Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key will use his Waitangi Day address this morning to tackle extremists on both sides of the race relations divide, saying they cynically damage the goodwill needed to put an end to grievance in New Zealand. …

His comments will target both sides – including Pakeha who believe the Treaty settlement process is a “gravy train” and that the price is too high, so past injustice should be ignored.

He will also tackle Maori extremists, describing them as those who promote a culture of entitlement and separatism, who believe colonisation entitles Maori to special treatment and whose sole objective is division.

I think the speech is necessary and overdue. However that does not mean it will automatically be effective.

In his speech at the marae yesterday, Mr Key discussed progress on Treaty settlements and said 2010 could be the year for a breakthrough on the foreshore and seabed. However, he said he needed to voice a note of caution that both sides had to compromise.

He also raised the 15 per cent Maori unemployment rate, saying improving education outcomes for Maori children would help address that.

I think improving education outcomes for Maori children is the most important thing that the Government can do. Except of course there is a limit to how much the Government can do by itself.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the full results of a poll of 1,002 Maori respondents. There are 685 from the Maori roll and 317 from the General Roll.

The most news worthy aspect is that that majority of Maori who are voting Labour do not believe Phil Goff is the best person to lead the Labour Party. Only 36% of Maori Labour voters say he is the best person to lead Labour and 48% say he is not. Now again – that is from Labour voters only, not all Maori, so is a pretty damning result.

We see this again, with the poll of all Maori voters on whether or not they think Phil Goff provides good leadership on Maori issues – only 18% (less than one in five) agree and 59% disagree.

Preferred PM is also pretty dismal. Goff is in 5th place at 4.6% (and remember this is amongst a constituency who used to be the strongest Labour had) and amongst Maori on the Maori roll he is even below Hone Harawira as Preferred PM!

Finally in terms of the party vote, there is bad and good news for Labour. Amongst the 68% of Maori on the Maori roll, Labour has fallen from 50% at the last election to 32%. Labour are at 51% amongst Maori on the general roll, which is up from a November Marae Digipoll.

Overall the Maori Party lead Labour by 0.4% on the party vote. On the Maori Roll, they lead by 20%, which compares to the 2008 election when Labour beat the Maori Party by 21% on the party vote.

If the electorate vote follows the party vote (and historically the Maori Party do far better on the electorate vote than the party vote) then Labour is at serious risk of losing their two remaining seats, rather than winning all seven seats as Shane Jones claims he will do.

Trevor Mallard blogged:

Back in 2000 I was acting Minister of Communication while Paul Swain was sick. I made it very clear at the time that the Crown did not accept that the radio spectrum was an asset that attracted rights for Maori from the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Frankly I thought, and still think, that that concept is nonsense.

Yet back in 2000 Hansard records:

The Government has decided that preferential bidding access to one of the four 15 megahertz blocks of third generation spectrum will be given only to those parties able to demonstrate some commitment to involve Maori in the development of this spectrum. This is likely to be telecommunications working in partnership with Maori. The third generation spectrum will provide significant opportunities for new investment and technological advancement in New Zealand’s telecommunications sector. The Government considers that it is very important to ensure that Maori can take part in this process.

Now to be clear, Trevor did not say that the telecommunications spectrum was a “right” under the Treaty of Waitangi. But he did advocate policy of preferential access for Maori to it, regardless of treaty claims. That is something he somehow forgot to mention.

Goff’’s desperate speech and u-turn may turn out to be a nail in his coffin. The Herald reports:

Labour’s president, Andrew Little, revealed yesterday that he has “personal concerns” about the speech.

It is no small thing for a party president to criticise the leader in public.

Mr Little said the speech had been discussed with Mr Goff at length at Labour’s national council meeting.

The president relayed his concerns, which he said were both his personally and those of people in the party.

“The extent to which I’ve got concerns is an issue for me and Phil, and no doubt the party and Phil and I wouldn’t air those publicly.”

But what is the game plan, that you will publicly air that you have concerns, just not what they are? There is no way this does not weaken Goff’s leadership.

A spokesman for Mr Goff said last night that he “absolutely stands by everything he said in the speech”.

It had raised important issues such as National’s “shabby” deal with the Maori Party to get the Emissions Trading Scheme through. Mr Goff also had grave concerns about National “playing politics” with the foreshore and seabed legislation.

So now the leader responds through the media to his own president.

Mr Little told the party conference in September that Labour had been wrong to deprive Maori of the right to test their claims in court when passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

The legislation will now be repealed as part of the governing agreement between National and the Maori Party, and Labour offered earlier in the year to work with National to achieve an “enduring consensus”.

But Mr Goff’s speech effectively changed Labour’s position on the law, saying it was working well the way it was now and repeal would make “wounds fester”.

Yep a u-turn in just two months.

I don’t think anyone thinks there is anything wrong with Labour opposing National’s ETS changes and associated deal with the Maori Party.

Likewise there is nothing wrong with Labour saying it supports the retention of the Foreshore & Seabed legislation. Of course they look a bit mickey mouse when they say they back change, that they are sorry for it, and then do a u-turn.

But where Goff went wrong is bringing together those two separate issues, along with Hone Harawira’s comments, into one overall theme of those Maori are getting away with too much.

My goodness, Phil Goff is desperate. He has actually done a full u-turn on his party’s removal of the right for Maori to test their common law property rights in court.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff has re-opened the political warfare over the foreshore and seabed law, saying the Government’s plan to repeal it will divide the country again.

Mr Goff yesterday changed Labour’s position on the law, saying it was working well the way it was now, and repeal would make “wounds fester”.

What an idiot. He doesn’t think there are festering wounds at the moment.

Goff is calculating (probably correctly) that he will get a short-term boost from this in the polls, which will shore up his leadership. However he is making his job of being able to form a Government after the next election harder, as the chances of Labour and the Greens by themselves achieving 62 or more seats is very remote. Maybe he is counting on Winston making it back?

No Right Turn has let loose:

Today in Palmerston North (of course), Labour leader Phil Goff gave a speech to Grey Power (of course) attacking the government for dealing with the Maori Party, “reopening” Treaty settlements, and revisiting the Foreshore and Seabed Act. While carefully caveated (of course), the underlying message was loud and clear: “National is in bed with the bloody Maaris”. …

Well, fuck him. Racism has no place in our society, and a proper left-wing party would be fighting against it, not engendering and exploiting it for political gain. Our defining belief is equality, and that means equality for all, not just Pakeha. If Labour doesn’t understand that, and wants to go down this path, then its just another reason for me to vote Green.

I think it is quite legitimate for Labour to say they have problems with the ETS and associated deals on Treaty settlements. Also legitimate to say they support the Foreshore & Seabed Act. But when Goff starts chucking in stuff about how John Key didn’t condemn Hone Harawira badly enough (which is hilarious when you consider Goff voted against the privileges committee report into Winston Peters), it is a pretty blatant attempt to do you know what.

The recent Marae-Digipoll showed Labour’s support amongst Maori had collapsed massively since the election. I guess they have decided not to try and change that, and hope they pick up enough Grey Power votes in exchange.

Colin Espiner blogs:

Twice in the past week, Goff has played the race card, albeit carefully, by suggesting first that there was one rule for Harawira over his comments about white mo-fos and another rule for other MPs, and then raising the prospect that National’s proposed settlement with iwi over the ETS was based on ethnicity. …

Goff told Parliament he had never indulged “the politics of race” although I think he protested a bit much. He is clearly trying to send a soft dog whistle to Labour supporters who abandoned his party at the last election because they were fed up with precisely the sort of “pandering to Maori” that National could now be accused of.

It will interesting how far Goff is willing to go. I suspect it is considerably more. The irony is it may help them tactically short-term, but it is almost impossible for them to win the next election unless the Maori Party were to support them – they and the Greens would need to win 62, maybe 63 seats.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog, the details of a Marae Digipoll. It has 700 voters from the Maori roll, and 300 from the general roll (but of Maori descent).

There’s several fascinating aspects to it.

1. Party Vote is Maori Party 48%, Labour 26% and National 20%. Now in the 2008 election, in the Maori seats, the party vote was Maori Party 29%, Labour 50% and National 7%. Now this can’t be directly compared due to inclusion of general roll voters (I have asked if there is a breakdown) but regardless that a big boost upwards for the Maori Party and National.
2. Maori Party at 57% on electorate vote. Will this hold up for them to win the sixth and seventh seat off Labour?
3. John Key at seven times the support of Phil Goff as Preferred PM. This is a National Party leader. Goff is in 5th place amongst Maori.
4. Approval of John Key is at 55% amongst Maori.
5. In terms of most effective Maori MP, the top Labour MP (Parekura Horomia)  is at 3%, in 5th place.
6. While 68% of Maori Party supporters back the decision to go into Government with National, most want them to be in Cabinet – not Ministers outside Cabinet.

I’ve said for some time that Labour’s strategy of attacking the Maori Party is a strategic blunder. This poll confirms it, in my opinion.

I am firmly against separate justice systems, but all for making the system more effective and this initiative seems a good one:

The Youth Court will sit at Manurewa Marae from November, and supporters say justice served in a Maori setting won’t be soft. …

Gisborne’s Te Poho o Rawiri Marae spearheaded the initiative last year, but Mr Sharples said Auckland was the logical extension of it because of the population base – one in four Maori live there.

Justice on marae was often far more uncomfortable for offenders than courtrooms, he said.

“Tamaiti [a boy] can stand in front of his family and be accounted for – it’s easy to go to a Pakeha court and go ae, ae, [yeah, yeah] and give the fingers and go out.

“But to stand in a court at your marae with your ancestors and your aunties, uncles and cousins – it’s scary. Some will think it’s soft but this is the hard option.”

I think Dr Sharples is spot on here. The change in venue could well make it more difficult for young offenders to be as disrespectful as they sometimes are in traditional courts.

And it is the same justice system, with the same Judges and same penalties. Just a different venue.

Judge Greg Hikaka will sit at Manurewa once every two weeks.

He said it was too early to say how many would go through the marae but offenders would have to be referred by the court after a family group conference.

That conference would set out a plan to address the young person’s offending which would be monitored by the marae.

But victims would not be left out of the picture as they would have to agree to it, the judge said.

And that is a vital part of it also.

News.com.au has the following headline:

Maori ‘not retarded borderline psychotics’

It would have to be an Australian newspaper of course.

The Herald on Sunday has alerted me to this blog post by Trevor Mallard. I have not been reading other blogs while on holiday so would have missed it. Anyway Trevor says:

I live in Wainuiomata. Like most smaller communities I know the extended Rawiri whanau, but not well.

These five people killed their niece. It happened over an extended period.

I accept that they almost certainly would not reoffend and prison may be an expensive waste of time. And there are too many Maori in prison.

But I am certain that a Pakeha exorcism that resulted in torture and death would result in a prison term – albeit not necessarily a long one.

The fact that they weren’t sent to prison because they are Maori just doesn’t seem right to me.

Almost every blog on the right has said they agree with Trevor. Interestingly I have not yet seen much reaction from left blogs.

I was actually thinking of blogging how surprised I was none of them got jailtime, and I basically agree with Trevor that it is hard to imagine an exorcism by say a church pastor with the same results would not have got a jail sentence.

In fact one of Trevor’s commenters reminds us that Pastor Luke Lee got six years jail for an exorcism manslaughter in 2001. While the cases are somewhat different it is hard to reconcile six years jail with zero years jail.

MacDoctor notes that even defence lawyer Barry Hart has said the sentences are too lenient. MacDoctor says the sentence is absurdly lenient and intensely paternalistic. I agree.

The Dominion Post reports on a speech by Mark Solomon to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce where he signals Iwi wish to be partners for the Crown in Public/Private Partenrships (PPPs) and even possibly minority investors in SOEs.

I was at the breakfast address, and thought it was an excellent speech that had several aspects worth considering. From his speech:

It’s a simple fact, but a vitally important one when thinking about Iwi Maori – WE ARE HERE FOREVER!

We are as much part of the landscape as the mountains and the lakes – our people will always be here, our focus will always be here and our money will remain here.

It seems like an obvious statement, but if you contemplate it for a minute, extrapolate an investment out over generation, after generation, after generation, after generation, after generation… you begin to see the power of the statement and get an insight into the vision of Maori investment.

I had not considered this before, but Solomon is right about the long-term future. Most companies are here for a limited duration and/or get sold, merged etc. Iwi as local investors will be here permanently, and as most of their investment will be in local companies and institutions they will over time be very major economic forces.

According the Te Puni Kokiri – the Ministry of Maori Development – the total commercial assets owned in 2005/2006 by Maori individuals, whanau, hapu and Iwi stood at $16.5billion – a massive increase of $7.5 billion from 2001.

This represented 1.5% of the reported value of the total New Zealand business sector.

And that percentage will grow over time.

The Ngai Tahu Settlement was a platform for the creation of our future, on our own terms.

The quantum we were offered was not fair or just. Treasury acknowledged our land assets alone in 1998 value would have ranged from $12b to $15b.

But, we voted to accept just $170m – cut our losses, move forward and build a future for our people. …

Ngai Tahu Holdings Limited, our commercial entity, is today worth $606m, with equity of $473m and more than 500 employees through our companies.

Growth from $170 millon to $473 million in a decade is a result many would like.

Iwi Maori are diversifying their investments, but for Ngāi Tahu as an intergenerational investor we take a deliberate and conservative approach – for us, like many Iwi, the next wave will be infrastructure.

Iwi investment in infrastructure will be good for Iwi wanting a more conservative investment.

And we have big plans.

We see further public/private/Iwi partnerships.

Perhaps on roads, airports and other strategic infrastructure. It is not impossible to imagine Iwi as cornerstone shareholders in State-Owned Enterprises – making them State-Iwi Owned Enterprises.

While any investment has to stand up on commercial grounds, the political aspect is intriguing, Labour could find it very hard to demonise PPPs and minority investment in SOEs, where the investors are Iwi, not multinational companies.

It just makes sense, if you think about it. Iwi will have the resources, we want our profits to stay in New Zealand – to reinvest for our people, for New Zealand Inc.

We are the perfect partner for Government. And they are well aware of our thoughts on this matter.

This could be a very interesting area to watch.

The Government has announced 72 of 88 recipients of top honours have chosen to go with the titular version. So some of the more well known new knights and dames are:

• Sir Lloyd Geering
• Sir Ralph Ngatata Love
• Sir Russell Coutts
• Sir Ed Durie
• Sir Eion Edgar
• Sir Wira Gardiner
• Sir Douglas Kidd
• Sir Colin Meads
• Sir Ralph Norris
• Sir Peter Snell
• Sir Archie Taiaroa
• Sir Tumu te Heuheu
• Sir Stephen Tindall
• Dame Lynley Dodd
• Dame Lois Muir
• Dame Claudia Orange
• Dame Jennifer Shipley
• Dame Sukhi Turner
• Dame Margaret Clark

As I have blogged previously I am a fan of titles for our top honours. It makes them meaningful, and is in the same traditions as academia where top scholars are titled Doctor if they get a PhD and top acadamics are titled Professor if they are appointed to a Chair.

One additional change I would have liked (as does Dean Knight who has blogged extensively on this) the Government to have done, is to allow the recipients to choose to have their title in English or Maori (both being official languages. The Maori versions are Tā and Kahurangi and allowing those as options would make the system uniquely New Zealand combining both our British and Maori heritage.

I stress I do not advocate replacing the English titles with the Maori ones. It is about allowing the recipient to choose their preferred title. I see that as a win-win and am surprised the Government did not go down that track. I know the Maori Party were (not surprisingly) supportive as Dean and I talked to them about the idea.

Such an option would have probably seen quite a few of the 14 who did not move to the titular honour, do so.

The Business Roundtable has published a paper by Lindsay Mitchell on “Maori and Welfare. It isn’t necessarily BRT policy, but published to encourage debate – which is excellent. We need more, not less, policy debates.

Mitchell has found that Maori were not always over-represented in negative statistics:

One of the few areas for which long-term Maori statistics were kept is crime. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Maori (defined as people having half or more Maori ancestry) made up 5 percent of the population. In 1898, 22,752 charges
were heard before magistrates and only 2.3 percent were against people of the “aboriginal native race”.

And this situation continued for many decades. Then:

By 1957, the Maori share of offences tried in the Supreme Court was 18 percent, but in just five years it climbed to 23 percent.5 In 1959, Maori made up 25 percent of the boys admitted to the correctional Owairaka Boys’ Home in Auckland. By 1969, the proportion had risen to 70 percent, and by 1978 it was 80 percent.6 By 1961, the Maori arrest rate for 15 year-olds and older was almost 5 times the non- Maori rate.7 Young Maori migrating from rural to urban settings were no longer
under the control of their elders. Young urban Maori increasingly joined emerging groups such as the Mongrel Mob and Black Power.

She quotes James Belich:

People avoid crime, not primarily because it is illegal, but because of the disapproval of those that matter to them – in the traditional, rural Maori case, the kin group.

Lindsay goes on to make a link to welfare policies being responsible for some of the problems, especially the DPB. A not inconsiderable number of Maori have said the same at various times. Now many will disagree with Lindsay, but I suggest you at least read her report – it is only 40 pages.

Mitchell states her view on welfare:

There exists an extreme view that the state has no role at all in welfare provision. It is not one I share. Nevertheless, the state should limit its involvement to that of providing a safety net of last resort. Self and family responsibility must come first. Middle class welfare – the provision of cash or services to those who can afford to meet their own needs – must be avoided. Welfare reforms that deter people from behaving in detrimental ways because there is no perceived risk should be made with those basics in mind.

I broadly agree with that proposition. Welfare should be trgeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.

Lindsay then makes six recommendations:

1. replace the DPB with temporary assistance only (max one year);
2. replace state-funded unemployment benefits with private unemployment insurance;
3. tighten eligibility for sickness and invalid benefits;
4. consider assistance-in-kind and income management as stop-gap measures only;
5. consider privatising income support delivery to improve efficiency and incentives and allow for Maori ownership;
6. consider empowering employment entrepreneurs, and increased use of loans and opting-out as features of a future safety net system.

I do support reforms along the lines of what Clinton did, with a maximum time you can spend on a benefit. They have been a huge success. I think restricting the DPB to one year only though is impractical. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 are worth exploring. The status quo is not exactly producing great results, and we should be open to looking at can we get better outcomes by doing it differently.

This is where I am a bit disappointed by the Government’s response:

Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.

Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said none of the ideas were on the agenda for the Government.

It would be nice if the response was that while the proposals were not current policy, we will at least read and consider the report, and respond to it after due consideration. As I said, the status quo is nothing to be proud of.

The foreshore and seabed review panel has reported back. The report is 163 pages.

I blogged in March that I thought the appointment of the panel would lead to a recommendation the law be toasted, and I was right.

They make the point that the Government should have appealed the case to the Privy Council – something I have always said. Clark and Wilson ruled that out and decided to legislate (after just four days!) because they didn’t like the politics of appealing to a court they had said they would abolish.

They recommend the Act be repealed, and offer four options for consideration:

1. Do nothing further – leave the Court of Appeal decision intact and allow claims to be made to the Maori Land Court.  This option is not favoured.
2. Have a staged settlement with negotiations between Hapu/Iwi and the Crown – basically add this to the historic grievances to be settled. They say if this happens, there needs to be provision for public input to safeguard rights of access etc.
3. A national settlement along the lines of the fisheries and aquaculture settlements.
4. A mixed model that combines a number of discrete components: a national settlement, allocation of rights and interests, local co-management, and an ability to gain more specific access and use rights. This is preferred.

I’ve only skimmed the report but they seem to have gone to great lengths to stress that any settlement must guarantee access for all.

There are probably some considerable fish-hooks ahead, but at first glance the panel looks to have come up with a workable way forward. Legislating to remove property rights should be a last resort, not a first resort – as it was for Labour.

Colin Espiner blogs:

None of which stops Sharples from trying, however, and nor should it. I know that he should as an Associate Education Minister toe the Government line, but personally I expect Sharples to be a passionate advocate for his people. As long as Key doesn’t actually agree to this hare-brained idea, I’m happy for Sharples to push it.

For one thing, it’s good to have a debate about the place of education in our society, and remind ourselves that it’s pretty much the only thing that is going to get us out of the economic backwater in which New Zealand now resides.

Education is part of it, yes.

And it’s true that Maori participation statistics in tertiary education are appalling, and something needs to be done about it.

They are not appalling. They are in fact far superior to any other ethnic group in NZ. I blogged a few days ago on this, and the Maori participation rate is 50% higher than the Pakeha rate. Possibly Colin meant to refer to university participation rates only, but the terms are not interchangeable.

And even the university participation rate is not “appalling” – it is 80% of the Pakeha rate. I think Colin is too used to just assuming Maori health and education statistics are “appalling”, without checking them out.

I just think Sharples has the wrong end of the stick. There’s little point letting more Maori into university if they are simply going to fail.

Here I agree.

A better question might be why so few Maori make the grade to get into university in the first place. And I suspect that can be traced all the way back through the school system to early childhood and the child’s parents. I’m sure Sharples would argue that is all the system’s fault, and perhaps part of it is. Though I think Maori could probably shoulder some of the blame as well.

And here I absolutely agree.

As I say, though, the debate is a needed one. Just recently Canterbury University vice-chancellor Rod Carr had a good serve at the Prime Minister for cutting funding in real terms to universities and polytechnics, and I think this issue is going to become a hot topic in the months to come.

Personally I would rather the Government put the additional $750 million it shovels into the health black hole every year into tertiary education instead. I reckon it would pay huge dividends.

But here I disagree. If I had $750 million to spend I would put the vast bulk of it into early childhood education, literacy and numeracy at primary school etc.

NZPA reports:

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples wants universities to consider open entry for Maori students.

He said in a speech last night Maori students had the lowest rate of progression from school to tertiary education of any ethnic group.

His actual speech is here. He also notes, correctly, that:

Maori participation in tertiary education is higher than for any other ethnic group – and that is something to celebrate.

This graph (from here) shows very clearly that since 1999 the tertiary participation rate has been higehr for Maori than non-Maori. In fact the rate if 50% higher for Maori than European.

Now Dr Sharples also said:

But – and it’s a big qualifier – much of this participation is at levels one to three on the National Qualifications Framework. All of us know the benefits of a bachelor level qualification – the second challenge, therefore, must be how to boost participation for Maori to higher levels of study.

Now Dr Sharples is right that Maori participation is very high at Levels 1 – 3. But as we can see Maori have a higher participation rate than non Maori at Levels 4 to 7 Certificates and Diplomas also. And even at Bachelors level the Maori rate is around 75% to 80% of the European rate.

Personally I think too many people are going to university rather than other forms of tertiary education. I would not hold up a Bachelors degree as the holy grail for tertary education.

Dr Sharples also said:

Thirdly, I want to suggest a quantum leap could be achieved, if Victoria were to consider the following:

- Open entry for Maori students. We have seen how the dice are loaded against Maori, right through the school system. That is not any reflection on the academic potential of our young people. Reserved places for Maori have proven the ability of Maori students to rise to the challenge if they are given the opportunity.

This makes me wonder what the completion rate is. And yes that has a graph also.

And as we can see here the completion rate for Maori is above average for Certificate and Diplomas but a lot lower for Bachelors. This to me suggests that open entry for Maori students would not by itself improve outcomes – it would probably just lower the completion rate even more. The key to improving the university participation rate for Maori, would in my opinion improve educational outcomes at secondary school.

The Geographic Board is looking to give the North Island and South Island official names in English and Maori.

The likely Maori names are Te Ika a Maui for the North Island and Te Wai Pounamu for the South Island. Te Ika a Maui translated as “the fish of Maui”, based on the Maori myth that the island was formed by Maui’s gigantic catch, and Te Wai Pounamu as “the place of greenstone”.

Can’t say I have a problem with that. The current names are staying (in fact being made official) but they are very boring and over time the Maori versions may become more popular.

I don’t think you legislate these things, you let society move at its own pace. The Maori version of the National Anthem has become hugely popular over time (even if the words challenge some people). And certain Maori words such as whanau have become absolutely mainstream.

The Herald reports:

Up to $1 billion could be moved from specific projects for Maori to a bulk fund aimed at broad goals such as improving Maori education and health.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is driving the radical proposal through her two portfolios as Associate Minister of Health and of Social Development.

She said it would help cut the huge compliance costs agencies faced and reduce the need for the Government to deal with many small contracts tied to specific goals such as youth work, social workers in schools and alternative education.

“We will get a better spend because people will be able to access a pool of money to deal with a range of issues,” she said.

“It’s a great opportunity to build trust because the sad thing about it is that the bureaucracy doesn’t trust the non-government sector and that’s why we end up with particularly prescribed contracts and with people being over-audited. I’d like to see that change.”

She said she had asked Massey University professor Mason Durie to produce initial ideas on how to do it, and was hoping it would begin at some level by the end of June.

Look forward to details. The aim is very worthy.

Professor Durie said the scheme would almost certainly start on a trial basis in a few places to find out “under what circumstances this would work and under what circumstances it wouldn’t work”.

Agencies said they often ended up working with the same families under various contracts.

Receiving a bulk sum of money to achieve broader social outcomes such as lifting families’ health status, education and work achievements would enable them to take a “holistic” approach to each family’s needs.

The Family Start programme takes a similiar holistic approach. I’ve always wondered why we don’t fund it more.

Stuff reports:

The Maori Affairs minister has pledged support for a North Taranaki hapu as it continues to occupy land and hold up an oil company’s drilling project.

Last night about 25 members of the Otaraua hapu prepared for their second night blocking access to a site being used by Greymouth Petroleum for a new pipeline to Te Kowhai gasfield off Ngatimaru Rd at Tikorangi.

The hapu took over on Sunday after claims work would desecrate Tikorangi Pa, a waahi tapu (sacred) site, which is not protected by the district plan.

So why is it not protected:

New Plymouth District Council consents manager Ralph Broad said the site was not protected under the district plan because it had been left off a list of waahi tapu sites provided by local iwi and hapu.

So why is the company at fault? Why is no one asking questions of why the hapu did not include it on the list?

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples said he was “deeply disappointed” by the situation and said Maori interests needed to be taken more seriously.

He said the company should have consulted with the hapu despite not legally being required to do so.

“It shows ignorance by the companies that they can go ahead without thinking. I would expect to see consultation with iwi,” he said.

With all due respect I disagree with Dr Sharples. It is primarily the role of the Council to consult with iwi and hapu (which they did) and mark on the distract plans areas of special significance. Only if a resource consent relates to one of those areas would you expect consultation. I don’t agree that each and every resource consent should require consultation – this is the whole purpose of the District Plan.

Hapu plans to take the issues to the environment court and seek an interim enforcement order to halt works that had been put off until today.

And that is the appropriate thing to do – more productive than protesting outside against a company that has obeyed the law.

The Dom Post editorial looks at the upcoming meeting on the causes of crime:

f the Government crime seminar next month is to be more than just a talkfest, rare honesty will be required of the participants. …

New Zealand likes to portray itself as a model of good race relations. For many, that is the reality. For some, it is not.

There is a burgeoning underclass in New Zealand, whose members prey upon their neighbours and accept no reciprocal obligation for the assistance they receive from their fellow citizens. A disproportionate number of the members of that underclass are Maori.

In recent times it has become fashionable to blame the over-representation of Maori in crime statistics on poverty, poor education and unemployment. The arguments have a degree of validity. Maori are over-represented in all three categories.

But poverty in this country is a relative concept. New Zealand’s poorest live like kings compared to the poor in Third World nations who do not have a welfare state to provide them with homes, meals and pay television.

Here poor education is not an inescapable reality, but a matter of choice. Every child is entitled to a subsidised education in a system that bends over backwards to acknowledge cultural differences. Those who fail to take advantage of it have only themselves, or their parents, to blame.

And, for those who have not noticed, the unemployment rate is low. That may be changing but, for the past few years, jobs have generally been available to all who want them.

It is indisputable that Maori were robbed of their lands and treasures by colonial settlers, but to continue blaming the ills of today on events that occurred 150 years ago is to perpetuate a way of thinking that is of no benefit to Maori or non-Maori.

In recent decades, governments have gone to great lengths to restore tribal mana and create an economic base for Maoridom by making recompense for Treaty breaches.

They have succeeded to an extent. Tribes that have settled claims are restoring tribal assets, investing in job-rich industries and the education of their young. A Maori elite is emerging.

But there is scant evidence that the process is having any impact on disaffected young Maori who are attracted to the loser culture of gangs.

If Mr Power’s conference is to succeed, it will require Maori leaders such as Dr Sharples and his co-leader Tariana Turia to take ownership of the problem. The solution is not to throw yet more money at those who believe they have an inalienable right to prey upon and sponge off their fellow citizens. It is to engage them in building a better future for themselves and their children.

I think the solution will take at least a generation, and will need greater intervention at an earlier age with dysfunctional families.

So how are things looking for the parties. Let’s take things in reverse order:

Progressives

Did better than expected on 0.9% – enough to avoid overhang but well off getting a second MP. The party is effectively over and doesn’t really serve any useful purpose now they are in Opposition (in Government they did have a somewhat different brand to Labour). I will not be surprised to see Anderton rejoin Labour during this term and Progressives windup. Anderton presumably will retire next election.

United Future

Like Progressive, United Future is basically over. Enough votes to avoid overhang but well off a second MP. Peter will have got a bit of a nasty shock that his majority has been slashed to under 2,000 and this is probably his final term as I expect both National and Labour will aim to win the seat next time.

Maori Party

Not that good an election for them. It could have been worse – they did win Te Tai Tonga but they are quite gutted not to win Ikaroa-Rawhiti especially. Their party vote barely lifted and they don’t hold the balance of power. However if they are sensible they will negotiate an abstain on supply and confidence with National in exchange for some policy wins. Their big challenge will be differentiating from Labour’s Maori MPs to give people a reason to keep supporting them. There is a remote chance they will take up Ministerial positions outside Cabinet – they will be worried doing so will risk Labour winning seats back off them. However they can make the case that National could have governed without them, and by accepting the roles they got to deliver some wins to Maoridom.

New Zealand First

It is all over. Winston won’t stand again in Tauranga and unless National did something monumentally stupid like cut super, NZ First won’t stand anywhere.

I suspect Ron Mark will become Leader and maybe give Rimutaka another try, but it is doubtful they’ll make 1% without an incumbent MP and/or Winston.

The big question is where will NZ First voters go? National? Labour? There is in fact an opportunity for a new party to hoover up the NZ First, Kiwi Party and Family Party that got 5.1% between them. They all have social conservatism in common. If United Future disappears also, then you may have up to 6% looking for a home.

Greens

In some ways the Greens are the big losers from this election, despite getting two more MPs. But they had polls showing them getting up to 11.5% and they only got 6.4%. Labour lost bigtime also, but at least they got to spend nine years in Government. The Greens have spent their first nine years locked out of Government and now face say another six years in Opposition where they will struggle to compete with Labour who will agree with them on most issues now. And when Labour do come back in, the Maori Party will have a stronger negotiating position than the Greens.

On the positive side they did get two more MPs and maybe could get a third. Delahunty is seen as an exremists, but Hague is a solid performer and Kennedy Graham could add to theri voter appeal.

ACT

The result is a total vindication for Rodney Hide. If ACT has not grown their number of MPs, they would have become like the Progressive Party – doomed to die with the Leader. But they have grown ACT so that it is a credible force for the future. This is great not just for ACT but the centre-right. Without ACT long-term there would be just four parties – Labour, Greens, Maori and National. Under that scenario centre-right Govts will be rare. With ACT in the picture it is more balanced.

The challenge for ACT is to get some policy wins from National. With 5 MPs they need to be able to show they delivered to their supporters. But they need to balance that with not forcing John Key into doing anything that could be seem to betray those who voted for him and his leadership.

ACT should also push for two Ministers – Rodney and Heather. They make up 1/12th of the Government so they should get 1/12th of the Executive which is two Ministerial roles. Heather would be a very competent Minister I am sure.

Labour

Clark and Cullen have resigned. It is a mark of their political judgement that they have decided to step down immediately. Staying on for even six months would just have meant a period of destabilising headlines.

Phil Goff will be the new Leader I predict. If the ballot has been delayed even a year, then maybe not. But I suspect he may be elected unoppossed.

The interesting thing will be Deputy. It has to be a female or a Maori to keep factions happy. I somehow can’t see Goff happy with Maryan Street as his Deputy (and I see she has ruled herself out) so suspect Annette King could take the job. However they are both from the right-leaning part of Caucus so there may be opposition to that. King is widely regarded by all her MPs though. Jones is a possible for Deputy but making him Deputy would lead to speculation as to when he will roll Goff.

Goff will get one chance only, like Mike Moore. If he does not win in 2011, then others will be ready by then. There is even a chance he would get rolled before 2011 if they do not perform in the polls.

Goff is a very capable politician, but his big problem is he entered Parliament under Muldoon. It will be hard to brand him as the fresh face for the future when he has been an MP for 30 years by the time of the next election.

If Labour are smart they will make Cunliffe Shadow Finance Minister.

National

Key has a number of challenges and opportunities.

He needs to do a deal with ACT that works for both of them. Gives ACT some wins, but doesn’t undermine his centrist brand. However having said that, people have to realise the public did not vote for a National Government – they did elect a National-ACT Government (plus United Future).

His other challenge is the Maori Party – it would be a coup to bring them on board as Ministers. This is ironic as most PMs would rather keep all portfolios for their own party, but long-term having Sharples and Turia as Ministers would send a message about working with the Maori Party. It would also allow National to do some stuff in welfare, that they could not do by themselves.

Putting together the Cabinet is the next challenge. To put it bluntly there are too many contenders and some will be disappointed. Key will need some of the 1990s Ministers for their experience and stability, but signal to those MPs that they should not expect a six to nine year term in Cabinet this time around – more likely 2 – 3 years max, so that going into 2011 the majority of Ministers are from the 2002, 2005 and even 2008 intakes.

A fourth challenge is a large Caucus of 59. But unlike 1990, there is no long tail of Gilbert Myles types to manage. One or two may present some challenges but generally the new intake is talented and ambitious. That may be the longer term challenge – keeping them happy as Government backbenchers whose main job is to move “That the motion now be put” in committee of the whole debates

The 2005 intake will also need some managing. A few of them will make Cabinet but most won’t – yet. They will probably be the Select Committee Chairs as Ministers in waiting, and these appointments will also have to be negotiated with other parties.

The Press reports:

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has received an assessment of the impact of the Government’s flagship climate-change policy on the value of land handed to iwi under Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

Officials are refusing to divulge the monetary figure placed on the estimated loss in value contained in the assessment by senior Christchurch-based valuer Donn Armstrong, of Forest Land Consultants.

However, Maori say they could be owed as much as $2 billion in compensation, because land currently in forests will not be able to be converted to other potentially more profitable uses.

So we are starting to get to the beginning of the end of settling historic grievances, with compensation likely to be around $1.5 billion.

And the ETS could create a new contemporary grievance of up to $2 billion?

This is why NZ needs to be very careful as we proceed with an ETS. Again, we need to develop one or risk trade sanctions, but need to ensure the costs are proportional to the benefits.

Also we should consider what our Kyoto obligations mean in light of Russia’s invasion of Georgia. You see there is a high possibility that we would have to purchase carbon credits off Russia as we will be well above our 1990 emissions levels. So we may end up giving Russia hundreds of milllions of dollars of hard cash, which they can use to fund their war in Georgia. Yep, there is no mechanism for excluding Russia because they have gone nasty – if they have the carbon credits, they will get billions of dollars in hard currency for them.

Today’s Fairfax poll is fascinating – now for the main result which is barely changed from May (27% gap closes to 24% gap), but the ethnic breakdown.

Now the number of Maori respondents will be very small (around 15% of 1,100 respondents would be around 165 Maori respondents only) but even with that it is unprecedented that Labour is almost in third place with Maori voters. They have National on 39%, Maori Party on 22% and Labour also on 22%. Labour ir normally way way ahead of National amongst Maori voters.

A sample of 165 has a margin of error of 7.8%. Large, but when the parties have a 17% gap, still arguably significant enough to say National leads amongst Maori voters.

I have just calculated the probablity that on those results National is in fact ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters, and it is 99.79%. So that certainly is significant.

It would be interesting to know how it differs between Maori on the general roll and on the Maori roll.