Treaty of Waitangi

Book Release – The Interregnum: Rethinking New Zealand

BWB7760_Text_Cover_The Interregum_HighRes_0

Kia ora e te kaupapa whānau,

It’s been a while. Aroha mai for that. I can’t say that I’m back writing here on a regular basis, but maybe. It all depends on time. However, I want to pānui out the release of Morgan Godfery (ed.) The Interregnum: Rethinking New Zealand (2016, BWB Books:Wellington).

From the BWB website, here is a teaser:

Is New Zealand’s political settlement beginning to fray? And does this mean we’re entering the interregnum, that ambiguous moment between society-wide discontent and political change? In BWB’s latest book of essays, edited by Morgan Godfery, ten of New Zealand’s sharpest emerging thinkers gather to debate the ‘morbid symptoms’ of the current moment, from precarious work to climate change, and to discuss what shape change might take, from ‘the politics of love’ to postcapitalism.

The Interregnum interrogates the future from the perspective of the generation who will shape it.

I have contributed a chapter on Kaupapa Māori Politics. I’m totally open to discussing (debating!) it, so if you do buy the book, and then want to have a mutually respectful kōrero with me about my chapter, please do comment here.

 

Ngā mihi nui ki a koe.

Advertisements

Internalising our oppression

Since I began blogging around three years ago, my exposure to different Māori forums has expanded significantly. This is my last post for Ellipsister so I considered it timely to round out my experience with a post on internalised oppression by looking at three currently controversial issues: the marginalisation of the Te Paati Māori and the call for a merger with the MANA Movement, and the allegations of editorial interference at Māori Television.

Internalised oppression occurs when a minority or marginalised group ‘consciously or unconsciously perpetuate, collude with, and contribute to the oppression they experience’ [Understanding Internalized Oppression: A Theoretical Conceptualization of Internalized Subordination at 78].

For Māori, internalised oppression is reflected in the way we antagonise and Other our own.* For example, it might be demonstrated where reo speaking Māori use their command of te reo to belittle their non-reo speaking counterparts, or where the colour of ones skin or the quantum of blood becomes the test by which ones ‘Māori-ness’ is measured. In Māori politics, this might be demonstrated through the active denial of Māori claims to representation, or where a party is denied the right to identify as ‘Māori’ and is instead forced to be identified within the left-right dichotomy.  

The late Gloria Anzaldúa (indigenous scholar) wrote of internalised oppression that:

One of the reasons for this hostility among us is the forced cultural penetration, the rape of the colored by the white, with the colonizers depositing their perspective, their language, their values in our bodies. External oppression is paralleled with our internalization of the oppression, and our acting out from the oppression. They have us doing within our own ranks what they have done and continue doing to us – Othering people. That is, isolating them, pushing them out of the herd, ostracizing them. The internalization of negative images of ourselves, our self-hatred, poor self-esteem, makes our own people the Other [Anzaldua, (2009) at 112].

She argues, it is ‘exactly our internalized whiteness that desperately wants boundary lines marked out’ and she explains ‘like fighting cocks, razor blades strapped to our fingers, we slash out at each other. We have turned our anger against ourselves. And our anger is immense’ [Anzaldua (2009) at 112-113].

So when we hear terms like “Māori Aristocracy”, “Brown Bureaucracy”, “Race Traitors”, “Māori Elite”, “Māori Conservatism” and the like – these are white concepts thrust upon Māori identity. They are some of the more prevalent ways in which we express our internalised oppression. When they are thrust on us by Pākehā, they are simply oppressive words used to demonise and divide – they undermine kotahitanga to serve a white a purpose.

I imagine there are some readers thinking ‘well, that’s not me, I definitely don’t do that’.  Arohamai, but it is. It is all of us. And our denial does our struggle a great disservice. Kotahitanga will only arise when we all acknowledge our own complicity in undermining our struggle: our internalised oppression. 

The marginalisation of the Māori Party

It is an indisputable fact that the Māori Party is the only party in Aotearoa New Zealand whose representatives are all Māori and whose political philosophy is grounded in kaupapa and tikanga Māori. Yet, as a micro party representing an indigenous minority it remains one of the most ridiculed, contested, and criticised parties inside Parliament.

I ask readers to reflect on this hypothetical for a moment:

If in Australia or Canada for example, a First Nations party were subjected to the ongoing attacks on integrity and legitimacy from Canadian parties founded on western ideologies, would you find that acceptable?  If not, why then should the Māori Party not be extended the same support you would extend to another First Nations roopu?

Here in Aotearoa disparaging the Māori Party is not only not frowned upon it is actively encouraged across the political spectrum, which is something (I personally) find incredibly disturbing and disheartening.

I am not suggesting here that the Māori Party are the only party that represent Māori. Or that they are imune from criticism. I am arguing that they are the only existing party founded on kaupapa and tikanga Māori and whose primary philosophy is by, for and with Māori with subsequent benefits accruing to Pakeha and tauiwi as a corollary of the liberation of Māori.  The language used to discredit our only indigenous party, is at odds with our quest for mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga and we should be clear about the role of internalised oppression in this regard.

The proposed merger

Recently, two Māori Party members met with a couple of MANA members to informally discuss the possibility of a merger between the parties. It was a move that had not been sanctioned at either the electorate or the national level of the Māori Party. Nonetheless, it was publicised on the MANA news website but has been met with mixed responses from both roopu.

The mixed responses appear to derive from what are conceivably irreconcilable differences. Harawira did afterall, walk from the Māori Party to start a new party integrated with unionism and the Marxist organisation Socialist Aotearoa. The Māori Party while sympathetic to many of the policy components of the MANA movement see self-determination and not the State as the solution to Māori liberation. Yet, since Harawira’s departure, Māori Party leaders and representatives have all been criticised for splitting the Māori vote.

Strip away the politicking, and the fact is that the Māori vote has always been split. Under the First Past the Post (FPP) system it was predominantly split between the Labour Party and the National Party. Yet, few political commentators acknowledge the Māori connection to right wing politics, such as Sir Apirana Ngata, who was Minister of Māori Affairs under the Liberal Party – the National Party’s predecessor. Overlooking the long line of support for National within Māori communities ignores a respectful proportion of Māori voters. I’ll admit that I was unaware of the extent of Māori support for the National Party until relatively recently. More precedence has of course been given to the Labour Party roots within Māoridom. Not because their policy has necessarily been beneficial to Māori, but because of the historical support by rangatira such as Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana who had immense influence in Māori communities and that support for Labour has been largely inherited.

The introduction of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system, brought with it an opportunity for Māori to carve out their own path – whether that be as part of a mainstream party, or as an independent party.  But something else happened instead, MMP cultivated our internalised oppression and has steered us down the sinister path of our own marginalisation. This doesn’t have to continue, but it will take conscious action to overcome the problem.

We should remember that capitalism and socialism are western ideologies. These ideologies while many of us may subscribe to them in some part are not kaupapa Māori. They may arguably complement our kaupapa and our tikanga, but they should never be seen as superior to or as a replacement of it.  We should never feel ashamed to say our kaupapa will liberate us. We should certainly not think that only socialism or capitalism will liberate our indigenous lives.

I don’t know that there can ever be a pan-Māori party and I  don’t think simply merging Māori and MANA will bring about the kotahitanga tangata whenua are crying out for given the philosophies of each roopu have points of clear divergence. I don’t have answers, but I will spend the next few years thinking, reflecting and trying to understand how Māori can optimise MMP to our advantage. I also think at least part of the solution will be the approach of our media organisations to Māori issues.

Editorial interference at Māori Television

For the past year, there have been many allegations from within MTS of both editorial and political interference by Māori leaders. In particular, with regard to the award winning Native Affairs programme. I have been a regular watcher, supporter and tweeter of Native Affairs since around the 2011 Election. The investigative work carried out by the very talented journalists, venturing into topics shunned by other media outlets and the accessibility of the show to non-reo speaking Māori with a strong wahine presence has been incredibly inspirational. One of their most controversial stories the investigation into allegations of financial mismanagement by some in the National Kōhanga Reo Trust (TKRNT). But their work has not been without criticism.

For instance, Ross Nepia Himona, author of Te Pututara suggests that the investigation by Native Affairs was informed by a small group within the Kōhanga Reo movement attempting to ‘subvert the governance of TKRNT because they were aggrieved by a legitimate staffing decision. The expose alleging financial impropriety was a means to a political end and not the main story at all’. However,  in contrast, Graham Cameron has written that Māori leaders are conspiring to end Native Affairs, and that the programme ‘have another Te Kōhanga Reo story, a continuation of their investigation; interviewing none other than Toni Waho, an ex-Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust trustee’.

Whatever your views on the TKRNT investigation, or whether or not you accept the allegations of editorial interference, I do think Himona’s analysis raises an important issue – as a programme and service tasked with critique it must also be open to critique of its own practices. Just as there have been concerns raised about appointments and interference, equally so there have been concerns about journalistic practices aligning with the adversarialism and sensationalism of western journalism.

Internalised oppression operates in all spheres of Māori life – society, culture, media, politics, religion and so on. I’m not suggesting we dont hold our leaders and orgnaisations to account. I do however think there are times where we go beyond that remit and venture into territory that instead tears their integrity to shreds. We forget our first principles as Māori. We turn on each other. We take on the colonisers face.

Kia mau tonu ki nga kupu o ō tātou tīpuna, Nāku me ngā mihi.

*Note, this is the perspective of one indigenous woman’s voice – it is not and does not profess to speak on behalf of all peoples identifying as Māori. 

Media Microaggressions: Iwi & Social Housing

Haami Piripi argued on The Nation that State houses have zero market value and as such the starting point for negotiations around price for the release of those houses for the Iwi Leaders Group was zero. This was in light of the fact that ongoing investment is required to meet the housing needs of social housing tenants. This immediately prompted the claim by The Nation’s Lisa Owen that “iwi want State houses for free” and the corollary “this is unfair to the tax payer”.

As Piripi explained, housing is the single most determinant factor in child poverty. Overcrowding and substandard housing disproportionately affects whānau Māori. To reiterate, Piripi suggested that these houses have no market value because they are coupled with an ongoing cost that is usually the responsibility of the State. Therefore a straight transfer is an investment since Iwi are willing to pick up the costs of that social responsibility by investing their own resources. Additionally, Piripi argued that zero market value was the starting point – he did not say that the iwi collective were unwilling to negotiate a fair price. Yet, consider the number of times that Lisa Owen stressed the soundbite that iwi want State houses for free:

  • Iwi wants the houses for free?
  • Free?
  • Why do you think zero free houses is the right price?
  • So do you think giving them away for free is fair value to the taxpayer?
  • Wouldn’t they have to offer the houses to them for free as well, or do you think that this is a deal that should just apply to iwi?
  • So does the Government know you want these houses for free?
  • So you want a blanket deal negotiated for all iwi across the country to get these houses for free?

This inevitably led to the initial propagation of this contrived message in subsequent headlines of major publications:

Although it’s rather cliché to appeal to Orwellian dialogue these days, these messages emphasise the suggestion that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.

One problem with this kind of framing is that it plays into the decades long stiffing of advancement for Māori – that our people are just in the business of wanting ‘something for nothing’. Nevermind that a large proportion of Crown land was acquired through raupatu (confiscation), and that Māori land continues to be taken for public works. And that intergenerational inequity experienced by whānau Māori is the result of historic injustices perpetuated by the Crown.

So while I’m appalled that media still want to attack Māori initiatives, I’m not particularly surprised. I’m not convinced this was a conscious act, but perhaps evidence of entrenched media micro-aggressions. Afterall, feeding racial disquiet is a proven formula for increasing ratings. But this type of storytelling isn’t a scoop. It’s a gouge. It’s the hollowing out of truth to prevent the real message: Iwi Māori being proactive in their approach to relieve the intergenerational inequity that disproportionately affects whānau Māori.

The reiteration of the distorted message also frames Iwi Māori as enemies of ‘hardworking New Zealander’s’, all the while downplaying that the Iwi collective express a desire and commitment to invest iwi resources into their social housing initiatives to improve the lives of Māori and carry the ongoing costs of that social housing responsibility. This is a crucial point to emphasise in an economy supported by the State, and that is geared toward producing inequity.

Lamia Imam sums up the reality well in her tweet:

Decentralisation is consistent with mana motuhake. Māori reclaiming control over our own lives should be supported not thwarted by media, or anyone else for that matter.

WHĀNAU ORA: It was the way our people lived

Whānau Ora has always been in the hissing pit when it comes to NZ politics. Another example of Māori “Special Privilege”. Every jibe simply an attempt by the sneerer to reinforce their assimilationist predisposition and/or self importance. Much of the criticism is misplaced or exaggerated. And it can be quite distressing seeing Māori internalise that lack of faith in Māori systems. It’s implementation is by no means perfect, and sure there are certainly areas requiring vast improvement, but there is no denying that it has helped thousands of family in the four years it has been in operation as a matter of government policy. 

Two days ago, the Auditor General released a report on Whānau Ora. While it has been depicted in the media as a damning indictment, the Report simply sought to clarify what whānau ora is, where the funding has gone, and what Whānau Ora has achieved after four years. The Auditor General appraises Whānau Ora as “an example of innovation and new thinking in service delivery”. She also states that it provides “an opportunity for providers of health and social services in the community to operate differently and to support families in deciding their best way forward”.

Many people have commented that they are not quite sure what Whānau Ora is or does. I’m not convinced that’s due to a lack of information. Arguably,(in many cases at least) it is misunderstood as a result of passive ignorance.

What is Whānau Ora?

Whānau Ora is not a new concept. Like many concepts in Te Ao Māori, no group or individual can determine for others what it means. What can be generally agreed is that from a policy perspective it is an “inclusive and culturally anchored approach based on a Māori view of health that assumes changes in an individual’s wellbeing can be brought about by focusing on the family collective” rather than “focusing separately on individual family members and their problems”. In practice then it requires “multiple government agencies to work together with families rather than separately with individual relatives”.

Three key principles 

Professor Mason Durie emphasises that Whānau Ora is built on three key principles:

Integrated solutions

  • The idea is that “no single sector or discipline has all the answers” to meeting the holistic needs of whānau. This means that a Whānau Ora approach is “cross sectoral, inter-disciplinary, Whānau centred”.

Durie writes:

An integrated approach recognises that economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions are inter-related and one cannot be adequately progressed without the others.

Distinctive pathways

  • Whānau Ora recognises that “cultural worldviews are important to health”. As well as building on “Māori world views, language [and] culture, networks, [and] leadership”, Whānau Ora reaches out to cultures in all their diversity. The objective is to provide a framework within which all whānau can define their own distinctive pathways in accordance with their cultural practices and values to improve whānau outcomes.

Goals that empower

  • Whānau Ora values “human dignity, positive relationships, self-management and self-determination”.
  • It is about “addressing the impacts of whānau disadvantage as well as assisting families to be strong, capable, resilient and self-managing”. The goal then is not only providing services that address existing disparities, but to unlock potential to help whānau access opportunities and navigate their own futures with the tools they need to improve their whānau outcomes.

In a nutshell, Dame Tariana Turia explains that Whānau Ora is about:

…restoring to ourselves, our confidence in our own capacity to provide for our own – to take collective responsibility to support those who need it most.

See also Te Puni Kōkiri Fact Sheet.

Criticism

Following the Report, Whānau Ora and in particular, Te Puni Kōkiri has come under attack from opposition MP’s. The Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) have criticised the way that some politicians have bought into the “beat-up by politically motivated tirades which do nothing but bring this kaupapa into disrepute”. The ILG argue that as Māori we need to have faith in our own answers and be proud of the progress that has been made to enable whānau to date.  The group asks:

Why would we turn the spotlight on ourselves, and expect an initiative which is still evolving to rectify generations of neglect or indifference from the state?

Critique is to be welcomed. Evaluations ensure transparency and accountability. The Minister of Māori Development Te Ururoa Flavell appreciated the report claiming it affirms “the value of taking an innovative public policy approach to supporting families in need.” He considers that the Report provides valuable lessons for “Ministers, government departments, commissioning agencies and providers”. Flavell highlights that:

Since Whānau Ora began in 2010, around 9,400 families have benefitted from whānau-centred service delivery which includes almost 50,000 people.

The problem with exaggerating the shortcomings identified in the report, as the ILG point out, is that it risks hurting whānau who have or could benefit from Whānau Ora services. The reason being that if the public perceive the services to be performing poorly or at least buy into the misplaced criticism by opposition MP’s, then it provides grounds for the government to withdraw funding despite the gains made to date and the future potential of the approach.

The main criticism refers to the amount of funding spent by Te Puni Kōkiri on Administration based on the Auditor General’s observation that:

…delays in spending the available budgets meant that some of the funds intended for whānau and providers did not reach them as originally planned. In our view, better planning and financial management were needed.

Te Puni Kōkiri

Te Puni Kōkiri is the government organisation tasked with “carrying out the Initiatives, for giving the Government policy advice about the Initiatives, and for assessing and reporting on the Initiatives’ effectiveness”.

The funding made available for their use was administrative “to implement, develop, and evaluate the whānau ora service delivery approach” in the 2010/2011 period and “to implement, develop, and evaluate the whānau ora commissioning approach” in the 2013/2014 period.

The total amount spent was $137.6 million, which was made up of:

$20.8 million (15% of the total) spent through the WIIE fund which “made funds available to whānau through some form of legal entity to enable them to prepare plans to improve their lives”

$67.9 million (49% of the total) spent through the Service Delivery Capability fund which “made funds available to providers, who used it to build their capability to deliver whānau-centred services”

$6.6 million (5% of the total) spent through the funds for commissioning agencies; and

$42.3 million (31% of the total) spent on administration (including research and evaluation).

In response to this criticism, Te Puni Kōkiri’s CEO, Michelle Hippolite, has responded that she can account for where all the funds clustered for administration are currently allocated and asserts that no funds have been misspent. While Minister Flavell acknowledges that there were issues “of design, development, and implementation” and money was allocated to “research, evaluation, and leadership programmes” to assist to that end without which “the administration spending would have been at a normal level for a Government programme”.

Conclusion

There is certainly good reason for being concerned that funding appears to have centralised in administration and bureaucracy. This is especially so when providers are always in need of additional funding to meet the needs of whānau. Former Minister Tariana Turia criticised this last October when she questioned why there was an underspend on Whānau Ora and sought answers to where the money had been allocated as she believed that more funding should have been directed to frontline services.

The Report most likely answers her question: much was tied up in Administration. The challenge going forward will be finding more efficient administration systems to ensure more funding finds its way to service providers and navigators.

The benefit of the Report is that it provides clear observations and recommendations that highlight for Te Puni Kōkiri in particular, where it needs to improve its effectiveness. After all, Whānau Ora is about being whānau centric, so any costing’s and financial planning must always be mindful of how whānau are centred in those plans.

However, Whānau Ora cannot resolve the effects of almost 200 years of colonisation in 4 years. This seems to be the crux of much of the criticism in an attempt to disband Whānau Ora and force a return to the shabby state services that have been in place for decades and have not been able to change outcomes for a large proportion of Māori. It is an undeniably unrealistic expectation to suggest that Whānau Ora would magically solve inter-generational disparity in under half a decade.

In saying that, Whānau Ora has helped numerous families to date. And that success should be celebrated. Although, it is currently geared toward Māori and Pasifika whānau to address the history of disparity in Aotearoa, the approach itself is applicable to all whānau and has the capacity to provide a new way of delivering health and social services to all whānau to improve outcomes and finds solutions for whānau self-determination.

See also Turia’s comments on the long term goals of Whānau Ora.

 

 

Wai Māori

Poroti Springs. Image sourced from Waimarie Nurseries http://www.waimarienurseries.co.nz/Poroti_Springs.cfm

Simmering away for some years now and probably not too far off blowing its stack is the contention as to whether anyone owns the water, or if any group can claim rights over water. This debate will inevitably lead to the false claims that Māori want to exclude the average New Zealander from access to freshwater.

Water is indisputably an essential resource for the development and sustainability of all societies.  Yet, in countries like Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the US (to name a few) where Indigenous populations have protected and relied on certain water sources for centuries, have had their access to most of these water sources snatched away through the process of colonisation. Many of the newer generations ignore the vital role of water to these communities.

The continual use of statements like no-one owns the water derives from the assumption that ownership as they understand it – as an exclusionary concept, is synonymous with the concept of ownership from Indigenous perspectives. For Māori, the rights over water include use rights but also rights to kaitiaki which allows hapū and iwi to keep water sources clean, and to avoid exploitation to preserve aquifers for current and future generations in the event of scarcity.

Water scarcity arises through both natural (drought, flooding etc) and human forces (commercial exploitation, waste, pollution etc). According to the UN while there is “enough freshwater on the planet for seven billion people” its uneven distribution and the extent to which water is  “wasted, polluted and unsustainably managed” affects around 748 million people in the world.

Those of us living in developed countries have for the most part, uninterrupted access to water. Some countries going so far as to drill into prehistoric reserves to service industry needs.

 The NZ Herald recently reported that the government has rejected a bid by the Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) for rights over freshwater. Minister Nick Smith has indicated that the government may instead “compromise by allowing regional councils to do local deals with Māori”.

The government love the no one owns the water message. Firstly, it polarises public opinion and plays to NZ’s largely nationalist base, which concomitantly supports the government’s unwillingness to grant water rights to Māori. Secondly, it obscures what is happening in the background to the negotiations between the Crown and the ILG – the privatisation of water by regional councils for sale in overseas markets.

For example, the Northland and Whangarei District Councils have collaboratively sidestepped consulting with the Whatitiri Māori Reserve Trust, the owners of Poroti Springs, and have approved the expansion of earthworks by Zodiac Holdings for “a commercial water bottling plant across the road from the springs”. This ought to greatly offend the same nationalists likely supporting the against Māori having water rights brigade given the end product is intended for overseas markets. Yet it won’t. Because parse the message and we get Māori cannot own or have rights over water.

To deny rights to Māori over freshwater while empowering regional councils who have failed to protect these water sources from pollution or exploitation illuminates the racism underlying the governments rhetoric. This is not about ‘no one owning the water’ this is about the Crown stamping its racist little iron feet on Māori.

The actions of these councils also indicates that the governments vision of  cooperation between Māori and Regional Councils is not only flawed but disingenuous since the government is well aware that commercial interests will supersede the rights and interests of Māori native to the particular rohe, especially where investment in those regions is necessary.

Escaping government and the nationalist public considerations is that hapū and iwi have occupied these regions for centuries. During this time, they have cared for the waterways ensuring reserves were not exploited and that they remained free of pollutants. Every single New Zealander has benefited from the kaitiakitanga of our tūpuna over our waterways.

In Aotearoa, access and availability is interrupted usually only as a result of drought (scarcity) or flooding (pollution), and through private ownership of water sources granted to corporations by the government.  For Māori some water sources are taonga from a wahi tapu perspective.

But water is also a vital source of economic security. Access and availability are necessary for growing food, drinking water, health, hygiene and sanitation. It comes as no surprise then that the ILG would seek rights over freshwater in Aotearoa, when the Crown have systematically privatised water systems and allocated rights to public entities in this respect which has led to spiritual, environmental, and economic detachment for many hapū and iwi.

The fact that the government and regional councils seem prepared to draw down on the principal of our water for short term relief should worry all of us. Not because the water is to be shipped offshore, but because we should be mindful of the uneven distribution of freshwater globally and the need to protect against water scarcity in Aotearoa for current and future generations. We should also remain alert to the harmful rhetoric employed by the Crown that intends to entrench a divisive public to reinforce its own power over all us.

[Editors noteThis is the revised version of the original post]

Tactical Voting, Manaakitanga and the Northland By-Election

I’ve been sitting on this post for a while. Quite anxious about posting. Worried about the backlash. The thing is, I don’t consider tactical voting as inherently bad. I just think that some strategies appear inconsistent with tikanga Māori. In particular, the principle of manaakitanga. That principle might not be important to non-Māori electors, but it does, in my view, matter where the particular electorate involves a candidate and constituents committed to kaupapa Māori.

Note, I am not suggesting that I am an authority nor that I speak on behalf of all Māori electors. Rather, it is my personal analysis regarding my interpretation and how I have come to understand manaakitanga and the problems I see with tactical voting in this particular regard.

Before I get into the substance of my concern, its necessary for the purposes of transparency to outlay a couple of disclosures. Firstly, I am a Māori Party (MP) member, and secondly, as reported in the media the idea of strategic voting was discussed at the Strategy and Executive levels of the MP with regard to the Te Tai Tokerau seat during the 2014 Election. Of note, views on strategic voting within the MP groups with whom I have had close contact with anyway,  is not settled. Many, like myself, were and remain strongly opposed to the idea of pulling a candidate just because polling is unfavourable. The concern revolves around the stripping of the candidates mana as a result of such a process. (I’d go as far as saying this is similarly true with standing a candidate but not allowing or perhaps discouraging them from seeking a candidate vote).

In brief, manaakitanga is about behaving in a way that is uplifting and enhances the mana of others. It is about positive role modelling and preserving the integrity of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi and the wider community. (I am mindful that the concept can and does change within and between whānau, hapū and iwi, however, these characteristics seem to be widely accepted).

So I’m not convinced that the disavowal of an elected candidate, in this case, Willow-Jean Prime who has expressed a strong desire and genuine commitment to seek the electorate vote is in anyway mana enhancing or positive role modeling. To add insult to injury, encouraging people to vote for her rival candidate Winston Peters who has known sexist, bigoted and racist traits (recalling his joke at the expense of the Chinese) and has expressed a clear aversion to Te Tiriti o Waitangi reflects a lack of respect for the integrity and mana of Prime. It is essentially a strategy of two facing Prime by claiming on the one hand that she is the best candidate but undermining that message by getting people to not vote for her and to vote for Peters which is inconsistent with what manaakitanga involves.

For clarity, electors who were already going to vote for Peters are not participating in this mana stripping exercise. Additionally, if a candidate voluntarily revokes their commitment to seek the electorate vote then the strategy can arguably be said to not breach the principle. Although, there would remain issues regarding whether whānau, hapū, iwi and wider community see this kind of strategy as an attack on their integrity and mana.

The prevailing narrative is that a vote for Prime is essentially a wasted vote or a vote for National. But it’s not. That story is moral blackmail. It attempts to alienate any person who exercises their democratic right to vote for the candidate that they believe will best represent their interests and the interests of their electorate. This particular kind of tactical voting insists that the personal preferences of electors and the mana of candidates be set aside for the ‘greater good’ of the left. For Māori electors, it asks or rather demands that Māori identify as left first and only thereafter as Māori.

There is indeed a place for tactical voting provided it isn’t coupled with coercion. Where people aren’t induced to vote in a particular way due to fear of exclusion or public condemnation. Where people aren’t morally blackmailed into taking a particular position. And where campaigns and candidates aren’t undermined in a way that is mana stripping.

Some argue that this strategy is not coercive but instead educational. I’m still unconvinced by this argument too. The presumption is that all the strategy does is propose an option for voters together with counter-scenarios to let them make a choice. Yet, this is most often coupled with the above narrative and has led to verbal assaults on the non-compliant, at least in online forums. Moreover, it delivers information in a way designed to persuade a voter to conform rather than to impart knowledge. Some may not see the problem with that. That’s their prerogative. But when a person refuses to conform and is then castigated by their supposed left wing allies for daring to have an alternative view, it cannot pretend to be educational.  And given the extent of manipulation we as individuals are already subjected to, I find it alarming that many of these people would criticise media manipulation while engaging in the same tactics.

The awful rhetoric (coming from some very active voices) that followed the left bloc loss at the 2014 election was that everyone who didn’t vote according to a particular strategy guide were whollly responsible for National’s win, must hate people, are selfish and greedy, and lack intelligence – some suggested even that some shouldn’t have bothered voting at all [the irony given the push was to attract the elusive missing million]. So instead of holding up the principle of democracy, it became a game of ‘democracy on our terms only’. Free choice erased. Manaakitanga not even a feature of the story. Camaraderie existing only in conformity, under a strategy of manipulation.

Reverse Waitangi Day

Waitangi Day is almost always blighted by entrenched racism that much of the country pretend doesn’t actually exist every other day of the year. The stories grabbing headlines are almost always those that attempt to deny Māori their indigeneity, deny Māori never ceded sovereignty or, in general: deny Māori realities.

The Māori privilege meme serves the purpose of confirming racial bias in favour of Pākehā New Zealand. The veiled message: Māori people are so privileged with their Treaty settlements and their parliamentary seats. It’s as if somehow Pākeha are uncompensated when the government takes their land, or that Pākehā have no seats in the political institutions they designed and imposed on Māori.

So I turn to this brilliant comedic piece by Aamer Rahman, who nails the illogic of reverse racism.

In light of Rahman’s epic effort, if you struggle with empathy this Waitangi season, then below is an attempt (borrowing much of Rahman’s framework) to help you understand the stupidity behind claims of Māori privilege and Māori as reverse racists.

Reverse Waitangi Day: Māori privilege

Let’s first borrow Rahman’s hypothetical time machine.

Imagine Māori went back in time to before New Zealand was colonised and convinced all the independent iwi to join together and to colonise the territory of Great Britain and treat the Pākehā inhabitants as a sub-human species.

Ships full of Māori arrive on their shores rape Pākehā women, pillage and burn Pākehā homes and villages, and introduce diseases that decimate the Pākehā population within decades of arrival. Māori leaders then proclaim that the Pākehā ways are far too savage and lawless, thus allowing them to justify their colonisation because of their superior culture.

To really entrench their power, Māori design a Treaty in two languages that contain entirely different terms. Māori induce Pākehā to sign the Treaty making promises and guarantees about what Pākehā retain. But the Māori representatives had their fingers crossed the whole time, so no “real” promises were ever made. The majority of Pākehā sign the English version because they don’t really understand the Māori language version. But it doesn’t really matter which one they sign because Māori have another trick up their sleeve. Māori intend to establish a system that favours Māori at every social, economic and political opportunity. This means Māori and all the Māori settlers to come, get to determine which Treaty version has precedence and non-English speaking Māori will get to be arbiters of what Pākehā understood about what the Treaty meant to Pākehā. Oh and Māori decided never to give that Treaty any status as an actual law to abide by anyways.

For fun, Māori confiscate almost all Pākehā land and resources and encourage more Māori settlers to come to Great Britain and take land and resources from Pākehā. More Māori arrive and raise families, expand their population, most of whom contribute to the demonisation of Pākehā.

Māori get sick of not being able to understand the Pākehā they colonised and want to maintain the power they have gained, so they decide that Pākehā should conform to the Māori way of life now. They pursue a cultural cleanse by banning all English speaking and the practice of any system of values and beliefs Pākehā have established over centuries so that Pākehā lose every sense of hope of self-determination

Every decade or so, Māori churn out some story about how Pākehā weren’t the first people to live in Great Britain. And despite Pākehā overrepresentation in all the statistics determining social and economic outcomes, Māori insist it’s an issue of personal responsibility alone. Worried the message is losing its grip on the majority, Māori businesses and elites fund different information outlets to lead written assaults on how Pākehā have all this privilege. Those Pākehā Grievers.

Māori then prove their generosity and the equal platform Pākehā share with them by compensating some families with a massive 1% of the total value of their loss of land and other resources. They even gift Pākehā 7 of the 120 seats in the House of Representatives.

As a matter of goodwill, Māori eventually recognises English as an official language. But it turns out pronunciation is unimportant to Māori. So they create a culture that makes it okay to mock the English language and those who speak it.

After almost two centuries of this we could say that Māori privilege exists. That Māori get preferential treatment. That Māori have too many seats in Parliament. That Māori have more rights than everyone else. That Māori are more likely than any other group in New Zealand to succeed because of the institutional framework that favours their interests.

So, if Māori could go back in time and reverse every injustice inflicted on us as a people so that it were inflicted instead upon Pākeha then we could say Māori privilege exists. But none of that is true. And nor do Māori wish for it to be so.

But let’s acknowledge what Māori privilege actually means. Before invoking the meme this Waitangi Day, why not pause and actually think about what you’re saying rather than parroting the views of those reacting to what they perceive as a threat to their own privilege.

Addendum:

If your reaction is immediately a defensive ‘…but [insert historical fact about invasions on British territory]’ then you have missed the entire point of the post. So let me spell it out: Previous invasions of one country DO NOT justify colonisation of another.

Disunity as the year comes to an end for the Māori Party?

Te Karere reports that Tariana Turia is furious over Te Ururoa Flavell’s Whānau Ora housing decision:

“The newly-appointed Minister for Whānau Ora has come under attack from the person who setup Whānau Ora and the party he currently leads. Tariana Turia is angry that the co-leader of the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell has overturned a decision she made in July to give millions of dollars for social housing to Māori. Te Karere understands the money, intended to be managed by Māori, will now be administered by a government agency.”

Of note, the headline is a little misleading since the decision was not advanced by Flavell and after watching the interview, Turia seems disappointed more than she is furious.

The issue: Flavell has supported Housing Minister Nick Smith in abandoning the previous Māori housing policy which would have seen Te Pou Matakana (an independent Māori organisation) administer $25 million to coordinate Māori housing.

The decision: to transfer this responsibility of Māori Housing to Crown entity Te Puni Kokiri.

As the architect of the previous policy, it is unsurprising that this move has upset Turia. Mainly because it seems to contradict the objectives of Whānau Ora to create rangatiratanga for Māori as opposed to micromanagement by the State. And after scrolling through the feedback on this decision, Turia’s criticism appears to resonate with a sizeable proportion of Māori Party supporters and Māori more generally, including myself.

To be clear, I have much respect for Te Ururoa Flavell. This post is not about trampling on his mana. And I suspect that was not Turia’s intention either. Rather, it is acknowledging that as a Minister of the Crown, his decisions will be scrutinised even by his wider support networks, and that critique is a healthy part of the democratic process. One thing to be mindful of is that Flavell is bound by collective responsibility in his portfolios and must represent the government’s position in relation to his ministerial responsibilities.  This was made clear when the Party members and supporters voted in favour of the relationship accord. It is the primary reason the membership supported Co-Leader Marama Fox as an independent voice in Parliament. That outside cabinet position is intended to give Māori a voice and provide an avenue for criticism of decisions that Māori believe are not in our best interests and do not  steer us toward tino rangatiratanga.

Why the abandonment of Māori governance in favour of State management of Māori housing? Money.  According to Turia:

[If] they were worried about the amount of money, which is what they told me, worried about the amount of money for administration, they could have put that in the contract.

The reason supplied to Turia is a major cause for concern. It explicitly says that the Crown do not trust Māori to manage our affairs. In my view, it is both a condescending and oppressive attitude that intensifies ingrained views of Māori as ‘needing to be civilised’. Moreover, it imposes a view of Māori criminality (i.e. Māori organisations cannot be trusted to act legally or appropriately with significant sums of money) and is further evidence that the heavy chains of colonisation are still firmly in place.  There are, of course, clear instances of the mismanagement of funds within Māori organisations. However, this is not unique to Māori and flagging it as a reason for ‘State’ retention of control entrenches the perception that the behaviour of the few is reflective of the entire Māori population.

The government talks about its role  in creating an enabling environment for Māori. This is language drawn from international trade policy, in particular, the WTO. Unfortunately, the way it is being employed in NZ is eerily similar to the way the developed countries advocate the enabling of developing and least-developed countries but in reality have sidestepped their obligations.

 In response to Turia’s criticism, Māori Party President, Naida Glavish made the following comments as reported on Twitter by Te Kaea Journalist Maiki Sherman:

@MaikiSherman  writes:

Māori Party president Naida Glavish tells former co-leader Tariana Turia to “let go” following her public criticism of Te Ururoa Flavell.

“We would all hate to see Whaea Tariana detract from her own mana and spoil her distinguished record of service to our people and our party”

“It was her own decision to leave Parliament, which necessarily meant passing over the reins to her successors” – Naida Glavish.

Tariana Turia criticised a decision to change administration of funding for Maori social housing to Te Puni Kokiri.

Naida Glavish says the decision was made by Nick Smith, based on a Cabinet decision, on recommendation by the Auditor General.

Apart from the Māori Party’s embarrassing public spat, this also shows they’ve been railroaded by Cabinet. #RelationshipAccord

In my view, Turia’s criticism was not overstepping the boundary – it was a legitimate concern. As a founder of the Party and a key architect of Whānau Ora, it is understandable that she would express her views about its future in light of the decision made. The question asked of her: ‘What message do you have for Te Ururora Flavell?’ was provocative and seems to have baited the Party into a public war of words. Inadvertently implying a disunity that does not, in fact, exist.  The Party will need to mindful of how easy but also harmful it is to conflate legitimate criticism with personal attacks going into 2015 and beyond.

Addendum:

Link to Māori Party Press Release here re: Maiki Shermans commentary on Twitter.

The Greens get a little personal

I like the Greens. A lot. Their predilection for social and environmental justice and commitment to clean politics was something that set them apart from the other two main parties toward the end of the 2014 election campaign. So naturally it seemed out of character for Metiria Turei to make what might be construed as a deeply offensive personal remark in her public condemnation of  Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako (National), as the newly appointed Chair of the Māori Affairs Select Committee (MASC).

In context, Turei was making valid constructive criticisms about the changes to the MASC under the National government. She raised three fundamental concerns.

(1) Scheduling debates on Treaty bills at the same time as the MASC meetings. This is an entirely justified concern, because surely any Te Tiriti issues fall within the scope of Māori Affairs.

(2) That National are wasting the MASC time by not pulling the Te Reo (Māori Language) Bill, despite the Minister of Māori Development establishing an independent advisory group.

The Greens consider that ‘it is not fair on submitters that the bill could be changed significantly after the select committee has already heard their submissions’. Out of interest, I had a look at the terms of reference for the Māori Language Advisory Group (MLAG). The document states that the MLAG will provide expert and independent advice about the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill including any changes to policy intent and legislation. Moreover, the group will be supported by Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission). It also specifies:

“For the avoidance of doubt, it is noted that the Māori Affairs Select Committee will undertake its inquiry into the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, and provide its report to the House by 30 March 2015. The establishment and operations of the Māori Language Advisory Group is not related to, and will not affect, the operations of the Māori Affairs Select Committee. The Māori Language Advisory Group will be able to review and comment on the findings and recommendations of the Māori Affairs Select Committee with regard to the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill”

It seems that the two groups have distinct roles. The MLAG to consider the technical aspects of language revitalisation and implementation of the strategy. The MASC to provide a more holistic role in hearing and addressing the concerns of submitters through a final report with recommendations. While that might seem pretty straightforward, it would be good to get some clarification around the process so that the public can see whether it is or isn’t ‘wasting the committee’s time’. However, I am not entirely convinced that the criticism is about public interest in the process. Especially,  given the Greens and Labour have been highly critical of the Bill since its inception and would probably prefer it to not progress any further.

However,  as an opposition MP, Turei does have an obligation to outlay her concerns as a representative on the MASC. But her comments about Korako  I found a little troubling, perhaps I’m overreacting.

(3) Questioning the selection, competency and experience (and impliedly mana) of the person elected by majority vote to position of Chair seemed to me to go beyond the remit of an opposition MP and enter more personal territory. Because it is the Māori Affairs select committee, I’d have expected a measure of manaakitanga be shown, especially once the process of election were complete.

 Turei commented on Māori TV [see audio] that:

 “National put up a first termer as the Chair of this committee, it is an important committee, it should be chaired with someone who has much more experience than that”

I refer to the audio because it gives other cues in the form of tone and body language that cannot be translated in its written form and the text in the article and the interview differ slightly.

Te Rōpū Pounamu (The Greens Māori caucus) also emphasised this sentiment in a tweet:

I wondered on what grounds a first term MP might lack experience to Chair the Committee. Obviously a first time MP has no Parliamentary experience, but all MP’s enter the House with their unique skills and life experiences. I also considered if the same criticism would have been raised if it were a Labour first term MP who was nominated and elected to Chair the Committee.

Anyhow,  I took a peek at Korako’s public profile. Having sat on a number of Boards and having been involved in iwi organisations as well as running his own business, I do not see how he wouldn’t have the necessary skills to do the job. The suggestion that he wasn’t up to scratch was probably deeply insulting to him. It also came across as rather elitist highlighting perhaps a sense of hierarchy within the Greens that would appear to run counter to their narrative of equal opportunity.

What Turei doesn’t mention is the process by which the Chairperson is selected.  Its an important part of the context. In short, at the first Committee meeting nominations are called for by any member of the committee, and the nomination must then be seconded. Once nominations are ready, then the Chairperson is elected by majority vote.

So it is misleading to say National put a first termer as Chair, when the reality is, that Korako’s nomination must have been seconded, and then he was elected to that position by the majority of the committee.  My understanding is that there was a deadlock during the election process and if it weren’t broken then the meeting would have been dismissed and the committee unable to carry out its work. Apparently, Marama Fox relinquished her nomination for Deputy Chair to Nanaia Mahuta (Labour) to break the deadlock and to enable the Committee to carry on.

It is great that the Greens are stressing the importance of the Māori Affairs Select Committee and that they are (and have always been) committed to Te Tiriti. I just think the little snipe at Korako stooped to a level below which I’d expect the Greens to go. I may not agree with his party politics, but his perceived lack of experience by the Greens, isn’t something I’d expect to see his Committee colleagues dragging out in public after he were elected.

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.