Kiwiblog

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the results of the latest Te Karere Digipoll.

I read a column over the weekend about how the Maori Party was basically dead and they should accept Hone Harawira’s generous offer to let him become leader and merge with the Mana Party. With that in mind it is worth looking at what the results for each party.

Labour

33.5% party vote, with party vote on the Maori roll up 3.5% (from last poll in January 2012) and on the general roll (of Maori voters) down 13.1%.

On the electorate vote, Labour are 8.9% below what they got in the 2011 election.

Maori Party

27.5% party vote, with party vote on the Maori roll up 2.7% (from last poll in January 2012) and on the general roll (of Maori voters) up 7.7%.

On the electorate vote, Maori Party are 4.8% above what they got in the 2011 election.

Mana Party

5.7% party vote, with party vote on the Maori roll down 5.3% (from last poll in January 2012) and on the general roll (of Maori voters) up 0.2%.

On the electorate vote, Maori Party are 1.2% below what they got in the 2011 election.

David Shearer

They asked those Maori voters who said they would party vote Labour if they could name the Labour Party Leader. Only 34.7% could name David Shearer as Leader.

Of the 34.7% who could name him, they asked if they thought he was providing good leadership on Maori issues. Only 28.0% agreed.

Commentary

Labour has gained some support on the party vote from Maori on the Maori roll, but on the electorate vote they are polling well below what they got even in 2011. Also they have had a drop off in support from Maori on the general roll.

The Maori Party has increased party vote support with Maori on both the general and Maori rolls, and are polling higher in the electorate vote than they got in 2011.

The Mana Party has almost halved its party vote support from Maori on the Maori roll, and has also dropped in electorate vote support from 2011.

Two elements of caution. Maori voters tend to be harder to poll than non-Maori, so there is a greater chance of sampling errors which can impact accuracy. Also tensions around the Maori Party leadership occurred during the polling period and may not be fully reflected.

However even with those cautionary notes, I would say that those writing off the Maori Party are incredibly premature.  The poll shows they have retained and grown support, while Labour and Mana have stagnated or dropped.

The Dom Post editorial:

The exact date of Maori arrival in New Zealand is a mystery, although carbon dating and Maori oral tradition point to the 13th century. About one thing, however, there is no doubt. Contrary to the impression created by the bellicose posturing of the Maori king, Maori have not ”always owned the water”.

Scientists estimate New Zealand broke away from the Gondwana supercontinent about 85 million years ago. Give or take a few hundred millennia, that means Maori have inhabited the country for about 0.0009 per cent of the time it has existed as a distinct entity. Rain fell from the skies, coursed down the hills and found its way into rivers, streams and lakes for millions of years before Maori first hauled their canoes up onto beaches, and will continue to do so long after humanity has ceased to exist. Claiming ownership of the water is about as foolish as claiming ownership of the wind, the air or the stars.

Thank you.

That is not to say Maori do not have a spiritual and emotional connection to particular waterways and lakes. They do, as do many non-Maori. Nor is it to deny that Maori may have ”residual proprietary” interests in particular streams, rivers and lakes arising from guarantees contained in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal has ruled they do and Crown lawyers have effectively conceded the point. The argument is over the extent and nature of those interests.

However, to suggest, as King Tuheitia did, that Maori own the water in the same way that someone can be said to own a television set, washing machine or pair of shoes is nonsensical.

Water cannot be owned; water rights can be, but they are a different thing and come with lesser entitlements. Conflating the two antagonises non-Maori, raises Maori expectations to levels that cannot be satisfied and undermines public support for the settlement of historic grievances.

Exactly. The posturing of the King has damaged his own cause – significantly.

Audrey Young reports:

Prime Minister John Key said Maori had more positions on water than Lady Gaga had outfits.

On his way into caucus at Parliament this morning he was asked about the unity around the water issue at the national hui last week called by King Tuheitia.

He suggested that from the media reports he had seen there wasn’t unity.

“There are kind of more positions than Lady Gaga’s got outfits.”

No race, gender, or generally any group of human beings has a common view on a political issue.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Maori unity over water may already be splintering.

Forty-five of Maoridom’s most powerful leaders yesterday gathered at Ngaruawahia in the wake of a hui convened by King Tuheitia – and later made it clear they were not going to be rolled by a new pan-Maori body in any discussions with the Crown over Maori rights and interests in water.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Key flatly rejected the claim by King Tuheitia that Maori had always owned the water.

“In law he’s just plain wrong; all the advice we’ve had is that the common law position is the correct position, which is that no-one owns water.”

Mr Key also rejected meeting a pan-Maori body ahead of individual iwi with water claims – and reiterated that there would be no national settlement on water.

Good. The view of King Tuheitia that all water is owned by Maori and should be controlled solely by Maori must not be accepted.

There also appeared to be overwhelming support for the establishment of a pan-Maori body representing broad Maori interests, including the Maori Women’s Welfare League, the kohanga reo movement, the Maori Council and others appointed by an eminent group, including Tuwharetoa head Sir Tumu te Heuheu.

But the Iwi Leaders Group yesterday issued a statement confirming a resolution had been passed unanimously endorsing the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group and its continued engagement with the Crown.

Meanwhile, Sir Tumu said he was not even in the room when the vote was taken – and had nothing to do with his name being put forward. He confirmed that he would not be nominating anyone for such a body.

So the proposed chair wasn’t even in favour of the resolution. It looks like people were just being polite.

What annoyed me over King Tuheitia’s views is the damage it does to the generally tolerant New Zealand we have. There are genuinely divergent views on issues around the Treaty and Maori in New Zealand. That is inevitable, and will always be the case.

However many, even most, people place greater value of having relative harmony in race relations than insisting that the law must reflect their personal views. Take the Maori seats as one issue.

I personally believe it is incredibly wrong to have seats in Parliament where voters of only one race can enrol in that seat.  They were set up at a time when only property owners had votes, and was a way to allow Maori who tended to communally own property to vote. They were a well intentioned device, that should have never lasted more than a few years.

Ironically they then became a method of disenfranchisement for Maori, as they were forced to remain on the Maori roll until the 1970s.

But regardless of their history, I quite strongly feel that a country should not have electoral seats reserved for people based on who their parents were.

However I do not advocate scrapping the Maori seats unilaterally. Why? Because I respect that for many Maori, even the majority of Maori, they have become something highly valued and prized. That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations. So I, and many others, do not advocate an abolition in the interests of a harmonious New Zealand. I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.

Now this tolerance and desire for harmony should go both ways in my view. As someone born in New Zealand, who has no other country they call home, I get upset when the Maori King advocates that I have no rights to water in New Zealand – that Maori should control, manage and allocate water. And a hui is held to seemingly advance this view.

And I am not alone in getting upset, when such claims are asserted. The vast majority of New Zealanders find such a claim repugnant, and the impact of such posturing is to diminish the pool of goodwill that exists. It will create a climate where support for settling historical grievances will evaporate, where tolerance of the Maori seats will diminish.

Tolerance is a two-way street.

I’m pretty liberal on issues to do with the Treaty of Waitangi, customary rights, common law rights, historical settlements. I’ve said I accept some Iwi have some rights around some water.

However I will never accept this view:

King Tuheitia said Maori had always owned the water.

Sorry, no you do not. You get certain rights from having moved here 600 years or so before the rest of us, but you do not get to claim ownership of all the water in New Zealand. We do not live in a country where the first wave of immigrants get all the rights, and the second wave get no rights over essential resources such as water.

The power to manage and control water and allocate water rights should rest with Maori, rather than the regional councils, he said.

This would make all non-Maori an inferior class of citizen.

If those who attended the hui wish to assert they own all the water in New Zealand, and that Maori should have total control of water management and allocation, they of course have that right. But they are risking a huge backlash that will dry up the considerable good will that exists in this country and allows settlements such as Tuhoe to have broad political support.

It would be relatively easy to get 300,000 signatures on a CIR on the topic “Should Maori own, manage and allocate water rights in New Zealand”. It would be an ugly divisive campaign, and set race relations back considerably. But it would get a record turnout, and a record no vote.

Now not all those who attended the Hui share the view of King Tuheitia that Maori own all the water in New Zealand, and should manage, control and allocate water rights. Ngai Tahi saud:

Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said Maori all agreed on a collaborative approach toward settling water issues.

“From a Ngai Tahu perspective we don’t believe the asset sales will affect the rights and interests of Maori from reaching an agreement.”

The issue of whether or not asset sales impact any water rights that Maori do have, is one the courts will decide, so I’m not too worried about that particular issue.

The issue that worries me is having the Maori King assert ownership of all water in New Zealand. I do not believe that view can be left unchecked. I hope media ask Labour’s Maori MPs if they agree with that view. Ask the Greens also – in fact all Maori MPs in Parliament.

I also do not think that would be the view of the majority of Maori living in New Zealand.

3 News reports:

New Zealand First is suggesting all New Zealanders pretend to be Maori to get special privileges under the law.

The party wants the Government to define who is and isn’t Maori before offering deals to iwi over water rights, after delaying the asset sales programme. 

Winston Peters says anybody could be Maori under the law.

Heh only Winston could suggest that.

For the 2nd time this week, I am partially agreeing with him.

I don’t think Maori should have special privileges under the law.

But I do think Iwi do have common law rights. I have no problem with saying that Iwi have customary rights in certain areas.

So the issue for me is not about rights for “Maori” but rights for “Iwi”. I don’t think you need to define who is or is not Maori, but rather the Crown needs to recognise Iwi, and Iwi have lists of their members.

This is why a national settlement on water rights is not desirable. Any rights belong to specific Iwi in specific locations – not to Maori generally.

Some will say Iwi have no special rights at all. I disagree. Just as property owners in a certain area may get rights of objection or compensation for developments that impinge on them, so do Iwi.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

The partial sale of Mighty River Power has been delayed until next year, Prime Minister John Key confirmed this afternoon.

Mr Key said the sale would now take place in the period from March to June and would be followed by the partial sale of either Genesis or Meridian later next year.

This is a significant decision. While MRP will still be floated, the chance of having all five sales before the 2014 election is diminished. National would ideally like them all completed so that 2014 is not about any further asset sales, but other issues. So Labour will be happy with today’s decision. They will also be more likely to get the signatures for their petition completed in time, so that the petition is validated before the first sale. They will then use that to call for a further delay (which of course will not happen).

I guess the Government wasn’t confident that if they did not delay, that legal action wouldn’t force a delay anyway. So this is probably a case of making a virtue out of necessity.

This is also a win for the Maori Party. They will use the delay as proof that being constructively engaged with Government, is better than total opposition to everything as Mana does.

One possibility for the Government is to only sell minority stakes in three SOES, not four (Air NZ is not an SOE), which could still be done before the 2014 election. There is a case for the time being very bad for Solid Energy, and also a case for not selling Genesis (which I will blog on later this week). Both of these companies are pretty small compared to the others.

John Ansell has blogged on the treatygate campaign, as reported yesterday by Critic. His plan is:

1. Launch Colourblind New Zealand, and set a goal to lock in one law for all by December 2014.
2. Raise a $2 million fighting fund so the politicians know we’re able to embarrass them.
3. Petition for a referendum at the 2014 election. Question: “Do you want New Zealand to be a Colourblind State, with one law for all, and no racial favouritism of any kind?”
4. How to make the PM obey the referendum result? Run lots of bold Treatygate ads telling voters just who has been conning them, and how.
5. If media refuse to run these ads, use rival media to expose them as part of the con.
6. Bombard government MPs with instructions from their voters to obey their will.
7. Support local body campaigns on Maori wards (typically attracting an 80% NO vote).

For my 2c I have long said I think NZ would be better off without the Maori parliamentary seats, and that having race based seats on local bodies is definitely not heading in the right direction..

However I differ from John in terms of how I view the Treaty of Waitangi. I think the settlement of historical grievances is a very good thing, and I do not have a problem with the Treaty of Waitangi having legal recognition – but the Treaty itself, not the more nebulous “principles”.

Also while I think NZ would be better off without the Maori seats (race based seats can only be divisive in the long run), I don’t think it is wise for the majority to remove something which has taken on huge significance with many Maori. The majority of New Zealanders who are of Maori descent have chosen to enrol on the Maori roll, which is significant. This may be partly tactical of course though.

So my preference is to convince Maori that they would be better off to do away with the Maori seats, and instead implement what the 1986 Royal Commission implemented of no threshold for Maori parties contesting the party vote. That of course is not entirely colour-blind – but I think both a better solution for Maori, and a less divisive one for New Zealand.

An exclusive from Critic:

Critic has obtained documents from controversial race campaigner Louis Crimp, setting out a plan for a $2million campaign aiming to make New Zealand a “colourblind” (racially neutral) state. The campaign will be split into two distinct “brands”, known as “Treatygate” and “Colourblind State”.

‘Treatygate” is the “attack brand”, and will involve a series of brief, hard-hitting advertisements designed to incite “anger” in “hothead” voters. Treatygate aims to “expose the 40 year state brainwashing campaign that has distorted the history of Crown-Maori relations”.

Speaking to Critic, John Ansell, the advertising guru behind the campaign, described the planned advertisements for Treatygate as “short sharp little messages with one piece of evidence in each one”, such as that “Maori companies pay 17.5% tax, [while] others pay 28%.”

According to Ansell the primary goal of the Treatygate campaign is to “expose the bias and enrage the public”. “You have to make the public mad… otherwise we’re the passionless people, we won’t rouse ourselves to oppose the politicians unless [the public] have the information.”

The Treatygate campaign is likely to kick off before the end of 2012, dependent on funding.

After the public have been fired up by the Treatygate campaign, “Colourblind State” aims to harness this anger to get 80% or more of the public to vote in favour of a referendum question along the lines of “Should New Zealand be a colourblind state, with no race-based political representation, policies, or funding?”. Ansell intends to submit his referendum question by the end of August, which will give Parliament three months to approve it. After that, Ansell and his fellow campaigners will have one year to gather the more than 300,000 signatures required to trigger a citizens initiated referendum.

I wonder which CIR may gain more signatures – the asset sales one, or this proposed one? I guess the Greens will not be using taxpayer funding to hire staff to colect signatures for this one!

But Labour and the Greens are insisting that a CIR trumps an election mandate. So if this CIR does happen, and gets majority support, will they adopt it as policy?

For Ansell and his supporters, time is of the essence – the Constitutional Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2011 to review NZ’s constitutional arrangements and draft a set of recommendations, is due to report back in September 2013. Ansell believes that the panel is “stacked” in favour of what he describes as “Griever Maori”, and that the panel is likely to recommend that the government “impose a Treaty-based Maorified constitution by 2014”, which would be “the end of NZ as we know it”.

The Treatygate campaign will involve TV and print advertisements, dependent on funding. However, Ansell says: “The NZ media are pretty gutless so they probably won’t run the ads, so we may have to find other ways of getting them to the public – putting them in letterboxes, dropping them from planes, whatever it takes.”

As well as whipping up public sentiment in favour of a colourblind state, Ansell hopes his campaign will “turn people around from the belief that if you say one thing against this rort then you’re a racist. It’s a tough road, because in America you’re a racist if you wear a white hood and want to lynch black people, and in NZ you’re a racist if you want racial equality.”

Funding is the biggest roadblock standing in the way of Ansell’s campaign so far – although he is aiming for a “political party-type budget” of $2 million, several of his donors have bailed out on him, including one “patriot” who had originally pledged $250,000. Despite this setback, Ansell remains hopeful that funding will trickle in over time. “Hopefully we can start with something small and it’ll snowball. I will be putting out my prospectus to as many people I can think of as possible, with deep pockets, who might be prepared to help, and to ordinary people.”

Note John has commented on the articles in the comments below it.

Yvonne Tahana at NZ Herald reports:

The contested burial of Christchurch father and Tuhoe man James Takamore goes to the Supreme Court tomorrow but an academic says a decision overriding customary Maori law is akin to “cultural genocide”.

Mr Takamore died in 2007 in the South Island, where he lived with his partner Denise Clarke and children.

In a move described as “body snatching”, his wider whanau took him from Christchurch for burial according to Tuhoe custom at Kutarere in the Bay of Plenty.

Ms Clarke’s fight to disinter the remains was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal based on her rights as executor and spouse. However, Mr Takamore’s sister Josephine has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ms Clarke told the Herald she expected to succeed in the latest round of litigation. “They’re not willing to compromise, they’ve made that clear.”

Associate Professor Nin Tomas of the Auckland University law school has researched customary and common law: the first emphasises rights held by whanau, the second holds that executors or spouses have the final say in burial matters.

Neither should have the final say. The clearly expressed wishes of the deceased should have force in law, and if necessary it should be a criminal offence to act against them (so long as they are legal and practical).

In the absence of clear directions in a will, then the order of precedence should be:

1. Executor
2. Spouse or partner
3. Children
4. Parents
5. Siblings

Miss Takamore’s wishes should be well down the chain.

Professor Tomas said the Takamore case “is a conflict-of-laws situation and the court needs to look at the overall custom and its importance to the society it supports”.

“To dismember [tikanga], or to outlaw it as a system, as the [courts] have done, is cultural genocide.”

The law needed to change to better accommodate customary law.

There may be a clash of laws. I have no problem at all with saying a law which respect the wishes of the individual deceased and then the person that individual chose to marry should trump a customary law which robs the deceased and their chosen family of their rights to decide place of burial. Of course in a cross-cultural situation, individuals should try and compromise to agree on something palatable to all – but if agreement is not achieved, then the law should be followed and there should be penalties for body stealing.

Stuff reports:

Maori have been labelled as thieves, bludgers and liars in entries posted on an online dictionary, which a new petition is calling to have removed.

The petition urges urbandictionary.com to remove the derogatory comments, some which date back as far as 2005 and which more than 1000 people have supported.

The posts linked Maori to theft, exploitation and a low intelligence.

“Maori have been trying to seek revenge on the white man by selling him crappy tinny’s, taking his shoes, and generally stealing everything that isn’t nailed down,” one post reads.

One said Maori were the “dumbest people in New Zealand” and another post said they were “the tough people of New Zealand who smash up Pakeha folk”.

About 40 people have signed the petition, which reads: “The Urban Dictionary is a good reference of colloquial slang, but it is also a melting pot of ignorance….They are not definitions, they are racist views and should be labeled correctly.”

The petition urges the site to remove six posts. There are 32 posts on the word ‘Maori’ and many are positive, and are in response to the negative posts.

The complained about definition is here. I’m not sure the petition will achieve anything though. Wikipedia says about the UD:

Publish racial and sexual slurs but reject racist and sexist entries. Entries can document prejudice and slurs but not endorse it.

I’m not sure of the difference between a racial slur and a racist entry. It is arguable UD should have rejected some of the entries, but now they have:

Individual entries cannot be edited by the registered users en masse.

Definitions already in the dictionary can be voted thumbs “up” or “down” by any site visitor.

Once a definition is included in the dictionary, editors may review it and remove it if it is against the guidelines. However, those definitions which have proven popular by voting cannot be removed, and an editor may only recommend removal of five definitions per 24-hour period.

My suggestion would be to vote down the definitions that you don’t like, and vote up the useful factual ones.

I’d point out that it is not only the Maori entry that has racial slurs associated with it. The Pakeha definition includes:

Europeans who travelled to Aotearoa by boat, brought muskets, tobacco, alcohol, diseases, pigs, sodomy and blankets. 

Traded or stole land from the Maori people, brought over guns and cannons and declared war on a land who’s combat was with sticks and stones yet got their asses kicked by so-called savages and had to settle their defeat with a treaty where the Maori people were duped when the Pakeha translated it into English. 

Most Pakeha will say most of their best friends are Maori as a cop out to their racist comments, also Pakeha have a general dis-like for Pacific Islanders, due to physical intimidation and their own wish for superiority.

And even better:

The Europeans that call New Zealand home. 

After deciding England was full of enough rapists and the country was too shitty, they came to New Zealand. 

Loaded with booze, drugs, dirty woman, homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists and tobacco they ventured throughout New Zealand, growing tobacco, getting drunk, rapeing children and built a government that is synonymous of Pakeha, built on lies, greed and thieft which they justify because they are Pakeha.

So maybe the solution is simply just not to believe everything you read on Urban Dictionary. It is pretty easy to work out which definitions are fairly factual and which are rants.

The Herald reports:

A man who says the law should not apply to him because he is tangata whenua has had his bail application rejected.

Jay Maui Wallace was sentenced in June to four years and three months in prison on charges of injuring with intent to injure over an incident in which he hit a woman with a sawn-off shotgun.

Wallace applied to the High Court in July seeking to be released from prison through a habeas corpus writ, which is used in cases of unlawful detention.

Representing himself, he argued New Zealand laws could not be applied to him because he was tangata whenua and he did not recognise the court’s jurisdiction over him.

Sounds a nasty piece of work – hitting a woman with a shotgun. His attempt to play what I call the “tangata whenua” card angered me, mainly because it inflames race relations. Nothing pisses people off more by some criminal claiming the law doesn’t apply to him because of his race.

I’m a but more sanguine about it now. The argument never works, and you can’t stop people making pathetic and stupid claims. So maybe one should just fight their claims with humour.

Mr Wallace has both Maori and non-Maori ancestors. So maybe the Judge should tell him that the jail sentence only applies to his Pakeha cells

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the full results from the Marae Digipoll. There’s heaps to read there. The electorate numbers are quite small per electorate, so rather than just look at who is in the lead, I’ve analysed the probability that they actually lead. I make it:

• Waiariki – Maori Party ahead with 100% probability
• Tainui – Labour ahead with 100% probability
• Tamaki Makaurau – Maori Party ahead with 96% probability
• Ikaroa Rawhiti – Labour ahead with 85% probability
• Te Tai Hauauru – Maori Party ahead with 80% probability
• Te Tai Tonga – Labour ahead with 78% probability
• Te Tai Tokerau – Labour ahead with 58% probability

Personally I’d still regard Harawira as ahead in Te Tai Tokerau. I also think Tariana Turia will bolt in Te Tai Hauauru. Flavell is looking unbeatable in Waiariki, even with Sykes having just confirmed, as he has over 50% support. And at this stage Sharples looking pretty safe in Tamaki Makaurau.

Party Vote – Maori roll Maori voters (2008 result in brackets)

• Labour 35.7% (50.1%)
• Maori 27.7% (28.9%)
• National 13.2% (7.4%)
• Mana 12.0%
• Green 5.6% (3.9%)
• NZ First 4.1% (6.1%)
• ACT 0.0% (0.5%)

This is interesting, as you can compare to the last election. Labour are down 14% from their 2008 result. Maori Party down 1%, National up 5% and Mana Party has sucked up 12%. I do note more people on the Maori roll say they will vote National than Mana on the party vote.

Also of interest is that amongst Maori on the general roll, ACT had 3% support.

Overall the poll has some good news for everyone. Labour looks to pick up Te Tai Tonga, Maori Party elsewhere is looking okay. Mana is off to an okay start, but at this stage can’t guarantee they will get a second seat – list or electorate. National will like the answers to the questions on Marine & Coastal Area law (only 28% say Maori Party should not have supported).

The Maori Community Development Act 1962:

31 Prevention of drunkenness

A Maori Warden may at any reasonable time enter any licensed premises in any area where he is authorised to carry out his duties and warn the licensee or any servant of the licensee to abstain from selling or supplying liquor to any Maori who in the opinion of the Warden is in a state of intoxication, or is violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, or is likely to become so, whether intoxicated or not, and if the licensee or any servant of the licensee thereafter on the same day supplies liquor to that Maori, the licensee and, if the servant had been warned by the Warden, the servant, commits an offence against this Act.

H/T: Dim-Post

This comes from a TV3 story last night:

Wellington bar owners say drunk Maori will be specifically targeted during the World Cup, by a 50-year-old law that has been pulled from the archives by police and the city council.

The law allows Maori wardens to enter bars and remove drunk or violent Maori. …

Elizabeth Binning at NZ Herald reports:

More than 200 tertiary providers will meet in Auckland today to find ways of getting more Maori students into tertiary education.

That’s an interesting goal. Here are the latest tertiary education participation rates (2009) for four ethnic groups, alphabetically – Asians, Europeans, Maori and Pasifika.

In order of best to worst, here are the four participation rates – 17%, 13%, 12%, 11%.

Your challenge is to match them up.

MaoriRadicals

So what do people think of the advertisement? I would have thought ACT would be focusing more on Labour’s proposed capital gains tax, but eaach to their own.

National have announced that they have selected Joanne Hayes as their candidate for Dunedin South. Congrats to Joanne. Joanne is the Chief Executive of Ngai Tai O Te Awa Trust.

Last weekend Georgina te Heuheu announced her retirement. Georgie became a National MP in 1996, and off memory was the only National MP who was of Maori descent.

Today National has eight MPs of Maori descent. On top of that National’s candidates in Northland, Wellington Central and Dunedin South are of Maori descent. And on current polling they could all well become MPs via the party list if they do not win their seats.

This has all happened with no quotas.

What is remarkable isn’t so much that National is selecting so many Maori candidates, but that so many Maori are making themselves available to stand for National. 20 years ago it was near unthinkable.

UPDATE: And to further make my point, Claudette Hauiti has just been selected as the Mangere candidate. 11 out of 63 candidates in general seats are Maori.

Te Karere have released part 2 of their poll of 1,000 Maori voters.

They have asked “The new legislation replacing the Foreshore and Seabed Act is the Marine and Coastal Area Bill and is currently before Parliament. Do you support the new Bill?“. 24% said yes, 39% no and 38% don’t know.  so neither yes or no is the majority, but more are saying they don’t support it.

However when they are asked “Do you think the Maori Party should support the new Bill to become law?” it is almost a dead heat – 31% yes, 32% no and 37% don’t know. I think this sums up the challenge for the Maori Party – that there is a 50/50 split amongst those who have an opinion in terms of whether they vote for it.

There is a small difference by roll type. Those on the Maori roll are a net 3% against and those on the general roll a net 3% in favour.

Final question to Maori Party voters only was “Do you think the National and Maori Party coalition has worked in favour of your best interests? and 48% said yes and 46% no. Those on Maori roll were 4% net yes and those on geeral roll 8% net no.

TVNZ’s Te Karere programme has just released a poll done of 1,002 Maori voters (367 from general and 635 from Maori rolls), taken from 6 to 28 January. I blogged their 2010 poll here. Key findings so far are below. :

Party Vote:

• Labour 36.9% (-1.0% from Jan 10)
• Maori Party 36.2% (-2.1%)
• National 16.8% (-0.15)
• Greens 4.5% (+1.2%)
• NZ First 4.3%
• ACT 0.8% (+0.6%)

Not a lot of change from last year I have to say. The breakdown by roll is interesting. On the Maori roll it is Maori Party 46% (-5%), Labour 35% (+3%) and National 12% (+15). On the general roll it is Labour 42% (-9%), National 30% (+2%), Maori 11% (nc).

One can compare the Maori roll results to the 2008 election. Labour got 50% of the party vote in the 2008 election, so are down 15% from the election. The Maori Party got 29% of the maori roll party vote in the 2008 election, so are up 17% from the election. So in 2008 Labour was 21% higher than the Maori Party, and today they are 11% behind the Maori Party – a net 16% swing from Labour.

Preferred PM:

1. John Key 26.4% (-4.1%)
2. Pita Sharples 7.8% (-4.0%)
3. Tariana Turia 7.8% (+2.9%)
4. Winston Peters 7.0% (nc)
5. Phil Goff 6.4% (+1.8%)
6. Hone Harawira 2.7% (-0.3%)
7. Helen Clark 2.6% (-1.2%)
8. Shane Jones 2.1% (-0.1%)

A small improvement for Goff, but still very low considering how strong Maori support for Labour has been in the past.

Key is Preferred PM for 33% of Maori on the general roll and 24% of Maori on the Maori roll.

Phil Goff

• Only 25.2% (-10.8%) of Labour voters think he is the best person to lead Labour
• 24.1% (+5.9%) say Goff provides good leadership on Maori issues

Shane Jones will be pleased with these results.

Amelia Wade at the Herald reports:

A clash of cultures over a rule forbidding pregnant or menstruating women to attend a Te Papa exhibit has been criticised by feminists.

An invitation for regional museums to go on a behind-the-scenes tour of some of Te Papa’s collections included the condition that “wahine who are either hapu [pregnant] or mate wahine [menstruating]” were unable to attend.

Jane Keig, Te Papa spokeswoman, said the policy was in place because of Maori beliefs surrounding the Taonga Maori collection included in the tour.

She said the rule was one of the terms Te Papa agreed to when they took the collection.

“If a woman is pregnant or menstruating, they are tapu. Some of these taonga have been used in battle and to kill people.

“Pregnant women are sacred and the policy is in place to protect women from these objects.”

What? Are Te Papa concerned that one of these ancient weapons is going to levitate itself over to any pregnant women, and bludgeon her to death unassisted?

And how does Te Papa intend to check if women are menstruating? Will there be compulsory checks? I mean you can’t rely on trust – the ghosts may get offended.

Deborah Russel, prominent feminist blogger on The Hand Mirror blog, does not think the policy should be enforced in modern society.

“I don’t understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people.

“It’s fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don’t harm others, but the state shouldn’t be imposing those practices on other people.”

Absolutely. If they are the terms under which a collection will only be granted, then they should be refused.

Would one accept a collection with a condition that no blacks are d

lowed to view the collection?

Would Te Papa kowtow to the Roman Catholic Church if it insisted that a collection of church art work only be viewable by men?

However, Margaret Mutu, head of Maori Studies at Auckland University, said the policy was common in Maori culture.

Women cannot go into the garden, on to the beach or in the kitchen when they are menstruating.

“It’s a very serious violation of tapu for women to do those things while menstruating. Women cannot have anything to do with the preparation of food while they are menstruating.”

I would be very interested in any research that measures how prevalent this “policy” is amongst Maori women. It may have been common in the past, but how many modern Maori families ban women from going into the garden or the beach while they are menstruating?

No Right Turn alerted me to this private members bill drawn from the ballot. He supports the intent, but not the details of the bill. I have problems with both.

The bill basically forces every city council, district council and regional council to have one or more Maori wards – reserved for voters of Maori descent.

I think such a move would be appalling, and push us towards a Fiji style country, and set back race relations massively.

I also think it shows how dangerous it can be when the debate keeps shifting down this path.

At a national level, we have had the Maori seats since 1867. They were well intentioned, allowing Maori who owned property communally to vote – a right limited then to property owners.

In an ideal world the seats would have been abolished in 1879 when the property requirement was abolished. It is somewhat shameful that up until 1976, Maori were not even allowed to vote on the general roll.

I regard it as a shame that the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish the Maori seats (and in exchange have a lower threshold for Maori parties) was not implemented. Have race based seats is just not something that long-term I think is likely to create a more harmonious New Zealand.

However I do generally accept the proposition that regardless of the lack of a principled rationale for race based seats, that trying to unilaterally abolish them would be an act that would in itself be disharmonious and create a huge backlash. There is a huge difference between not creating something, and taking something away. Hence I don’t think it is wise to try and abolish the Maori parliamentary seats, unless one could get widespread agreement from Maori to it.

But having said that, I think it is important that the Maori parliamentary seats be seen as a historic exception, and not the rule. However we are in some danger of ending up there.

In 1998 Tuariki Delamere sponsored a bill to allow the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to create a Maori ward or wards.The argument was that it was only for that one Council which had special needs, and the parliamentary seats was a precedent. And people thought well, why not allow it.

It was not supported by National, but in 2001 Labour passed it as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001.

The exception then became an option for all, and Labour passed the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002 which allowed any Council to establish Maori wards either on their own initiative or by referendum, which can be  upon petition by 5% of electors.

So a historical anomaly became a one off example in one Council, and then became an option for all Councils.

And it didn’t stop there. The Royal Commission on Auckland recommended that the new Auckland Council have three Maori seats, regardless of whether or not the people of Auckland wanted them. Labour demanded that the Government create Maori seats for Auckland, rather than even leave it to Auckland to decide. So again, the debate shifted from should they even be allowed, to should it be created without consultation.

And then finally we have the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill by Te Uroroa Flavell, which would impose Maori wards on every council in New Zealand, dividing every single authority up into Maori and non Maori.

Now it is all well intentioned, and supporters will claim the means justify the ends. But again I don’t think we want to end up like Fiji with race dividing voters electorally.

So I fully expect Flavell’s bill to be voted down. No doubt the Greens will vote for it. I suspect Labour would love to vote for it, but they may vote against it on the basis of its flaws (beyond the principled opposition to it). NRT describes these:

Currently councils can establish Māori wards, and if they do, their number is determined by the number of people on the Māori roll in that district. Flavell’s bill would change this to being determined by the number of people of Māori descent. However, voting in those wards would still be limited to the 60% of Māori on the Māori roll. Which means that those wards will be systematically undersized, and those Māori systematically over-represented.

This would be a huge gerrymander. Basically voters in the Maori wards would have twice as much power as those in other wards. NRT also fisks the justification from Flavell:

Flavell’s justification for this change is that

This change is made because 40% of the Māori population is under 18 years and is therefore excluded under the current formula.

But this is simply incorrect. The current formula uses the definitions from the Electoral Act 1993, which specifically includes people under 18. So those people would already be represented (though unable to vote)

Incidentally I believe electorate populations should be based on the adult population, not the total population – but that is a debate for another day.

NRT concludes:

I don’t think this is an attempt at a stitch-up; rather its likely a mistake born of not reading the law closely enough. But the result is a deeply flawed bill. Fortunately, those flaws can be resolved at select committee.

The mistake can be easily resolved. But I don’t think the bill should proceed. Generally I support most bills going to a select committee, but this bill seeks to move in a direction which I so strongly disagree with, that I don’t think it should even get past first reading.

Incidentally under this proposed law, four local authorities would be forced to have the majority of their seats elected from Maori wards. Think about the level of resentment that would cause amongst non-Maori? I don’t mean the resentment would come from having a majority of Maori on a local authority. I, for one, would not care a damn if the majority of Wellington City Council was Maori. I would object though if the majority had been elected from wards which I am banned from being eligible to enrol in, because of my lack of the right genes.

It is a pity that the debate on this bill will now be whether or not Maori seats on Council should be compulsory or voluntary. In fact the debate should be about whether Labour should have ever created them at all in 2001.

Three editorials on the UN Declaration. First the Herald:

When the previous Labour Government was confronted with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, it quailed.

The potential political backlash, rather than the practical outcome of signing a non-binding document, was uppermost in its mind.

At its behest, New Zealand joined a group of only four UN members opposed to the declaration. It was a nonsensical state of affairs for a country whose record on indigenous rights is far superior to the vast majority of those who had signed up. …

If New Zealand does certain things differently to the ideal scenario alluded to by the declaration, that is of no great practical consequence. The focus should be on its record on indigenous relations, which places it in the international vanguard.

The work of the Waitangi Tribunal, which since 1975 has served as an effective sounding board for iwi to relate their stories of land loss, has been an integral part of that.

New Zealand has always spoken from a position of strength on matters of indigenous rights because it comes closer than most to meeting the aspirations espoused in the UN declaration.

Signing that document was, as Dr Sharples suggests, a small step but one that has symbolic value domestically and internationally.

There may, indeed, be no practical impact. That does not mean, however, that grasping this nettle was not worthwhile.

So Herald very supportive.

The Press:

The Maori Party chalked up another victory this week with the announcement that the Government will support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although this decision is largely symbolic, support for the declaration had been a long-standing goal of the party and a source of friction between it and the previous Labour-led administration.

From a political perspective, support for the declaration makes sense for both the Maori Party and National. The Maori Party can add this to a growing list of policy concessions by National, including retaining the Maori seats and flying the Maori flag on Waitangi Day. In addition, the hated foreshore and seabed law will be repealed and the Maori Party’s flagship Whanau Ora policy will be introduced.

For National, these concessions have the effect of tying the Maori Party closer to it and creating the prospect that a support relationship between the two could endure past this term. In particular, it creates a point of difference with Labour, which justified its position as one of just four nations to oppose the declaration in 2007 by saying that it was at odds with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal framework. …

There is a risk that the declaration could be the basis of future attacks on this nation’s human rights record. But New Zealand governments have shown themselves capable of shrugging off previous criticism from bodies such as the UN Commission on Human Rights.

It might be argued, as Labour has done, that there was little point in endorsing the declaration if it would have no practical effect. It is, however, a symbol of New Zealand’s support for indigenous peoples across the globe.

And it was always incongruous that the vast majority of nations, many of which have appalling human rights records compared with New Zealand, voted for the bill, and that this nation did not.

Two in favour.

The Dom Post:

Recognising blah blah blah, affirming waffle waffle waffle. As a contribution to the human rights canon, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples leaves something to be desired.

It reads like a 48-page wish list assembled by a committee, which is exactly what it is – a committee which debated the merits of additional clauses, full stops and commas for 22 years. Drafting began in 1985, but the final wording was not approved by the United Nations General Assembly until 2007.

Heh sounds typical.

However, its drawn-out conception is not a reason to oppose it. Nor is its verbosity. The declaration is a flawed document – an assemblage of truisms and platitudes that imposes no obligations on signatories but contains fishhooks for nations that try to honour it.

It is actually to the last government’s credit that it declined to endorse a document it knew it could not implement. Amid the verbiage are a handful of articles that confer rights on indigenous peoples that are denied to other citizens. They include the right to veto government decisions and reclaim ownership of traditional lands – a right that, in New Zealand’s case, could be interpreted as covering the entire country.

New Zealand does not need to pay lip service to unworkable statements to demonstrate its good intent. …

However, there is value in restating the special status of Maori as New Zealand’s indigenous people, acknowledging the importance of Maori culture, affirming the Treaty of Waitangi’s place as New Zealand’s founding document and acknowledging the historic injustices suffered by Maori.

The negotiations between the Maori Party and National have enabled the Government to do so in a way which does not expose it to accusations of bad faith.

New Zealand’s declaration of support explicitly reaffirms the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin the legal system and notes that those frameworks define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the UN declaration. In other words, New Zealand law takes precedence over the declaration.

A momentous occasion as the Maori Party has suggested? Perhaps not, but a welcome opportunity to remove a source of friction between Maori and the Government and to put New Zealand back in the international mainstream. Of the four countries that initially opposed the declaration – New Zealand, the United States, Australia and Canada – only the US now stands outside the declaration. Australia changed its position last year and Canada has said it will do so.

Luke warm, but broadly supportive.

The ODT focuses on volcanic fallout:

If there is a lesson to be learned – again – from the billowing clouds of volcanic ash in the skies over Europe, it is the latent power of nature.

In 1783, the eruption of the volcano Laki in Iceland lasted for about eight months.

The effects of the layers of dust it threw into the atmosphere have been linked, among other things, to the failure of crops in France, and subsequent famine.

The fallout, Dr Stephen Edwards of the Department of Earth Sciences at University College London told the London Observer at the weekend, may have been one of a number of factors that led to the French Revolution. …

The interruption to normal service is costing the airline industry alone almost $NZ500 million a day, according to a conservative estimate by the International Air Transport Association.

The knock-on effects to a world economy just beginning to witness the signs of a fragile recovery from the recent recession, could be considerably amplified beyond the immediate consequences of cancelled flights.

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.