Kiwiblog

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They recommend the Act be repealed, and offer four options for consideration: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