Desperate Times, Desperate Measures

Recent comments from Hone Harawira allege that the Māori Party Executive “told” their Te Tai Tokerau (TTT) candidate, Te Hira Paenga to stand down in a strategy to direct votes toward the Labour Party’s Kelvin Davis, to reduce the chances of Harawira winning the TTT seat providing a lifeboat to their Internet Party counterparts.

Harawira claims he’d had advice that:

“…the Maori Party National Executive had already made the decision, even though it had been opposed by their Tai Tokerau committee”

However, Paenga released a statement reiterating:

“Some commentators have suggested that I should step down or endorse the Labour candidate in an attempt to stop the Internet Party riding on the back of the Mana candidate….Irrespective of all of the speculation that has been circulating, I have no intention of stepping aside and I call upon all Māori party supporters to stay true to the kaupapa and to give me two ticks in Te Tai Tokerau. Only the Māori Party can guarantee Te Tai Tokerau a seat at the table”

Many commentators in fact did suggest that the Māori Party consider tactical voting in TTT and so it does not seem unusual that the conversation was had. Recalling earlier in the election those of the InternetMANA branch urged Labour to stand down Davis which was derided when agreement was not forthcoming. Additionally, in previous elections, Harawira has always run the narrative that the Māori Party stand candidates specifically to hurt his chances, while this year he is claiming they are attempting to do the opposite. It seems foregone that whether or not the Māori Party stand a candidate, that it’s always to inconvenience Harawira personally.  So this year, Harawira;s claim seems to be that no-one should stand against him. However, that is really undemocratic.

Heeni Brown for Te Kaea reported that:

“Things are blowing up in the Māori Party between its executive council and the family of Pita Sharples, namely his son, Te Hira Paenga, who is running in the Te Tai Tokerau seat.

Te Hira Paenga has confirmed that the executive has asked him to stand down in order to give his support to Kelvin Davis, but Paenga refuses to concede”

Brown clarifying on Twitter that:

“just to reaffirm @TeHiraPaenga says it was discussed with no pressure and he, his whanau & committee had the last say”

Given the controversy over this issue, Co-Leaders Tariana Tura and Te Ururoa Flavell have also issued a statement.

In my opinion, there are three possible motivations for Harawira running with this non-event:

  1. To avoid accountability if he loses the seat
  2. To attract the sympathy vote
  3. To end the Māori Party

On point 1, there is a very real chance that Harawira will not hold on to his seat. Davis and Harawira were very close in the polls even if there is some dispute as to the accuracy given the timing and poll methodology. However, both Paenga and Davis have indicated that those they have spoken to in TTT are uncomfortable with the idea of the Internet Party being given a lifeboat through a Māori seat and similar results were reflected in the poll carried out by Reid Research for Māori TV.  The point is, if Harawira can deflect blame pre-election, then he doesn’t have to take accountability if he loses the seat to Davis, instead he will hang his loss on the Māori Party rather than his own decision to (as many argue) misuse to the seat.

On point 2, this is a classic political strategy – build up a picture that all parties are against him in an attempt to assume the position of the underdog. However, this is straight up political posturing. No party or candidate is campaigning against Hone Harawira for personal reasons despite this appearing to be the message Harawira is attempting to entrench. Notwithstanding the policy differences, all TTT candidates are standing and campaigning for the same reasons as Harawira – to represent TTT. The key difference between Harawira and all the other TTT candidates is that he is the only candidate that is comfortable using their electorate seat as a lifeboat for the Kim Dotcom funded Internet Party.

On point 3, MANA has endorsed a tactical voting guide that essentially proposes to kill off the Māori Party. Recently on Native Affairs, Kereama Pene, MANA’s Tamaki Makaurau candidate, stated specifically that his sole purpose for standing was to take votes from the Māori Party’s Rangi McLean to ensure that Peeni Henare wins the seat. Additionally, over the past two weeks Annette Sykes, John Minto, and Hone Harawira have all published press releases that attack the Maori Party, lighting fires on rumour, conjecture, and blatant lies. So it’s difficult to see how Harawira’s final campaign pitches aren’t aimed at attempting to terminate the Māori Party.

In sum, like all electorates Te Tai Tokerau does have a big decision to make this election, the difference for TTT voters, is that they are also deciding if they want to see the Internet Party enter Parliament through their vote, and for this reason I think Davis will win this seat if only marginally ahead of Harawira, having been given endorsements from outside parties including NZ First and the National Party. The Māori Party have not endorsed Davis as Harawira suggests, they have endorsed their own candidate Te Hira Paenga.

Delegitimising Māori Protest

Yesterday (Sunday 14 September) during an appearance in Manukau, David Cunliffe was confronted by a protester upset at Labour ruling out both the Māori Party and the MANA Movement as part of any government Labour would form post-election if the left bloc are in such a position to form the next government.  But before addressing that event, it’s important to lay down the context.

The previous day (Saturday 13 September) on The Nation, Cunliffe had also made the dubious assertion that the Labour Party were “the Māori party”.

Early in the interview Cunliffe states “We are running on a Vote Positive Campaign” then later proceeds to claim “a vote of the Māori Party is a vote for National” thereby delegitimising the only independent Māori party in Parliament. He followed his comment up by further asserting that “Labour IS THE MAORI party” because Labour have 14 Māori candidates, the Treaty partnership at their hearts, and the aspirations of Māoridom carrying in their cloak – that is the Māori party – the Labour Party.

Edit: I was just advised that there are 18 Māori candidates, 4 of whom are not on the list. I’d have expected Cunliffe to have noted this in his interview.

[Note: This is not a criticism of  Labour's Māori caucus, but is a criticism of their Leader - David Cunliffe]

It seems Cunliffe selectively forgot that the Māori Party has 26 Māori candidates (2 are electorate only by their choice) while  MANA has 6 in their top 10 although, this is diluted in the alliance with the Internet Party which provides InternetMANA only 3 Māori candidates in their top 10. Cunliffe has 1 Māori candidate in his top 10 and only 5 in his top 20.

He also seems to have forgotten that during the last Labour led government, Labour refused to sign up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, Labour instigated illegal surveillance on many Māori culminating in the Ruatoki raids in which an entire Tuhoe community was shut down, detained and many arrested under the pretext of ‘terrorism’ because brown activism. And prior to that had ignored the advice of the UN, the NZ Courts, Māori and its own Māori caucus and confiscated the Foreshore and Seabed. Cunliffe may try to distance himself from these, but he was part of that government as were many in his top 10 including his number 4 Annette King who authorised the Ruatoki raids.

Yet the Māori Party and MANA Movement have both remained open to working with Labour despite their poor record with Māori. Because both parties are committed to giving Māori a strong voice in Parliament that are not subordinated to the behemoth that is the Labour Party.

So when a rangatahi Māori Party supporter, Te Rata Hikairo challenges the Labour leader over his dubious comments about Māori politics and Cunliffe implies he has mental health issues, it’s difficult to believe that Cunliffe has any interest in the greater aspirations of Māori.

Hikairo created a short video and in it he explains that while he thinks he could have approached the situation differently, he was overcome by the wairua of his tipuna.

Although there was diverse feedback in the Māori Party supporter network, where some felt discomfort with Hikairo’s actions arguing a more considered approach would have been the best way forward as his actions could easily have been construed as negative, I am personally of the view, that Hikairo demonstrated that the activist heart of the Māori Party still beats strong for the kaupapa. His actions illuminated Cunliffe’s ignorance through his ill-considered response that firstly, he couldn’t tell the difference between a challenge and a powhiri and secondly, intimated that Hikairo was mentally unwell for not appeasing Cunliffe’s sensitivities.

There is most definitely a time and a place for appeasement, but when a Pakeha political elitist attempts to sink two Māori movements that he cannot have any control over, appeasement is not the way to have our voices heard. Cunliffe should not presume Māori are in his corner especially if he is going to attempt to delegitimise dissent in the manner he asserted while simultaneously claiming to lead the Māori party.

I wrote previously on Everyday Microaggressions. Cunliffe’s responses were typical examples of the microaggressions that Māori are subjected to in our everyday. Our experiences are minimised, or delegitimised if they don;t serve the interests of the dominant majority – irrespective of the left/right spectrum.

It is upsetting that the ignorance of Cunliffe’s comments have gone largely unchallenged by those who openly identify as left wing and who are often at the forefront of speaking out against everyday racism. I’d just be mindful, that Māori will remember those who were silent. If Cunliffe is comfortable simply writing off a legitimate challenge as a mentally unwell Māori he clearly does not have Māori interests at heart. He has his own interests at heart and is in my view,  exploiting Labour’s Māori caucus and Māori voters for his own ends. Furthermore, you are not running a ‘positive’ campaign if your response to a Māori protester is that the condition of his mind is questionable.  Ugh.

 

 

 

 

Imposing a rest period on MP’s?

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed discussion regarding the experience of parliamentarians and whether career politicians can actually or perhaps perpetually connect with the people they purport to represent.

In my view, when a politician sits in parliament on a six figure salary for decades, I’m not convinced we can say they can understand the experiences of their constituents, and in that case, I wonder if they are  in a position to develop policy that meaningfully addresses the issues that matter to us – the People.

One way of addressing this, might be to consider limiting how long an MP can serve in successive terms (e.g. 2-3 terms in other words 6-9 years), and then imposing a whakatā (rest period) on their candidacy for at least one full term (3 years).

My view is that in imposing a rest period creates a separation between people (MP’s) and (political) power so that our politicians never lose sight of the power they have as politicians over people.

I suspect those who have served or want to serve as MP’s may oppose such limitations, and also others may say it’s anti-democratic because it removes the ability of the community to continue to support the candidate they believe through the testament of time to best represent their community.  That is a criticism that would need to be further explored, but in my opinion, if we are going to have a representative democracy, then there should be mechanisms that facilitate greater representation and reflects the diversity of our country, rather than the status quo endorsing duopoly (Labour v National) that largely hinders this process.

Arguably, a parliamentary term whakatā may improve democracy because (i) it might increase local engagement if the seat is no longer betrothed to a particular candidate, (ii) it might increase competition between candidates and therefore, providing better representation of the community issues, and (iii) it may remove the barriers to other parties obtaining recognition in a particular community, so that people are voting on the choices available and not simply according to traditional preferences of the particular electorates.

I’m not sure how this would work in practice, but I do think it would be an interesting area to explore.

The struggle from a position of privilege

I’ll be straight up here – I have never really taken to David Cunliffe. I’ve tried to give it time and to clear the noise when listening to him speak. In reflecting on the speech he gave at women’s refuge, it’s not that I don’t think what he said was important, rather that I don’t believe that he believed what he was saying.

After watching both the TVNZ and TV3 Leaders debates, I’m even more irritated by him and his too often cringeworthy deliveries.

When I think about Cunliffe, the words fake, disingenuous and melodramatic come to mind. However, this should not be construed to think I prefer John Key – I most certainly do not. I have preferences for neither and am appalled our two candidates in a position likely to lead the country for the next 3 years are wealthy white dudes. I am stunned that the Greens aren’t ploughing further ahead in the polls, although I am optimistic that their time to lead the opposition is coming soon (within the next 2 possibly 3 elections is my unscientific reckon).

My personal views on Cunliffe come down to this:

Cunliffe appears to awkwardly try and channel the spirit of some of the greatest political figures in history. He tries to push forward a vision, ‘a dream’ grounded in experiences he couldn’t possibly understand – the experiences of marginalised and minority communities. He acts like some kind of white Jesus that is going to save us from the scourge of capitalism and is the fountain of hope for all New Zealand. He imitates pounding his fist on a lectern, raises his voice in faux fury, furrow’s his brow at calculated moments in an attempt to appear as an authentic voice of the growing ‘underclass’, the working poor, the marginalised, and the minorities.

But no matter how much Cunliffe wants to convey he has a vision for our country, he can never embody the passion that comes from the struggle of those who have fought oppression because he is oppression. He is a wealthy white dude with the experiences that white privilege afforded to him.

And I don’t say that to be mean. It’s not a dig at wealthy white men either, it’s a statement that wealthy white men cannot recreate an atmosphere, nor lead the kind of political movement that mobilised hundreds of thousands of oppressed people (in different times, and in different places) to fight the powers that controlled them. It is inauthentic and one of the key reasons, in my view, that Labour are doing so poorly in the polls. The idea of ‘Change the Government’ has never resonated with me, because as I’ve previously written it conveys nothing more to me than the transfer of power from one wealthy white dude to another, which doesn’t really sound like much of a change of anything.

The idea of leading a struggle from the position of privilege is probably responsible for the drop in InternetMANA poll results too. A faux energy expires much quicker than a real struggle. I am not talking about the MANA Movement here, I am specifically referring to Dotcom and his Internet Party. Dotocm was able to conjure up a lot of hype on the back of his struggle against extradition to the US and the abuse of State power with respect to the surveillance and raid of his mansion. But when people returned to the reality of their own lives, struggling to put food on the table or in lunchboxes, to pay the rent or mortgage, to fix the car, or to pay for school activities while Dotcom pumped $3million into a political party, paying candidates six figure salaries, holidaying in luxury hotels and arriving to meetings by helicopter, it’s no wonder the energy dissipated as the hype subsided. He’ll get a little boost again over the weekend in the lead up to and in the aftermath of his reveal, but I doubt it will be a significant boost.

In summary, Cunliffe’s appeal to emotion is not too dissimilar to Dotcom’s approach in the sense that both are leading struggles from positions of privilege. It doesn’t feel authentic, and as such the energy is short lived. It’s not that John Key is performing well on any account. It is that Key does not hide that he is a slippery managerialist who values profit over people, the fact is, a significant proportion of New Zealander’s think this about all politicians and advance Key (a level of) credit for not pretending he is anything else.

The Long Development of Harawira’s Feed the Kids Bill

Hone Harawira’s absence of late spawned a lot speculation about the alleged disintegrating relationship between the Internet Party and MANA Movement, an allegation both Leaders of both parties deny.

Various explanations were given as to Harawira’s noticeable absence from media, such as, ‘he has taken a week pre-planned leave’, ‘he is recovering following his car accident’, and ‘he’s taken a few days to spend with whānau’. And while claims he was on leave were made, Harawira soon fronted and refuted claims rival Kelvin Davis has made that he’d been missing in action from Te Tai Tokerau meetings, instead alleging it was Davis who was not at meetings where Harawira was attending.  Critical comments from Georgina Beyer alleging Dotcom was pulling the strings didn’t help allay the speculation about the relationship rift either.

Then last night, TV3 News reported that leaked emails showed a rupturing relationship between the alliance partners with Harawira asserting:

“Why am I seeing all this shit about WEED and so f****n little about FEED as in FEED THE KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!”

If anything the email shows that Harawira is well in control, and not afraid to rock the boat if policy directions veer from MANA’s stated priorities.

But given those involved in the alliance between Internet and MANA there was always going to be the raruraru over ‘weed’. Martyn Bradbury has written extensively regarding his advocacy for decriminalisation and medicinal use of cannabis, including the following statement regarding the debate on The Vote last year:

“If you want to see some real debate on cannabis before the next election – think about crowd-funding the cannabis documentary I’m currently working on because based on last nights ‘The Vote’, you won’t see that debate occur on NZ mainstream TV”

Others are asking where the debate and focus for this particular policy came from and sure, the members probably did raise the issue, but given Bradbury’s strong advocacy and involvement in both the Internet Party and MANA Movement, it would be naive to think his influence was absent in forming and emphasising this policy direction.[1]

Out of all of this, Harawira seems to have reaffirmed his commitment to ‘Feed the Kids’. So I can appreciate his frustration with the promotion of the ‘legalise cannabis’ ads that were circulating social media.

After all, it would incredibly frustrating for Harawira, who has long advocated his anti-drug stance, to lose support for something as vital as feeding children, if supporters believed the parties stance on cannabis was the leading priority.

However, earlier today I read a post that set out a timeline suggesting an inconsistency between Harawira’s political advocacy and his parliamentary action to ‘Feed the Kids’ as his number one priority.

But rather than just post the claims, I thought I’d first check that they were accurate, and whether they actually gave rise to the disjunct claimed, to avoid accusations of bias given the post appeared on the pages of Māori Party supporters.

Claim 1: Election night 2011: asked what his first priority was Hone said it was to ‘feed the kids’

As reported in the NZ Herald regarding his re-election to Parliament in November 2011:

“Asked what his first priority was, Mr Harawira said: It’s to feed the children.”

This is an indisputable fact, since Harawira has been very vocal about his message.

Claim 2: 10 months later, 20 September 2012, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch in Schools) Amendment Bill was drawn

Harawira’s Education (Breakfast and Lunch in Schools) Amendment Bill was drawn from the preliminary ballot and went forward to the main ballot.

This claim is misrepresentative since the Bill was not drawn from the main ballot until November 2012 – around 2 months later.

Claim 3: On 15 May 2013, Mr Harawira withdrew the bill, delaying it until 10 July 2013

On 8 May 2013, Harawira published a press release urging John Key PM to ask the government to support his bill “when it comes up for first reading in Parliament next month”.

This indicates that the Bill was due for its first reading in June 2013, just over 7 months after it was initially drawn, but this timeframe is probably standard practice.

Then, on 15 May 2013, Harawira released a further press release delaying the first reading until 10 July 2013 citing:

“I’ve got a lot on over the next few weeks and the postponement means I can do justice to all my electorate activities and party leader responsibilities including the by-election in Ikaroa Rawhiti, as well as ensure the bill is given the promotion that it deserves”

In context, there was an opportunity for MANA to potentially bring in another candidate following the passing of Parekura Horomia who had held the Ikaroa Rawhiti seat. Even if the by-election been won by the MANA candidate it wouldn’t have increased the support in Parliament for the bill to pass (but it would have given MANA a boost in confidence to have another member of Parliament).

Regarding the comments about promoting the bill, I’d say the bill was actually pretty well promoted, the real difficulty was obtaining the support in Parliament rather than outside of it, so while the sentiment might have been there, it does just appear to be a deflection from Harawira’s decision to delay the first reading of the bill.

Although the month delay raises questions as to whether the bill is a parliamentary priority for Harawira, in the particular circumstances, the delay is probably justified.

Claim 4: On 10 July 2013, Mr Harawira withdrew the bill, delaying it because he had to deal with a Te Tai Tokerau issue

Almost two months later, on 9 July 2013, Trevor Mallard, on behalf of Harawira, seeks leave for the bill:

to be postponed and set down the following day as an order of the day after the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill”

which was up for first reading on 13 November 2013.

Therefore, the Bill was further delayed until 14 November 2013 for its first reading, around a year after it had been drawn from the ballot and 2 years since Harawira was re-elected.

I am unable to locate the specific issue that Harawira felt overrode the first reading of this bill at this time.

But this delay of another 4 months, does indicate a potential pattern in its formative stages – to avoid getting the bill to first reading and the risk that it probably wouldn’t make it through to select committee and second reading stage. Whether this seemingly intentional delay suggests feeding the kids is Harawira’s priority or not, is up to the reader. I can appreciate how it could be interpreted either way.

Claim 5:  On 14 November 2013, Mr Harawira withdrew the bill, delaying it so that the House could rise early that night

Firstly, on 13 November 2013, MANA sent out a reminder to its members and supporters about the timing of the first reading of the feed the kids bill, stating:

“The Bill is likely to come up a bit later than we thought. I’m estimating it will start anytime between 8-9 pm and will run for an hour”

However, as seen in the Hansard debates, 14 November 2013, debates were interrupted as it appears the House had agreed to rise early at 6pm.

MANA followed up with a press release that suggests that the timing couldn’t be helped:

“The Feed the Kids Bill did not come up last night after all – it was next up on the parliamentary agenda but time ran out”

The question here really starts to entrench the idea that if the Bill was a priority, then why did Harawira agree to the early rising of the House after sending out an invite to supporters, and why did he not notify them in advance that he’d agreed to an early adjournment.  Additionally, why did Harawira not insist that the bill be read a first time given he had invited his supporters if ‘feeding the kids’ was his first priority?

As advised by MANA, the Bill was delayed again for first reading on 4 December 2013 but again did not receive a first reading at that time.

Claim 6: On 18 February 2014, Harawira withdrew the bill, delaying it because he would be out of town with the Maori Affairs Select Committee

I am unable to find a link to substantiate the claim that Harawira delayed due to being out of town, however, the bill was due to be read again on 11 March suggesting the statement is true.

On 11 March it was again delayed and rescheduled for first reading on 28 May 2014, 18 months after it was first drawn from the ballot and 2 and a half years after his re-election to Parliament.  

Claim 7: On 28 May 2014, the bill finally had its first reading but the House rose before the first reading was complete.

The Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill did receive its first reading in on 28 May 2014. But the claim is right that the House rose before the reading was complete.

I have no doubt that Harawira and the MANA Movement are absolutely passionate about providing food in schools to alleviate child poverty. I also appreciate that it was always going to be difficult to have the bill pass because he couldn’t obtain the requisite support to progress to select committee stage and second reading since National, ACT and United Future held 61 votes against MANA, Māori, Labour, Greens, and NZF’s 60 votes. But there is every chance after hearing the speeches that the single vote needed to support the bill may have been forthcoming.

My view is that the pattern of delay doesn’t bring into question whether Harawira was passionate about feeding the kids. There s no doubt about that. Instead, it brings into question whether Harawira appropriately promoted the bill in Parliament given his established pattern of ongoing delay which prolonged the process and in a sense prolonged the suffering of those he is so passionate about helping, due to his Parliamentary inaction.

Therefore, I do see why Māori Party supporters consider there to be a disjunct between Harawira’s political advocacy and his actions in Parliament, since the Kickstart Breakfast programme introduced was criticised by Harawira as not going far enough, despite the fact that Harawira’s feed the kids bill never even got through its first reading as a result of his own actions (or inaction).

I agree that the Kickstart programme needs to go further and the Māori Party have signalled their support for Harawira’s  feed the kids bill, as have most other parties in Parliament.  But I think that  it is disingenuous (of Harawira) to criticise a party for making a small contribution to the alleviation of child hunger if you delay the reading of a bill for 18 months that proposes to fix the thing you’re complaining of.

[1] For the record, I am personally pro-legalisation and medicinal use of cannabis.

Employing “Dirty Politics” as a weapon not a tool

John Minto, candidate for the MANA Movement has published a press release criticising the Māori Party. Criticism is all part and parcel with party politics, but this particular  criticism ignores the entire kaupapa Māori framework of the Party, yet attempts to question it on kaupapa terms.

Firstly, Minto is correct to imply that the balance of power could quite possibly lie with the Māori Party post-election. He is wrong to attempt to usurp the Māori Party’s democratic processes when he essentially claims the Māori Party must pick a side pre-election. There are of course arguments for why parties should make such a declaration pre-election. However, if the constitution on which the party was founded and to which its members agreed stipulates decisions are to be made at hui, then the Māori Party are not in a position to make such claims – they must await the outcome of the election then take the decision to nationwide hui to allow its membership, supporters and voters to determine how the party will proceed. [see cl 5 Decision Making (p.10) Māori Party Constitution].

Secondly, Minto refers to recent polls that indicate a majority of Māori want the Māori Party to go into coalition with NZ Labour. I have no doubt that is an accurate assessment of Māori political opinion. The polls on Te Kaea have shown that Māori are showing a preference for the Māori Party to work with Labour if they win the election – emphasised because it is an important factor that Minto avoids mentioning. The question appears to be premised on Labour winning the election [I haven’t seen the Reid Research report, so cannot make a firm statement on that]. However, if Te Tai Hauāuru is anything to go by 67.4% of voters said they’d support the Māori Party continuing its relationship with National if National wins the election. Note here again, the percentage is based on National actually winning the election. So it’s possible that the Māori Party may enter another relationship accord with National, but if and only if National win the election and there is consensus for the party to do so.*

Thirdly, Minto is posturing on ‘principles’, suggesting he is in a position to decide what the principles of the Māori Party and its supporters are and how they are to be interpreted.  But his commentary isn’t about principles at all. It is an acrid form of politicking under the pretence of it being about kaupapa Māori.

If Minto is so concerned about ‘mana enhancing’ then he should probably understand that manaakitanga – a broadly accepted tikanga Māori value from where this concept arises, is about not trampling on the mana of others. Yet, the whole point of his post appears to do precisely that – to trample on the integrity and mana of some of Māoridom’s most esteemed contemporary rangatira and by extension their whānau, hapū and iwi by manufacturing facetious links to manipulate his readers into a false belief that the Māori Party are somehow implicated in the Dirty Politics scandal. I wrote a previous post that seems to have pre-empted the kind of statement that Minto has released. See: Silence might imply what you want to avoid.

The Māori Party profess to stand as an independent indigenous voice in Parliament. This is often misconstrued to presume that there are no other indigenous voices in Parliament. The misconstrual is purposive and is harmful to us as a people.

The Māori Party make their claim based on everything they do in practice and in theory as being for indigenous people, by our indigenous people. This claim is not intended to deny our other esteemed rangatira in Parliament or in fact, any Māori voice in parliament of their mauri as Māori. It is a statement about what the party stands for and stands as. It is what the party believes makes it unique, that is, it doesn’t have a Māori wing or contingent that pursues kaupapa Māori politics – it is in its entirety a Māori party.

Hence my trepidation with Minto  telling the Māori Party to take a principled stand – but whose principles is he referring to when he attempts to define for the party what ‘mana enhancing’ means for them?

The Māori Party kaupapa indicates that mana enhancing is practiced through manaakitanga so in a political context it is about being in a position to be able to put our people at the forefront of policy and decision-making. It is not a western construct of us versus them, it is more transformative than that. It is about recognising diversity, respecting differences, and building mutually co-operative relationships that transcend the confines of the political spectrum.  It is collaborative and living – in the sense that it contributes to the evolution of kaupapa Māori politics not just for Māori but to enrich the lives of everyone.

In a simpler context, for example, manaakitanga is exercised when we invite manuhiri (guests) into our whare (home) – and show them hospitality and kindness. Our mana increases, even if our manuhiri are ungrateful or disrespectful. It is our ability to rise above it that gives us strength of character to continue to manaaki them. It is beyond the liberal concept of tolerance but it does not mean we accept an action as being tika (right). Our role is to show our manuhiri how to be tika through our own actions and this is how mana enhancing works.

It’s important to note that tikanga and kaupapa Māori concepts are divergent and do differ within and between, whānau, hapū and iwi. I make this point here intentionally because recently I’ve written some pieces that have appeared to generalise or homogenise Māori. This was not my intention and I am truly sorry for the offense I have caused to those readers. I wholeheartedly believe and respect that Māori are diverse in our opinions and we will each view our politics in our own distinct ways. I know that I have a very long way to go in mastering the skill of manaakitanga, but I continue to make that journey and learn through my mistakes along the way.

But whatever Minto thought he was doing, it was an attack intended to delegitimise the kaupapa of the Māori Party, to sink its waka, so to speak.

In conclusion, Māori  like everyone else, vote for many different reasons. Some will support their whanaunga, while others will support the kaupapa they believe resonates with their values. Some will consider bigger gains as emanating from inside a major party, while others will prefer the capacity of priority to be placed directly on Māori through mid-sized or smaller parties. But whatever the preference, it should never be about destroying another’s waka. Elections are naturally competitive and should remain so to give our people choice. But they are not about strategising to destroy a party in its entirety because they might threaten your own election chances. This kind of strategising is monopolistic, and the kind of thing that Dirty Politics warned against. Minto has employed Hager’s book as weapon rather than a tool. Speaks volumes.

 

*To avoid any doubt: I personally support socialism (of the anarchist branch) but in a form where kaupapa Māori is not a subordinate ideology, but the practice by which it is implemented.

Silence might imply what you want to avoid

With the first massive fallout from the release of Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics Judith Collins has finally tendered her resignation as a Minister.

As Matt Nippert reports, her resignation was:

“sparked by a Fairfax investigation into a smear campaign by bloggers apparently backed by controversial financier Mark Hotchin” who “secretly paid bloggers Cameron Slater and Cathy Odgers to write attack posts undermining the Serious Fraud Office, its director Adam Feeley, and the Financial Markets Authority, who were probing his collapsed Hanover Finance in 2011 and 2012”

Many commentators, pundits and journalists have extensively reported on what was uncovered in Hager’s book, and I presume most readers would have a fair idea about the extent of the claims and the subsequent evidence that has emerged since the books release, so I won’t re-cover it.

Interestingly, many predicted the release of the book would likely see a rise in the polls for the left bloc, but what has emerged is somewhat intriguing – NZ First (~6.3%) and the Conservative Party (~4.6%) [as reported on The Nation TV3] suggesting the possibility that both parties may exceed the 5% threshold to enter Parliament. Whether these results are related to Dirty Politics or a reflection of the success of both parties campaigns is arguable.

But the polls aren’t my concern in this post. My concern is about those parties who have remained to a large degree silent on Dirty Politics. NZ Labour, NZ Greens, New Zealand First, InternetMANA and the Conservatives have all been very vocal about cleaning up the  state of NZ politics through an independent inquiry and more robust processes to keep politics transparent and free of the collusion that appears to have taken place.

It might be expected that the ACT Party and United Future would keep a relatively low profile, given they have openly stated a preference for working with the National Party post-election. Notwithstanding, that both parties claim to be principled and support the role of an open and accountable government. But the big silent elephant in the room is the Māori Party and this has not gone unnoticed by the public at large. Critics and many supporters (potential and actual) are left wondering why, a party that claims to be an ‘independent Māori voice’ in Parliament has been absent from the general media coverage on this issue. However, Te Ururoa Flavell, Co-Leader of the Māori Party and Waiariki candidate, told the Rotorua Daily Post that:

 I can’t comment on the book because I haven’t read it. But what I do know is that there are individuals across the political spectrum in New Zealand that engage in dirty politics. It’s not something that the Maori Party has ever done or condones. Manaakitanga (respecting and looking after others) is one of our foundational values and we have always conducted ourselves in a way that reflects this principle. We’re interested in party policies and how we can work with others to effect change. The hacking of emails is not a new phenomenon but it compromises the interactions between MPs and constituents and is a breach of privacy. In that regard we are deeply disturbed”

It is a fair comment given that Flavell hasn’t actually read the book. However, he implies an argument that has been met with much resistance for good reason: that it happens across the political spectrum.

Most would agree that attack politics and possibly even this dirty politics is pervasive, but that in my mind is even more reason to make a statement in strong opposition to its practice. The hacking of emails too is an important issue, but the more pressing issue missed in Flavell’s statement was the collusion and corruption between a Minister of the Crown, bloggers, and other public officials. This may just be a result of not having read the book and not having the contextual grounding to form a stronger opinion or to take a firmer stance.

Flavell also indicates the party’s resistance to commenting in any detail on the claims made in the book also centres around the party’s strategy to reorient the election focus on promoting policies. His mention of manaakitanga, suggests the party want to avoid being part of the dirty politics machinery so are intentionally distancing the party and candidates from being caught up in the negativity of the dirty politics media coverage.

However, an important part of any political campaign involves responding to issues of public importance, such as the very serious claims that are still emerging following the books release. It is possible to make a strong statement that censures the behaviours of dirty politics without being drawn into the negativity while still focusing on promoting the party’s policies. That is part of the balancing act required by political campaigns. Because no matter how well-intentioned the Māori Party are in steering clear of the ‘dirty politics’ coverage, it has brought into question for many potential Māori Party voters whether or not the party are an ‘independent voice’ for Māori or whether they are the silent friend of National. One of my worries is whether there exists an unspoken sense of obligation to the National Party because of the invitation to work in government despite not being ‘needed’ (in a numbers sense anyhow) to form the last two National led governments.

In my view,  it would be incredibly unwise if such a feeling existed because it would undermine the credibility of the party’s ‘independent voice for Māori’ message. Sure, it is a tight rope to walk when you are a party who has openly expressed its willingness to work with whichever party can form the government and not wanting to rock the boat so much that your own waka capsizes. But being independent means being just that: standing on your principles and holding to account those who have wronged no matter what political party is responsible or implicated in the wrongdoing.

For supporters of the party navigating conversations on social media has been particularly difficult absent the strong guidance from leadership on this issue.  In my view, if the Māori Party want to overcome the perception that their silence is an act of support in favour of the National Party, then they will need to make a clear and firm statement that they oppose collusion, corruption and abuses of state power and perhaps even offer some guidance as to whether the party will support an inquiry and other measures to help purge our political system of all anti-democratic practices.

ADDENDUM: 

I’ve been receiving feedback from various comment streams about my approach in this post. And I agree that I haven’t here placed as much emphasis on manaakitanga as is necessary to understand the Māori Party’s position. For a full outline of Māori Party kaupapa see: Ngā Kaupapa o te Pāti Māori

Manaakitanga is behaviour that acknowledges the mana of others as having equal or greater importance than one’s own, through the expression of aroha, hospitality, generosity and mutual respect.

By such behaviour, all parties are elevated and our status is enhanced, building unity through humility and the act of giving.

The Party must endeavour to express manaakitanga towards others – be they political allies or opponents, Māori or non-Māori organisations – taking care not to trample mana, while clearly defining our own.

Tikanga of the Māori Party derived from Manaakitanga

To be recognised by Māori as a political organisation that does manaaki the aspirations of Māori.

To ensure that relationships between the Party and whānau, hapū, iwi, and other Māori organisations are elevating and enhancing

To promote a fair and just society, to work for the elimination of poverty and injustice, and to create an environment where the care and welfare of one’s neighbour is important

To ensure that members agree to work together, treat each other with respect, and act with integrity in their party work

To involve all peoples in the process of rebuilding our nation based on mutual respect and harmonious relationships.

I maintain that public opinion/perception is important but my main concern is that threats to democracy in NZ must be dealt with head on because without democratic processes, such as accountability, then the political parties and the people they represent cannot be guaranteed free and fair representation under the Westminster system we have.

In my view, Māori have been on the receiving end of a history of dirty politics particularly through intentional breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our culture and rights as indigenous people being legislated against, ongoing institutional racism, and the manipulation of public opinion that has oppressed us as a people. It was the fight of our tupuna that allowed us to be heard and the fight of our many activists (in their many forms) that gave Māori the strength and ability to assert kaupapa Māori politics to counter the forces that work against us. That fight is not over and the struggle goes on.

I do consider that manaakitanga is very important and I wholly commend the Māori Party’s commitment to that kaupapa. My personal view, is that a fair and just society requires (as mentioned in the post) accountability and I truly believe this can be done without ‘trampling the mana’ of others but through co-operation with others to build an environment that is ‘based on mutual respect and harmonious relationships’.

One of the key things that I believe would assist in helping others to understand kaupapa Māori politics is more education on the concepts and providing practical examples. I do think the Māori Party show us how kaupapa Māori works, but I wonder if the public might be better informed if there were more coverage of these concepts, what they mean to Māori and how they can enrich the lives of Pakeha too.

I appreciate that the relative silence I talked about in the post is an expression of manaakitanga, and also resultant from a lack of media interest because the party’s comments that have been made weren’t perhaps as controversial as other parties. I just personally feel manaakitanga can be expressed in other ways too. I don’t here presume to speak for all Māori, this is my opinion, and I wholly respect that others may disagree with my views on this matter and many others.

Not a very feminist party

The NZ Herald reports that Dr Pani Farvid, Internet Party candidate for Palmerston North, told a women’s group that  the Internet Party is a feminist party. When probed about the party founder’s own propensity for sexism, Dr Farvid remarked:

“He is not perfect. He is not the party, he’s the founder, but we are a feminist party. He has apologised himself, I’m not excusing him, that sort of thing is not OK, absolutely. He just doesn’t know any better and he should.”

I have no doubt in my mind that Dr Farvid and many of her peers absolutely support the feminist movement. I do however, consider it a bold claim to promote the Internet Party as a feminist party in light of its founder, Kim Dotcom’s repulsive sexist record.

Dr Farvid could have said either ‘I am a feminist’ or ‘that she promotes feminism within the party’ and that probably would not have brought her own feminism into disrepute. Instead what she has done is invalidated the experiences of all women, by on the one hand claiming she is not excusing him, and on the other hand impliedly excusing him because ‘he just doesn’t know any better’. A party claiming to be feminist, surely would not minimise or invalidate the experiences of women because the perpetrator of harm didnt know better. As a woman on twitter pointed out:

 @mairesmith

@Ellipsister A woman apologising for a man’s manners isn’t really what I think of as ‘feminist’, no.

When I consider a ‘feminist party’ I consider precisely the basis on which the party was formed i.e  who founded it, who funds it, what messages does it share as a party, who are its members, how do they promote feminism and so on. The Internet Party was founded, is funded and is promoted by a man who has a tendency to tweet about ‘rape jokes’ and to objectify women. His behaviour is then downplayed by a woman in the party because ‘he is the product of a sexist culture which we need to remedy’.

But Dotcom does know better. In 2012, the NZ Herald reports:

“A sexual violence prevention agency has told Kim Dotcom rape jokes are “never okay” after he posted a series of comments about the crime on Twitter”

One of those tweets was the following:

KDC2Rape jokes that work!???

In the same NZH article, Rape Prevention Education director Kim McGregor told the Herald that rape jokes are hurtful to survivors of sexual violence and that:

“Rape jokes aren’t funny. It’s never okay to make a joke about rape. People who have experienced rape are often traumatised for years. They’re violated, they’re humiliated and it’s nothing to joke about.”

Then about a month or so ago, Dotcom attempts to make a joke about murdering sex workers:

KDC

The joke is offensive because it devalues the existence of sex workers as human beings. His attempt at apology was this:

KDC 3This is not an apology. It is a concession to his then newly appointed leader of the Internet Party, Laila Harre. As others in the comments that followed point out, its not Batman that was the problem, it was the comment about murdering sex workers.

But it’s not only Dotcom who has offended women. Chris Yong,  reportedly ‘joked’ to  the Herald when asked about the three women contending the Auckland Central seat that:

“we’ve got the best babe”

What Yong is doing here is commenting on Miriam Pierard’s appearance, using the term ‘babe’. In employing it the way he has, he also simultaneously criticises or demeans Jacinda Ardern and Nicky Kaye by suggesting Miriam’s appearance is superior to theirs and reducing the contest down to one of appearance. This is insulting to all women running political campaigns, if he deems appearance as the determinant of their chances at success. He also exhibits a sense of entitlement over Pierard claiming some kind of ownership that “Miriam belongs to us”. Yes, he may have just been referring to her role in the Internet Party team, in a team camaraderie kind of way, but  Miriam Pierard is a person. She is not property and he should be more careful with how he speaks about his peers and the messages he sends to other women.  Some people may argue that the term ‘babe’ is not offensive but when it is used in the context Yong employed it above, it is sexist and it is not ok.

Name it Change it have developed an egregiousness pyramid to assist the avoidance of sexist reporting in the media.  It also serves as a good guide when interacting on social media. For a commentary, see Bidisha on Sluts and sweethearts: Sexist language is on the rise, but now there is a new way to fight back.

In my view, a feminist party wouldn’t stand for those remarks and in fact they wouldn’t even feature in a feminist repertoire that is built on and promotes gender equality.

Recently, Internet Party Leader, Laila Harre poked fun at the weight of current women MP’s, also engaged in the anti-feminist action of ‘fat shaming’ and mocking the size of womens breasts as something women should feel stigmatised about.  Her words as reported:

“Obviously wanting to be fit and relatively less portly than most members of Parliament become, ‘she said diplomatically’.”

Will she name names? “I think their breasts speak for themselves.”

While the Internet Party’s top 10 candidates are equal ratio’s women and men, above that number the ratio changes. Only 6 of the 15 candidates are women. I personally would expect a feminist party to be predominantly if not all women given men saturate the political landscape. And while there may be an even spread of women in the top 10 candidate list, it would be interesting to see the ratio in prominent roles of the executive branch of the party if the claim is that the Internet Party is a feminist party. Moreover, the Internet Party don’t even appear to have developed any policy (yet) that focuses specifically on gender issues.

Exacerbating the sexism link to the Internet Party, is the alliance with Hone Harawira’s MANA movement. Recalling Harawira was recently called on to apologise for his minimising and harmful remarks  on Backbenchers regarding his view toward Tania Billingsley who was attacked in her home by Malaysian Diplomat, Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail.

Harawira stated:

“I think all of the media, their heads should roll, for making a big fuss about bugger all. There are kids starving in this country, there are a whole lot of issues we need to be dealing with right here, right now … it’s something we can do without.”

A week after this aired, Harawira did put out an apology, although I was unable to locate an official press releases on the Party website. Instead there is a status update on the MANA Movement page, which states:

I want to sincerely apologise if my comments on Backbenches may seem to have minimised the gravity of the situation regarding the young woman who asked police to investigate the complaint of sexual assault against the Malaysian diplomat.

I have reviewed the tape and I accept that my comments were not helpful at all. Sexual assault IS a big deal, and I applaud Tania Rose Billingsley for her brave and courageous appearance on television last night.

Hone Harawira

Like Dotcom above, this is hardly an apology. It is a concession to appease the women’s rights activists in the MANA movement, including Annette Sykes who has long advocated against violence against women.

One commenter was unimpressed with his attempt to deflect criticism and replied:

…Apologies are nothing but lip service it is something a husband does after he beats his wife up and says I am sorry it will never happen again. It is male dominance at its best…. It is whether you learn and don’t do it again that matters. It is a journey of learning and understanding and for you to stand up amongst your people and put yourself forward as having changed your mindset and exampling this. Only then will your apology actually mean anything.

Given that Dr Pani Farvid is a Senior Lecturer, I would have expected more critique of her party and the sexist behaviour associated with it, rather than the apologism she offered for Dotcom’s insidious tendencies to demean women and roles occupied predominantly by women.   I wholly commend Dr Farvid for starting the process to educate her party on the harm caused by sexism and misogyny but it’s a slap in the face to the many feminist movements to parade the Internet Party as a feminist party when it clearly is not.

Everyday microaggressions

Before relocating to Christchurch many people told me that it had a nationwide reputation for being quite racist. I didn’t really take notice because in my experience racism is not unique to any particular locality, it is pervasive.

My experience here is that there are not thousands of Kyle Chapman’s parading the streets with swastika’s nor is there even an obvious presence of Right Wing Resistance, well, not that I’ve encountered yet anyhow. What I have come across, far too often though is the subtle coded language of racism, what has been described as microaggressions by psychological research. I do not intend here to make a generalisation of all the people who live in Christchurch. I have experienced both subtle and overt racism in most places. But it seems particularly pronounced in the year I’ve lived here. But maybe that is coloured by the suggestions of those before I relocated.

This isn’t a post about the academic literature, it’s a little more personal. Sadly, it’s about the memory that I will take with me when I leave Christchurch. Of the time I spoke against racism and was silenced by my peers. I will remember the words of MLK Jr [see image] because I will remember that when I spoke out for people of colour (PoC), as a PoC myself,  I was alone.

MLKFor some context: UCNZ have a system whereby students can create Facebook groups using their UCNZ emails as a space to discuss coursework and foster camaraderie I suppose among students. One of those groups is for post-graduate politics and diplomacy students, and at this level, I’d have expected greater awareness of racially coded language and for the discourse to be more mature or developed.

The first incident involved  a person posting a video to the group preceded by a statement similar to the following:

“Slightly racist but does X remind anyone of Y” [both X and Y are the same ethnicity]

This immediately upset me. I responded that ‘saying something is slightly racist doesn’t justify actually being racist’. The person apologised and deleted the item. They acknowledged it was racist and that they were wrong to think it was okay to post it. Admittedly, they should have known if they had to precede the post with ‘slightly racist but..’. It does concern me that it probably wouldn’t have been removed had I stayed silent.

The following morning, I was scrolling through the group page and came across a link posted to the group to a Facebook page called Kanye West Explains NZ Politics.

Some of the meme’s created in on the page are incredibly offensive, firstly because some of Kanye’s lyrics are hideously misogynistic, and secondly, because other meme’s incorporate Kanye’s use of the ‘n word’ and trivialise the harm associated with using it in an inappropriate context, i.e. NZ Political Satire. My complaint was that I felt a page containing racist content was not particularly appropriate in the forum in which it was posted. My reasons were not that Kanye uses the term, but that it was taken out of it’s original context for the entertainment of those who have no experience of the hurt this word causes PoC’s.  As a PoC, if you have ever been called the ‘n word’, you will appreciate why I took exception to the way it was being used.

In response to one of the comments about the ‘n word’, I included the following excerpt from a Henry Giroux book Fugitive Cultures: Race, Violence, and Youth (Routledge: Great Britain, 1996) in an attempt to show why it’s use in the context was unacceptable and racist:

HGiroux

What emerged from my speaking out, was a shock.  Yes, I expected some resistance because I did expect that some people might not actually be aware of why, for instance, Kanye can use the ‘n word’ but a White person cannot. What I didn’t expect was to be rebuffed with the extent of invalidation that followed. I grew very distressed that those who contributed to the discussion felt entitled to shut down my experience, that I was derided for not appeasing those perpetuating the harm, and that I was undeniably invalidated by an entire group. These are microagressions. I maintain that the satire page uses the word inappropriately and it is racist. You dont have to agree with me. But you don’t get to shut down my experience and engage in microaggressions that deny my reality. You don’t get to complain that you have hurt feelings, when what you are denying complicity in hurts PoC everyday.

Microaggressions are about power imbalance and the privilege afforded to the dominant culture…they are manifestations of oppression

They manifest in three ways:

  1. Microinvalidations are verbal or non-verbal communications that subtly exclude negate or nullify the thoughts, feelings or experiential reality of a person of colour.
  2. Microinsults are verbal, nonverbal, and environmental communications that subtly convey rudeness and insensitivity that demean a person’s racial heritage or identity.
  3. Microassaults are intentional messages of discrimination toward a minority group.

As  Derek Sue writes microinsults and microinvalidations are particularly harmful because they are coded or invisible and that:

“They remain invisible because of a cultural conditioning process that allows perpetrators to discriminate without knowledge of their complicity in the inequities visited upon people of colour”

I have chosen to reproduce the thread (omitting the names of those involved for privacy reasons), to allow you to draw your own conclusions, and to illustrate what invalidation looks like and to say in unity with all PoC and marginalised groups IT’S NOT OK.

 [Person A]*

August 16 at 2:15pm

My intellectual contribution to the page.

Kanye West Lyrics Explain NZ Politics

Community · 7,118 Likes

 

Seen by 31

3 people like this.

 [Person B] Person C bet you to it lol

August 16 at 2:16pm · Like · 2

[Person B] Somewhere? Wherever he posted it. Nevermind lol.

August 16 at 2:16pm · Like · 1

[Person A] Damn!!! Hahah

August 16 at 2:16pm · Like

{Person C] I posted it on the nz pols page so [Person A] just trying to act all original over here

August 16 at 2:16pm · Like

[Person C] It’s an exclusive community, the riff raff always catch on to trends later

August 16 at 2:18pm · Like · 2

Carrie Stoddart-Smith I only just clicked on the link to find that this Kanye West page is incredibly offensive. I appreciate that some people think trivialising the word ‘nigger’ is all just a bit of fun, but I reiterate it is offensive. Hang on Kanye uses it? Yes, he does but Kanye is a person of colour (PoC) who has a particular experience related to its usage. This particular page trivialises that experience not just for Kanye but for every PoC because its usage is intended as entertainment for people who do not share the history and experiences of PoC who were demoralised and denigrated by the term. It is derogatory, and I am surprised it is shared it in politics and diplomacy group. Aside from the sexism and fat shaming present, the page is racist. Perhaps people might want to check their privilege before supporting or endorsing content that may not intend to, but that does demoralise PoC for your entertainment. Yes, I did complain about another post that I also thought was racist and I will continue to complain whenever I see racist content without apology.

Yesterday at 8:59am · Like

[Person C] It’s Kanye quotes over pictures of New Zealand politicians. It doesn’t claim to be anything but that, the only thing it trivialises is the state of the media and politics in New Zealand.

Yesterday at 9:38am · Like · 1

Carrie Stoddart-Smith “It’s Kanye quotes over pictures of New Zealand politicians” is a complete de-contextualisation. The purpose of the page is clearly intended to elicit a laugh at the expense, intended or not, of PoC. It may be intended to trivialise “the state of the media and politics in New Zealand” but it goes much further than that. The Admin has through their own effort selected the images and the quotes to get the response they intend – e.g. Gerry Brownlee has lyrics that poke fun at his weight – ‘fat shaming’, a number of white politicians have ‘nigger’ in the word selection of their images – this trivialises the offensiveness of the word and the experiences of PoC. It’s what PoC call #everdayracism.

Yesterday at 10:19am · Like

[Person D] http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S037821660600172X

Yesterday at 10:29am · Like

[Person E] Im pretty sure this page is intended as entertainment for anyone who may find it entertaining and not specifically for people who are not ‘of colour’. Just like Kanye’s music and lyrics are not intended only for people who have experiences related to the usage of the word nigger. I don’t think this page is racist. If it is, it’s because of Kanye’s lyrics which, I would probably agree, do seem to trivialise the word nigger. This page is just political satire, which is damaging to political discourse in NZ, but not racist. And as far as political satire goes, its not very damaging as Kanye’s lyrics don’t carry a lot of political clout. It is a bold claim to make that this page demoralises all PoC for ‘our’ entertainment, and it comes across as a little irresponsible and overly provocative in my opinion. I think it is a silly page using a silly man’s lyrics to make silly comments about NZ politics; not an attempt to demoralise PoC.

Yesterday at 10:44am · Like · 4

Carrie Stoddart-Smith I disagree Person E and I certainly dispute being the provocateur here, the page itself is provocative. I know people don’t like being called racist or being seen to endorse racism, but the page doesn’t have to intend to offend, the point is that it is offensive. Intention doesn’t determine if something is or isn’t racist. Moreover, political satire doesn’t exempt content from being racist and satire itself isn’t damaging to political discourse, racism is – especially when it goes unchecked or is passed off as something it’s not. I’ve attached the screen grab below from a Henry Giroux book, that might help spread some light on why it is offensive. As I said in my first comment above, Kanye can use the term because he understands the history and context within which he is using it. He is part of that history and context. The person in charge of the page in question is misusing Kanye’s lyrics in manner that is offensive and racist.

Yesterday at 11:30am · Like

[Person F] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI

Yesterday at 11:47am · Like

[Person D] The claim that white people are not allowed to use nigger while black people can use it is its self racist. The use of nigger as a term of endearment is part of gangster culture and culture does not necessary equal race.

Yesterday at 11:52am · Like

[Person C] The page is about New Zealand politics not race, it ridicules New Zealand politicians. That it uses Kanye West lyrics is purely incidental, it could use Macklemore or Metallica lyrics and the message of the page would be the same. If you want to take offense you’re welcome to do so, and if that is the case then you should contact the site administrator, not post here. PERSON A is not a racist and neither are the members of this group, if you want to talk to racists you should talk to www.stormfront.org or http://www.ukip.org.

Yesterday at 12:10pm · Like

[Person G] No Person D it is not racism. Some white people already used the word nigger for a specific purpose and now some coloured people are using it for a totally different one. The two terms cannot be considered as one.

Yesterday at 12:17pm · Unlike · 1

[Person D] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Yesterday at 12:26pm · Like

[Person D] I feel this demonstrates the distinction between culture and race.

Yesterday at 12:28pm · Like

[Person D] also very funny

Yesterday at 12:28pm · Like

[Person H] http://blip.tv/…/rap-critic-reviews-black-skin-head-by…

Yesterday at 12:42pm · Like

[Person B] Build rapport, then build discussion. I’m not a fan of Kanye or his lyrics but I did like the page, perhaps in ignorance, because I shared some mild amusement with others in this group concerning how a rapper’s music could relate to dirty politics. Making a stand against this is fine, but calling out “casual racism” among members of this diverse group seems to be counterproductive as it has alienated a few people – which is not what you want when tackling a big issue such as racism. For the record, I personally think this page is a very small fish in a big sea of issues (Ferguson being the big whale), and that getting to that point of the debate probably needed a different, healthier approach.

Yesterday at 1:05pm · Unlike · 3

Carrie Stoddart-Smith That’s a good point Person B and you are right I could have approached it differently. Aroha mai.

Yesterday at 1:10pm · Like · 1

[Person E] I have definitely done a lot of thinking about racism this morning because of this discussion. Too bad it won’t help me in Tan’s test tomorrow! lol

23 hrs · Like · 4

[Person A] I usually enjoy discussing political issues such as racism amongst my peers as it is a good way to share opinions and learn from one another, however, as Person B has indicated I feel this conversation has an accusatory ring to it and I am genuinely quite hurt by the implication of racism against me. Person E’s comment above illustrates my opinion beautifully so I will not repeat it here. So if it’s okay with everyone, I think its best that we leave the discussion here and engage the issue another day in a more neutral manner.

23 hrs · Like · 7

 

Note: I will be heavily moderating comments as I am not going to subject myself to further invalidations.

The Spin vs The Reality

DRLance

 

When it comes to the Māori Party, it has become apparent just how deeply rooted the spin about the party is, and how blindly and uncritically it is propagated. The saddest thing is that the majority of spin is formulated in left-wing echo chambers that claim to support Māori while simultaneously attempting to actively deny Māori an independent space in political discourse. This post attempts to address the spin.

The Spin 

  • The Māori Party are in coalition with the National Party
  • The Māori Party are National Party stooges
  • The Māori Party are in the pockets of National Party

The Reality

The Māori Party (TMP) have a relationship accord with the National Party formalised through a Confidence and Supply Agreement.

Confidence means TMP must only support the Government on any motions of confidence raised in the House of Representatives (HoR).

Supply means TMP must only support the Government on any budgetary or procedural votes to have Bills heard in Parliament.

It does not mean that TMP must support any and all legislation the National Party put before the house. In fact, part of the C & S agreement required the National Party to adopt and implement a number of policies advanced by TMP, including Retention of the Māori Seats, Whānau Ora, Enabling Good Lives, a Ministerial Committee on Poverty and initiatives to urgently address the effects of poverty, a constitutional reviewMāori economic strategy, housing, education, environmental policies, and revitalisation of Te Reo Māori.

Note: TMP voted with Labour more times than it voted with National.*

  • TMP voted AGAINST National, inter alia, the MOM bill (asset sales), the GCSB bill, the 90-day employee trial, and the high seas protest ban, and supported the opposition on bills such as paid parental leave and a living wage.

Being at the table is not about propping up a government. It is about having the ability to participate in ways that achieve gains for our people.

The Spin

  • The Māori Party are a right-wing party
  • The Māori Party are sell outs
  • The Māori Party are corporate iwi lackeys

The Reality

The Māori Party are a kaupapa Māori party founded on and operating under the principles of:

Manaakitanga, Rangatiratanga, Whanaungatanga, Kotahitanga, Wairuatanga, Mana Whenua, Kaitiakitanga, Mana Tupuna/Whakapapa, and Te Reo Rangatira

Kaupapa Māori is not just a system of values it is a methodology that informs every interaction, every decision and every action. These are distinctly Māori principles and practices that cannot be buried by euro-centric attitudes to and ignorance of Te Ao Māori.

The Māori Party do support iwi Māori and contrary to the spin this is not a negative attribute. Conceptualising iwi as vehicles of capitalism, is again an attitude formed by a wilful ignorance toward Te Ao Māori. Iwi connect our people through our whakapapa (ancestry), whānau and hapū are inseverable from those in iwi leadership roles. The strategic use of funds from settlements and investments operates on an ethic of investing for our people, not instead of our people. To presume that the State are the best vehicles for providing services for Māori is an affront to our tikanga and an insult to our tupuna.

There is absolutely no barrier to critiquing iwi leaders from our Māori perspective as to whether or not they are behaving consistently with our tikanga, but these disputes ought to be settled in our marae kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) in accordance with tikanga Māori NOT through the iron fists of the State. The involvement of the State should only ever occur where serious criminal offending is alleged, e.g. fraud or theft etc.

The ‘sell out’ meme has no basis in reality. It is only through the actions of TMP that the government signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, when the previous Labour government had refused to affirm NZ’s commitment to the declaration . This year’s budget is also an example of the kinds of gains TMP have made for our people. Click here for the full details of the 2014 Budget. Some examples include the following:

  • $90 million to provide free GP visits and prescriptions to children aged under 13 years
  • $20 million additional funding over 4 years to expand Rheumatic Fever reduction programme (bringing total government investment to $65.3million over 6 years)
  • $15 million over the next 3 years to support Whānau Ora Navigators work with whānau to increase capability and engagement
  • $16 million over the next 4 years to support the repairs and rebuild of rural housing on the Chatham Islands and the development of social housing providers
  • $10 million over next 4 years for Māori sporting and cultural activities and development of sporting and cultural bodies
  • $6 million over next 4 years to NZSL to improve outcomes for deaf people
  • $5 million over 2 years to create Te Mana o Te Wai which focuses on activities to improve water quality

On the above basis, TMP are hardly right-wing capitalists. Nor can it be claimed that they are lackey’s and sell outs.

The Spin 

  • A vote for the Māori Party is a vote for the National Party
  • The Māori Party have a preference for working with the National Party

The Reality

A vote for the Māori Party is a vote for the Māori Party. TMP has committed to working with whoever is in a position to form a government following each election and will not rule out working with any party because the effect would be to potentially deprive Māori an independent and participatory voice in Parliament. That TMP are forced to justify why Māori have a right to participate no matter who is in government, is a sad indictment of the state of political discourse in NZ.

This post only barely touches on the spin hurled at TMP, from those one might normally expect to constitute friendly allies. In order to understand the Māori Party, however, you must also understand kaupapa Māori not just as an adopted set of values, but as it operates in practice.

* EDIT: It has been brought to my attention, that I misinterpreted a tweet and have since edited this sentence: “TMP voted against the National Party more often than the Labour Party voted against the National Party” out of the article.