Kiwiblog

I’m not a fan of posting details of Judges who issue suppression orders, as Cameron has threatened to do. Likewise I would not personally breach suppression orders as I am more an advocate of lobbying against stupid laws, rather than breaking them.

I do strongly support the Law Commission’s recommendation to make suppression orders much more difficult to achieve for those convicted of a crime.

But hell when I read about the recent case in Palmerston North, my blood boils and I am half tempted to join Whale in direct action. If you don’t know the case I am talking about, this is the Manawatu Standard on it:

If there were any lingering doubts that the guidelines for suppressing names in this country needed strengthening, the case detailed in today’s Manawatu Standard should shatter them.

The creeping secrecy pervading our justice system has long since passed what the public should accept as a reasonable restriction on their freedom of expression in order to safeguard the administration of justice.

The decision to suppress the name of a prominent Manawatu man convicted of downloading pornographic images of children is a salient example of how the principle of open justice has been reduced to little more than a passing mention before a judge abdicates his or her duty to ensure our public court system belongs to the people.

What if this man does not just download child pornography, but seeks to create some of his own? Parents are blocked from being able to protect their kids..

For Judge Fraser to say publication of the man’s identity was not required because none of the thousands of children pictured were New Zealanders is logically outrageous. Such an argument requires one to believe this man investigated the background of each of his young victims to determine they were not from this country. Does Judge Fraser believe that had the man known the children were New Zealanders he would have not downloaded the images?

An appalling lack of logic.

The Maori Party have attacked the decision:

Maori Party MPs have joined the chorus of condemnation at the permanent name suppression given to a prominent Manawatu man who downloaded more than 300,000 pornographic images, many of them picturing children.

“The decision to permanently suppress this man’s name is outrageous as is the decision to give him a few months home detention,” Maori Party justice spokeswoman Rahui Katene said.

“We urge the prosecution to appeal the sentence so this man can never ever again be allowed to continue his sick actions in a veil of secrecy.”

I hope it is appealed. But I also hope the Government puts a law change on the fast track.

The Herald reports:

Asked if they would rule out mounting a challenge at any point before next year’s election, Mr Cunliffe answered with an emphatic no. “Absolutely ruled out. Never been interested.”

Mr Jones initially said no comment before returning to say it was a “negative, divisive question”.

Rather different responses.

“Absolutely no interest whatsoever in applying for leadership or doing anything that breaks our unity.”

Which is far from a no.

Elsewhere:

Labour MP Shane Jones has begun the year vowing to drive the Maori Party out of Parliament, saying they had betrayed their own people and lured the Government into funding their policies of “buying favours by giving money to a favoured few”.

The criticism following Labour’s first caucus of the year yesterday was a clear sign that the gentle approach Labour has thus far taken to the smaller party is over.

Shane talks tough but I notice he doesn’t stand himself against Maori Party candidates in the Maori seats. He normally stands in Northland, losing to John Carter by 10,000 or so votes.

I’ve said it before but Labour are making a strategic blunder by attacking the Maori Party – for two reasons. The first is that they have no chance of winning back four of the five seats held by the Maori Party, and if anything are at risk of losing two further seats to them.

At the last election Labour won the party vote in the Maori seats with 50% to 29% for the Maori Party. The November 2009 Marae Digipoll had the Maori Party at 62% (up 33%) and Labour at 23% (down 27%).

On top of this, it is almost impossible for Labour to form a Government without support from the Maori Party. They have lost the Alliance and Winston First. Progressive and United Future probably won’t be there next time, and Labour and the Greens by themselves are incredibly unlikely to win 63 seats.

Colin James writes:

The Maori Party’s Mr Harawira also spent taxpayers’ money on personal fun, in Paris. Confronted, he reverted to Hone, the abusive teenage protester. For that he earned a grandmother’s fierce disapproval.

That gutsy, determined kuia five years ago held off Labour’s heavy hitters and earned their fury for what they saw – and see in exchanges as late as last week – as duplicity. She went solo and now has four MPs alongside her. The party’s future is far from secure and many National policies are anathema to its voters. But it is in the game and winning points.

In that game it is Tariana Turia who anchors the party. Whacking Mr Harawira quarantined a threat to its important third constituency (after two sorts of Maori): an intrigued and respectful white middle-class that ungrudgingly (so far) concedes the points the party wins.

Mrs Turia is my politician of the year.

Kiwiblog readers also voted Tariana the Minor Party MP of the Year. I can recall the days when she was seen as electoral poison. She has achieved something quite remarkable with her establishment of the Maori Party, as I suspect it will be one of the four parties still existing in 2030.

The Herald reports:

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira has apologised again for comments made in an offensive email and is allowed to remain with the party following three weeks of debate over his future. …

Mr Harawira began a media conference in Wellington to outline what action the party was taking with an apology – this time more fulsome than his previous effort.

He apologised to both Maori and Pakeha for the comments, saying they were “insensitive, hurtful and unnecessary” and had caused much grief.

He also acknowledged he was responsible for damaging his party, saying it had spent four years building up credibility and good will.

“My comments have derailed much of that credibility and set back our efforts to build bridges for our people into the future.”

A split from the Maori Party would have been a lose/lose for the Maori Party and Harawira in my opinion.

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.

The Herald reports:

Controversial MP Hone Harawira has again stressed his determination to stay with the Maori Party, but admits “serious bridge building” is needed. …

I hope they do find way forward. I can’t see Harawira becoming an Independent MP as benefiting anyone (except Shane Jones). But it is possible too much water has gone under the bridge. Time will tell.

First an interview with Michelle Hewitson. I think the interview is in fact very perceptive, and worth a read.

I asked her son if only his mother was allowed to keep her shoes on. “Pretty much.” How does that work? “She can pretty much go wherever she likes.” …

Because of that surprising show of nerves – it’s not a question you ordinarily think to ask of a Harawira – I asked whether anything frightened him.

“I guess … not really. I don’t think so.” Except his mother? “Ha, ha. Yeah, I guess. She always will, I suppose. She’s my mum.”

All of the above tells you what you need to know about being raised Harawira. You can do what you want and you don’t have to take your shoes off. It’s one definition of being a rebel.

And Claire Trevett:

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira yesterday defended himself against the call for him to resign and took a thinly veiled swipe at the party’s leadership, claiming the wider party was being “dictated to” by a few individuals.

This has the potential to get very messy, especially as the MPs seem to now be communicating through the media with each other, not directly.

And Audrey Young:

Maori Party president Whatarangi Winiata’s bombshell in asking MP Hone Harawira to resign will throw it the party into unprecedented turmoil.

But Winiata and co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples knew that when the request was put to Harawira at a hui in Kaitaia on Thursday.

The fact that they are willing to accept the internal grief, and possibly a permanent rift with the north, shows how strongly they feel about him going.

It has been a decision reached more in sorrow than anger. And it is more an act of self-preservation than of punishment.

If it has been this difficult, they’ve done well to keep things so tight for so long.

The Maori Party represents a broad church of views, from left to conservative. It is not Harawira’s radicalism per se that is the problem but the way he expresses his views in a polarising way.

And can a leopard change his spots?

It was clear from the press conference Turia and Sharples held at Parliament yesterday that their tolerance for Harawira is an at end. The possibility of his remaining a colleague seems remote at this stage.

There can be no mistaking the message: Harawira is not a team-player and is not suited to the disciplines of a political party. The hope is that he recognises that himself.

But Harawiras don’t do humiliation, and the default position would have to be on his fighting expulsion – which in itself could be damaging to the party.

It is a battle the party’s leaders calculated is worth risking.

I hope there is a way forward, because there are some big issues to be resolved such as the Foreshore & Seabed Act, and schisms within the Maori Party will make it harder to find a solution.

I am surprised. I thought Maori Party would whack Hone with a slightly moist bus ticket, and say look Hone is a hot head, but he does a lot of good stuff, and we have told him to tone it down in future.

Instead the Herald reports:

Maori Party leaders have made it clear Hone Harawira will be pushed if he refuses their request to resign.

They say his actions have had a devastating effect on the party and he has refused to be accountable to the caucus or the party.

I feel somewhat sorry for the other Maori Party MPs for havign to weather the backlash from one of their colleagues.

Professor Winiata said Mr Harawira’s actions had had a “devastating effect” on the party and his fellow MPs.

He made it clear the decision was not based solely on the Paris incident and the email, saying Mr Harawira’s actions showed he believed he was accountable only to the people of his Te Tai Tokerau electorate.

“If Hone believes he is not accountable to the Maori Party or its leadership, or the party caucus in Parliament, then clearly he has placed himself outside the party.”

There is often some tension between loyalty to constituents and to a party, but this is part of the balancing act all electorate MPs have. If one claims an extreme position of loyalty only to one’s electorate or only to one’s party, then you won’t be in a tenable position for long.

Mr Harawira said he had no intention of leaving the Maori Party, and the suggestion that he resign was “the silliest idea I’ve ever heard”.

But Dr Winiata and co-leader Tariana Turia have made it clear it will take a lot to dissuade the party from pushing him if he refuses to go.

Asked if Mr Harawira would be expelled if he did not resign, Mrs Turia said that was ultimately up to him.

“But I don’t think Hone will want to change how he is, and I don’t think he will change how he is. This is not just about a jaunt to Paris or bad language. It’s been an ongoing issue and it’s reached its end, very sadly.”

She said it had become obvious the party leadership had no other option.

As I said, no one can say the Maori Party are not taking this seriously. Things sound pretty bad, and whether there is a way forward for reconciliation – well time will tell.

Personally I hope there is a way forward. I suspect Hone would win Te Tai Tokerau as an Independent – but he will become irrelevant if he does leave the Maori Party. The Maori Party won’t like losing an electorate and possibly losing some of the hard core activists – but they obviously feel the status quo is not tenable.

Further to my blog earlier this morning, the kind people at Marae have sent me a breakdown of some of their poll results, by roll. This allows an easier comparison to election results.

You can view the episode on their website, including a discussion between host Shane Taurima and John Key.

First the party vote results for the 700 respondents on the Maori roll (compared to actual election results):

1. Maori Party 62% (+33%)
2. Labour 23% (-27%)
3. National 11% (+3%)
4. Greens 2% (-2%)
5. NZ First 2% (-5%)

That is a decimation for Labour. Their party vote has more than halved amongst Maori on the Maori roll. Some of that will be losing Clark.

Then the party vote results for the 300 Maori respondents on the General roll:

1. National 42%
2. Labour 33%
3. Maori Party 16%
4. Greens 6%
5. NZ First 3%

Now this is unprecedented as far as I know – National to be outpolling Labour amongst Maori voters on the general roll.

The 2008 data has not yet been published but the NZ election study in 2005 had Maori on the general roll supporting Labour at 54%, and National at 17%.

So from the 2005 election, Labour has gone from 37% ahead of National amongst Maori on the general roll, to 9% behind.

And then if we take the overall sample of all Maori (both rolls) we have:

1. Maori Party 48% (+27% from 2005)
2. Labour 26% (-28%)
3. National 20% (+11%)
4. Greens 3% (-2%)
5. NZ First 2% (-7%)

Again I can’t compare to 2008 as there is no public poll data about how Maori on the general roll voted.  But the combined effect is clear – Labour at half the level they were in 2005, and both National and Maori Party at around double where they were.

Also interesting to see the breakdown by roll for John Key. He gets 26% Preferred PM amongst Maori roll respondents and 39% amongst Maori on the general roll. Goff is at 4% on Maori roll and 5% General roll.

In terms of approval of Key’s performance as PM, there is little variation. Maori on the Maori roll give him a net approval (yes over no) of 17% and Maori on the General roll a net approval of 24%.

I have not yet viewed the episode myself, but I think John Key will be very proud of such historic results, despite being a “white motherfucker”

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.

The Herald reports on the organisational leadership of the Maori Party:

Maori Party president Whatarangi Winiata’s plans to retire from the post today appear to have been scuttled after several people within the party asked him to stay on.

Dr Winiata had announced his intention to stand down at today’s annual general meeting in Auckland.

He is two years through his three-year term, but had proposed resigning to allow his successor two years in the position before the next election.

Asked if he had changed his mind, he said he had been approached about it and would stay on if the membership decided it was the best option.

He would wait to hear what the meeting wanted before deciding.

The party’s co-president, retired Maori Land Court judge Heta Kenneth Kingston, was tipped to succeed him.

Dr Winiata has led the party wing of the Maori Party since it was formed in 2004 and having him stay on will help the party’s stability.

The party also has a challenge ahead with its parliamentary leadership. At the 2014 election, Turia will be 70, and Sharples 73. I would expect both will retire at that election.

That means they need to have their successors in place at the 2011 election, and they may struggle to find people of matching profile and mana nationally.

The most high profile current MP is Hone Harawira, but Hone is not seeking leadership and would be an unlikely one. Some say his wife Hilda would be an excellent Leader, but is Parliament ready for two Harawiras?

Te Ururoa Flavell is considered able to potentially step up if he lifts his profile in the next few years. But even if that happens, the Maori Party will still need a new female co-leader and unless they pick up the final two seats off Labour, no way to get them into Parliament in 2011.

Claire Trevett also has a very insightful article on the two current co-leaders and their strengths and weaknesses.

Bryce Edwards blogs a summary of the Maori Party’s 2008 campaign.

Why do so many people who complain that ACT got five seats in Parliament on only 3.65% of the vote, never complain that the Maori Party got five seats in Parliament on 2.39% of the vote?

People often advocate that a party should not be eligible to gain List MPs if they get under 5%, due to winning an electorate seat. But I would say the overhang issue is a more serious problem.

The Herald reports:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is set to reverse her decision to retire at the next election and instead stay on to advance her political agenda.

Mrs Turia confirmed yesterday that she was “seriously reconsidering” her decision and discussing it with her family.

She announced her retirement at the last election, saying she would step down at the end of this term.

This is not totally surprising, nor unwelcome. As the Herald notes:

The Herald understands Mrs Turia’s goal is to see her whanau ora policy embedded.

Whanau ora would bring together funding from various Government departments – health, education, justice, housing, social welfare – and funnel it directly to families in need of state assistance, rather than separately through different bureaucracies.

Mrs Turia is raising her 8-year-old grandchild, so the pressure of working in Parliament is a consideration.

If she stays on, it will resolve the Maori Party’s leadership dilemma, with no clear successor in its ranks.

The lack of a clear successor is a real issue for the Maori Party.

By 2014, one would expect both Sharples and Turia to retire. Turia will be 70 and Sharples 73.

The three other Maori Party MPs are all good constituent MPs, but neither Flavell or Katene (at this stage) have a national profile. Hone Harawira does, but I imagine he would agree leadership would be too stifling to him.

So how does the Maori Party get into Parliament, a couple of MPs who can take over in 2014? They are most unlikely to get any List MPs in 2011. And I don’t expect any retirements from the three other constituency MPs.

Hence they need to get their future leaders to either enter in 2011 by winning one or both of the two Maori seats they do not hold. If Derek Fox finally won Ikaroa-Rawhiti, he would be a logical contender. Mind you he will be 64 in 2011 and 67 in 2014.

The other option is that you look for the future leaders to replace Turia and Sharples in their own seats. This means however they go straight into the leadership as new MPs, which could be challenging.

John Armstrong touches on a number of issues:

No matter what spin the anti-smacking brigade puts on last week’s referendum, the result is still mind-boggling. …

The assumption of voter ignorance is the typical sort of patronising claptrap used by the liberal elites to conveniently explain away something that disturbs their comfort zones. …

Ditto with the smacking referendum. Voters understood exactly what they were doing. Politicians ignore the outcome at their peril.

There is a huge disconnect between the so called liberal elite and the rest of NZ on this issue. Armstrong is right – people knew exactly what they were voting for. This is an issue that has had two years plus of public debate.

Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note. The highest “no” votes were registered in provincial and rural seats held by that party.

Once it was clear that the turnout was going to be much higher than predicted, the Prime Minister ensured he had a response prepared. This amounted to more monitoring of the existing law to ensure it is working as intended.

That was obviously not going to satisfy the referendum’s organisers, who were seeking the repeal of the relevant section of the Crimes Act.

While Sue Bradford’s amended initiative remains the law, National has taken on board the message from the referendum that voters are drawing a line in the sand against any more measures which might be termed liberal, socially progressive or nanny state-ish.

I remain unconvinced that this will be enough. I think it will remain an issue until the law is amended.

And I don’t think one should include “socially progressive” in the same sentence as “nanny state”. Certainly some people are against both, but I see de-criminalising prostitution (or more correctly solicitation) as the exact opposite of nanny state.

In marked contrast, National’s reform agenda for the economy and social service delivery is meeting little resistance. For example, Bill English has now mentioned on several occasions three dreaded words that usually spell political death – “capital gains tax” – without his world caving in.

That is not to say the Finance Minister is about to bring in such a tax.

But the lack of opposition is emboldening the Government to move faster on the economic front than it might otherwise have done, another example being National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.

I am pleased that National is showing signs that the status quo will not deliver the economy we need.

If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter is proof there is a God – and that he or she has a wicked sense of humour.

How else to explain the private member’s bill promoted by Act’s John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a “light” smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament’s order paper for debate.

The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member’s bills – plus the timing just days after the referendum result – suggested divine intervention.

I joked to a Christian lobbyist after the bill was drawn, that perhaps this does show that God is indeed on their side

National is relaxed about Act getting a pay-off in the polls from Hide appearing principled by saying he would resign his Local Government portfolio rather than steer legislation through Parliament with which he could not agree.

Act has struggled to register above 1.5 per cent support since the election, while backing for National is up to 10 percentage points higher than the party got at the ballot box last year.

While Act appears to have decided to be less supine in its four-way relationship with National, the Maori Party and United Future, it has to ensure it does not overreach itself and become the docked tail wagging a very large National dog.

Most in National would like ACT to be close to 5% than 1%. And again to be fair to Rodney he did not publicise his stance on resigning over the Maori Seats. Whomever leaked the Tau Henare e-mail did that.

National ultimately holds the whip hand. Act’s survival as a parliamentary party rests on Hide holding his Epsom seat. National has no qualms about reminding him that it retains the right to select a quality candidate and make a proper fight of it in the electorate.

Hide’s threat to resign his portfolios is akin to the Black Knight’s sword fight with King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As Arthur hacks off the Black Knight’s limbs one-by-one, the latter insists his wounds are nothing more than a scratch and suggests the pair call it a draw.

Again I think it is fair to stress Rodney did not want this made public. But having been made public, is is true that there is limited room to take such a firm stance again without a degree of backlash.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from the Byzantine nature of MMP politics, it is not to view an argument over something like the non-establishment of Maori seats in isolation. The Maori Party has been the loser in that instance, it should be the winner elsewhere, thereby reinforcing its current inclination to stick with National.

The review of the foreshore and seabed law will see it emerge the winner when it comes to concessions.

I have blogged previously that by 2011 the Maori Party will probably have a fairly impressive list of achievements or wins. And what will be more remarkable is all of them were gained voluntarily – National could have governed without them.

How nice to see disagreeing parties acting maturely on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council.

ACT are firmly against Maori seats and Rodney Hide has said:

Mr Hide said he told Mr Key: “Just to be absolutely clear, you have got our support for supply and confidence but as a minister, as the Act leader, I couldn’t be responsible for introducing to the House a bill that would have reserve seats in it.”

And that is fair enough that you can’t expect a Minister to introduce a bill if they are opposed to a major section of it. But there is no NZ First type talk of walking away from Government if they do not get their way.

And the Maori Party are being equally mature:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said last night that she was disappointed at Mr Hide’s position but her party’s support for the Government would not change. “We always knew when we went into this arrangement with National that there would be issues that would take us right to the wire and this is one of them.

“But we have no intentions of withdrawing support for the Government and we have no intention of withdrawing our ministerial roles. That’s not what we went into the relationship for.”

It is inevitable that the Maori Party and ACT are not going to agree on everything, and that whatever National decides will disappoint one of them on this issue.

I believe the solution is easy, and has always been there. Parliament should not decide for Aucklanders whether or not to have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The Local Government and Electoral Acts allows local voters to decide this by way of referendum. If Aucklanders wants Maori seats on the Auckland Council, they should petition for them (only needs 5%) and gain a majority in the referendum. Having Wellington impose Maori seats on Auckland is a very different issues to having Auckland decide for itself whether or not it wants Maori seats.

David Lewis blogs:

Phil Goff knows what Graham Henry is feeling. Labour is playing politics the way the All Blacks played the Springboks in Bloemfontein. They are trailing by some margin and getting desperate, forcing the play and throwing silly passes.

Not a bad analogy.

There is also, however, a strategic issue which Goff needs to address – Labour’s relationship with the Maori Party. …

The continued sniping between Labour’s Maori MPs and the Maori Party is hardly the secure foundation upon which to build a secure working relationship. It’s not helped by Labour’s Maori MPs’ discomfort at the way their Maori Party counterparts outshine them with verve and flair.

While I think the relationship with National is strong at the moment, I have always said that long-term they have more policy synergy with Labour. But politics is not just about policy – trust and relationships count.

Take the furore in Maoridom over the government’s Auckland governance proposals – and the removal of any Maori representation. If there was an issue heaven sent to Labour’s Maori MPs to seize and lead, it was this. What happened? The Maori Party managed to rewrite the Cabinet Manual and head the opposition to the plans despite being part of the government that introduced them. Labour’s Maori MPs did get some publicity; but that was after being spotted chowing down in a McDonalds while the hikoi was inching up Queen St.

Heh I had forgotten that.

Take also the proposal to allow Maori to choose a flag to fly over the Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day. Labour’s Shane Jones says the hui being held to discuss which flag should fly ‘reeks of shallowness and insularity’. In fact, the process is being led – harmoniously and sincerely – by Pita Sharples. It will result in, most likely, the tino rangatiratanga flag being flown from the bridge beside the New Zealand flag on Waitangi Day. And with scarcely any angst. Remarkable. And commendable to anyone with a vaguely liberal bent.

Labour all too often snipe at everything, and miss the big picture. Not just on this issue.

Designing a framework for a more harmonious relationship won’t necessarily be easy but it can be achieved. It might mean some sort of non-aggression pact outside election campaigns, when both parties will heartily contest the Maori vote.

It’s certainly not beyond Goff to come to an arrangement. It would be a welcome diversion after the travails of recent weeks.

The chance of Labour winning the next election, without support from the

Duncan Garner blogs:

So the Maori Party offer Key the seats he needs to get over the line. Without Sharples and co, Key could struggle to get a second term.

He wants a second term – he doesn’t want the t-shirt saying: ‘I was a one term PM.’ And he’s being helped by Labour and particularly tough old Trevor Mallard. Mallard appears to be alienating the Maori Party MPs as each day passes.

I couldn’t help but witness the tension between Mallard and Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell in Parliament this week. The more Trevor needles them about their relationship with the Nats, the longer the marriage will last.

If Labour wants a shot in 2011, I suggest Goff grab Trevor by the neck and give him a smack in the chops – if he won’t then at least get Tau Henare to throw in the peoples elbow.

Mallard is seriously affecting Labour’s future chances of having any decent relationship with the Maori Party. One Maori Party MP this told me this week, “Trevor can get f….. and so can Labour in 2011.”

Assuming Anderton retires in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens. Labour have an opportunity to have a better relationship with the Maori Party now that the author of “haters and wreckers” and “last cab off the rank” has been exiled overseas.  But to date they seem to be doing their best to push the Maori Party towards National – and that may be a decision they bitterly regret.

Hat Tip: Blaise Drinkwater

While there are plenty of areas of disagreement, I find it interesting how cordial relations are between not just the Maori Party and National, but also with ACT.

Look at this speech from Tariana Turia:

Winston Churchill and Rodney Hide have something in common, apart from looks, (although Rodney is actually in better shape).

It was Churchill who famously said, “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”

Almost eighty years later, Mr Hide has introduced a Bill to do something for once and for all to address the duplication, gaps, errors and inconsistencies that make a mockery of our law.

Tariana also reminds us of their policies:

It is great to see the Act Party going to such steps to implement Maori Party policy.

We campaigned last election on a commitment to supporting the growth and sustainability of small businesses.

We committed to reducing the tax of businesses with a net income of $100,000 or less, from 33% to 25%.

You agree to disagree in the areas you disagree, and make progress in the areas you do agree.

Audrey Young blogs on Fiji, and you have to agree with her it has not been handled well by the Government. Discussions have been occuring through the media, not directly to each other.

It looks like the Maori Party will still send a delegation – probably led by Hone Harawira. That is their right of course.

I’m a bit puzzled by the Maori Party stance on Fiji. The original Fiji coups were about preventing the majority Indians from forming a Government. It was about protecting what they saw as the right of indigenous Fijians, and that stance had the support of some Maori activists in NZ.

But the Commodore’s coup is (officially anyway) about the opposite. He is saying he wants to remove any special rights from indigenous Fijians, and replace the constitution which has race based seats.

Somewhat strange bedfellows for the Maori Party I would have said whose entire party is about how there should be special rights for indigenous people.

Claire Trevett looks as the Ministerial delegations for the Maori Party:

The announcement of the delegated responsibilities was barely noticed at the time. But for the Maori Party, it delivered the mana it was waiting for.

The full list of delegations is here. There hasn’t been a great deal of analysis of it, to date.

The list is extensive and, critically, delivers distinct areas of responsibility and funding in social policy that affect the lives of Maori people.

Among them, Tariana Turia has taken on responsibility for Maori and Pacific employment as well as the Government’s overall strategy on family violence.

In health, her focus includes provider development. But wider responsibilities include sexual health, diabetes, tobacco, communicable diseases and breast and cervical screening.

Pita Sharples is expected to find ways to address Maori over-representation in crime, as well as more effective rehabilitation of Maori offenders. In an area dear to his heart, he gets responsibilities for Maori education such as kohanga reo and kura kaupapa.

In some ways these areas are more significant than their main ministerial portfolios of Maori Affairs for Pita Sharples and the Community and Voluntary sector for Tariana Turia.

Indeed.

The challenge for the Maori Party is to deliver in areas it has long accused others of failing in.

The expectation they must perform in these areas is crystal clear. To Mrs Turia falls the task not only of “addressing” family violence but of “reducing the impact” of it.

Mr Key puts a premium on performance – and his support parties are not exempt.

He will also expect Maori ministers to toe the same line of accountability for how public money is spent, and Mrs Turia has already begun the process of measuring the effectiveness of each dollar.

By giving the Maori Party exactly what was asked for, Mr Key has put his faith in them to deliver on it.

The column is a very good read abotu some of the challenges ahead.

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has announced the members of the panel to review the Foreshore & Seabed Act. They are:

• former High Court judge and Waitangi Tribunal chair Justice Edward Taihakurei Durie
• barrister Richard Boast, an Associate Professor at Victoria University specialising in property law and Maori legal issues
• Hana O’Regan, an educationalist specialising in Maori culture and identity

The panel’s job TOR is to determine:

a) What were the nature and extent of the mana whenua and public interests in the coastal marine area prior to Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643

b) What options were available to the government to respond to the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643

c) Whether the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 effectively recognises and provides for customary or aboriginal title and public interests (including Maori, local government and business) in the coastal marine area and maintains and allows for the enhancement of mana whenua

d) If the Panel has reservations that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not provide for the above, outline options on what could be the most workable and efficient methods by which both customary and public interests in the coastal marine area could be recognised and provided for; and in particular,
how processes of recognising and providing for such interests could be streamlined

Now without in any way suggesting the three panelists will pre-judge the issue, and not do a thorough job, I would be amazed if a panel including Judge Durie and Hana O’Regan came back at the end of the day and said “Yes we agree the best thing for the Government to have done was to legislate away the rights of Maori to test claims to title in court”.  That is highly unlikely.

The panel is to report by 30 June 2009, and the Government has said they will make decisions by the 31 December 2009.

I will not be surprised if we see a Foreshore & Seabed Repeal Act in 2010, and a very happy Maori Party.

Of course agreeing to repeal it is the easy part. What you replace it with, is considerably harder.

I am quite impressed with John Key’s response on the Maori flag issue.

He has correctly pointed out there is no agreement on what flag represents Maoridom. So he has astutely bounced the ball back at them, and said if you guys go away and get all the Iwi to agree on a common flag, then yeah I have no problem flying it once a year on Waitangi Day to mark the fact it was an agreement between Maori and the Crown.

This removes any heat around the issue for 2009, is mana-enhancing for the Maori Party, should ensure a smooth 2009 Waitangi Day, and while some will be upset with the decision, they are hardly going to swing to Labour because of it.

My personal stance is the same as last week. Don’t really care strongly about it. Hell we fly the EU flag once a year (including at Parliament) so the Tino Rangatiratanga one worries me far less – and I much prefer MMP compromises that don’t cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Herald reports that the Maori Party want a policy change to allow the Tino Rangatiratanga flag to be flown on the Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day.

Dr Sharples said he would raise it with other ministers when MPs returned this month – despite John Key’s refusal to support such a step when he was leader of the Opposition.

“I want the flag up there,” Dr Sharples said. “I think it’s a symbol of the new direction this Government is taking by inviting the Maori Party to be part of it.”

It is a debate which has plagued politicians and the agency which decides which flags fly on the Harbour Bridge, and has divided public opinion.

The Transport Agency’s policy allows only the New Zealand flag to fly from the bridge, but Maori say flying the Tino Rangatiratanga flag would raise awareness of the part Maori play in the country.

I can’t say it is an issue that greatly concerns me either way.

However my pragmatic streak is telling me that in terms of keeping confidence and supply partners happy, I’d much rather allow a flag on a bridge one day a year, than have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more to MFAT and racing, just to make the Minister look like a breadwinner.

Even cheaper than the Families Commission!