council. The Council would come under the Local Government Act. The iwi could also run their own charter schools. Over time more functions and power could be devolved.

The chances of the Crown creating an Urewera District Council, or a similar body, are moderate. Political push back from the National Party’s supporters would, I imagine, be significant (“first step on the slippery slope to separatism blah blah blah”). However, it makes sense to separate the Urewera region from the Whakatane District Council (WDC).

The Urewera region is a separate and disparate community of interest. Whakatane and the Urewera region share very little in common – not even tribal links (Whakatane is Ngati Awa and the Ureweras is Tuhoe). Whakatane and Ohope, the major centres in the district, are largely Pakeha and urban. The Ureweras are largely Maori and rural. Whakatane and Ohope are concentrated whereas the Urewera region is dispersed. Given this difference in character, most notably the fact that Whakatane is Pakeha and the Ureweras is Maori, the Council ignores the Urewera region. For example, roads and sewerage systems are not adequately maintained, there is no rubbish collection and library services and other social services are non-existent.

The case for creating a Council is, I think, strong. After all, the Urewera region is wholly disconnected in terms of location, character and need to the Whakatane region. For those of you that know the area, you only need to compare Ohope and Taneatua to get the picture.

The consequences for Maori will, I think, be minor. Tuhoe is in a unique position. There is a precedent for self-governing arrangements and, arguably, Tuhoe have enjoyed unbroken rangatiratanga over their lands.

Self-governance arrangements could not be extended to, for example, Nga Puhi without significant push-back from non-Maori New Zealanders. New Zealanders really do fear “separatism” and many naively want for us all to be “one people”.

Tuhoe and the Crown have given themselves until the end of the year to flesh out an agreement.

----------

The Herald has caught up with the relativity clause story with Yvonne Tahana running two pieces.

In a sense, the relativity clause plays against New Zealander’s sense of fairness, our famed egalitarianism in other words. The relativity clause looks like double dipping, no doubt about that, but it’s merely a mechanism to ensure Tainui and Ngai Tahu maintain their position relative to other iwi. The two tribes took a gamble when they settled early and the relativity clause was a means of inducing early settlement and ensuring that, should future settlements prove more fruitful, that Tainui and Ngai Tahu are kept on equal footing.

Of the parties in Parliament, Act and New Zealand First are the only parties in a position to make hay out of the issue. National cannot attack the deal, after all the clause will be triggered under their watch and it was the previous National government that negotiated the clause. For credibility’s sake, their hands are tied. Some in Labour will be tempted to attack the clause, but the party’s Maori caucus wouldn’t stand for it. The Greens know better and would not want to be seen to be opposed to treaty settlements.

----------

Tuku Morgan has decided against seeking re-election to Te Arataura. Although Tuku secured a co-management deal over the Waikato river and presided over Tainui's rise to the position of 'richest' iwi, he also presided over a period of internal instability, profligacy and a decrease in the distribution of benefits to tribal members. Tom Roa, former chair of Te Kauhanganui, and Hemi Rau, who Tuku fired in 2010, are the chair and deputy chair respectively. Both, I believe, bring valuable experience in tribal politics and management.

----------

Joshua Hitchcock has floated the idea of an independent Maori Policy Unit. A sort of Maori law commission. I’m in favour and would love to contribute. Over the next week I’ll be giving the idea some thought, you can do so too. Here’s the link to Joshua’s post on the topic where he invites public discussion.

Takamore case appealed to the Supreme Court

From the Herald:

The Supreme Court will decide who has the final say on where the body of a man whose family stole his body and took it to his ancestral home should be buried. 

James Takamore was 55 when he died suddenly of an aneurism in 2007.
He was originally from Taneatua, in Bay of Plenty, but moved to Christchurch with partner Denise Clarke 20 years before his death. The couple had two children. 

Mr Takamore had specified in his will, of which Ms Clarke was executor, that he wanted to be buried but did not say where. 

Despite him returning to the North Island only twice in 20 years, his family decided he should be buried on the family marae, in accordance with Tuhoe custom.
However, Miss Clarke had intended him to be buried in Christchurch. 

In 2009 the High Court ruled that the Takamore family had taken the body unlawfully and that Miss Clarke was entitled to make the final decision on where he should be buried. 

However, Mr Takamore's sister, Josephine Takamore, went to the Court of Appeal and argued that the burial of a Maori was governed by tikanga (customary practices), and that taking Mr Takamore's body was in accordance with Tuhoe burial custom. 

After a four-year struggle, the Court of Appeal last November released its decision, siding with Miss Clarke and ordering the matter back to the high court "to deal with the question of remedy''.

I've been meaning to comment on the awful decision from the Court of Appeal, but I've never got the time. I hope to comment on the case in the next week. In short, the decision shows little judicial imagination combined with bucket loads of disrespect for tikanga Maori. Don't, however, rejoice that the appeal to the Supreme Court has succeeded. The current bench, with the exception of the Chief Justice Elias, is equally hostile to tikanaga Maori. Anyway, expect comments here some time next week.

Relativity clause to trigger

Hamish McNeilly reports:

After years of speculation, the Government and Ngai Tahu have confirmed a Treaty of Waitangi top-up clause is set to trigger, potentially pumping millions into the beleaguered South Island economy.

Both Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui negotiated "insurance clauses" as part of their original settlements, entitling each iwi to a percentage of all future Treaty settlements once they exceeded $1 billion in 1994 dollar terms.

For the first time, the Government has acknowledged that amount could be reached this year, which would entitle Ngai Tahu to 16.1% and Waikato-Tainui 17% of all future Treaty settlements.

If one or more of the larger iwi settle this year, think Tuhoe and Ngati Tuwharetoa, the relativity clause will almost certainly be triggered. The relativity clause ensures Ngai Tahu and Tainui maintain their position relative to other iwi. It’s, as termed above, an insurance clause.

Under the principles of the Treaty, the Crown is obligated to preserve tribal relations. In practice this means the Crown should not give an unfair advantage to one or more iwi, hence the relativity clause. The clause ensures Ngai Tahu and Tainui remain at the top of the pecking order – at least until Tuhoe and Nga Puhi settle.

I’m surprised this story’s failed to gain more traction. When the clause is invoked, the consequences will be considerable. Many New Zealanders will resent the fact that some iwi can double dip, some tribes may resent this as well and the National government won’t want to this to stick to them. After all, it was the previous National government that negotiated the clause.

Ngai Tahu and Tainui will welcome the money – as anyone would. This is especially so given Ngai Tahu’s investment in the Christchurch rebuild and Tainui’s increased play for strategic assets.

The Urewera failure

So the Urewera verdict is in and it’s a fizzer. The case, triggered by the 2007 terror raids, has come to an anticlimactic end with the jury finding the remaining defendants guilty on some firearms charges – which were largely minor – and failing to reach a verdict on whether or not the four were part of an organised criminal group. An organised criminal group is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective(s) obtaining material benefit from the commission of crime(s) punishable by four years or more. This charge, the supposedly serious charge, is so far removed from what the Police and the government of the day were alleging in 2007.

Casting our minds back to 2007, the Police were claiming that they foiled a paramilitary plot and hijacked plans to, among others things, assassinate the Prime Minister. Terrorism charges were laid, but the Solicitor-General decided that terrorism charges would not hold. The Police and Crown Law, however, charged ahead. Failure after failure followed and charges against the majority of the defendants proved unsustainable and, as we know, the only serious charge the Police and Crown Law had against the remaining defendants resulted in a hung jury. Whatever way you look at it, this is an epic defeat for the Crown. Thousands of man hours, millions of dollars and the might of the New Zealand Government could not bring down a bunch of pohara Maori and Pakeha activists. Tame Iti is now further entrenched in Maori mythology and rightly so.

The government and the Police owe Tuhoe an apology. Ruatoki was attacked, and I deliberately use the word attacked, as school buses were searched by armed police, kaumatua and kuia were illegally detained, men and women were man handled and mistreated all for a few firearm charges. Charges that are so remote from what the Police were alleging. It’s a sorry affair.

Finally, I think the Maori Party must be acknowledged for the work they did in the wake of the raids and what they continue to do. Pita Sharples was right, at least in respect of Tuhoe, when he said the raids set race relations back 100 years.