Symbols of change

This is shaping up to be an interesting year. There are so many really big issues developing, it’s hard to know where to look.

The distractions

The National Party has hit the ground running. As its second term gets underway, it seems intent on showing what it thinks of tangata whenua, while at the same time, shrinking the only ministry that could give them good advice on these issues.

Key is big on dismissing anything that he doesn’t like the look of. Back in 2010, as soon as the Māori Party announced that New Zealand had signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Key dismissed it as symbolic. When he heard that Māori were upset at the proposed dropping of section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act, he pulled that word out again—according to him, section 9 is “largely symbolic”, showing either his ignorance or cynicism (great commentary at pundit: if it’s just a symbol, why do you care?). As the Herald points out, section 9 of the SOE Act was a turning point in New Zealand legislation. Many Māori will fight to hold the Crown to the promises of section 9, whether or not National successfully sell off a portion of the SOEs.

National’s attempts at getting rid of section 9 have both the Māori Party and the Māori Council on their feet preparing for that fight. John Key’s response to both is, well, dismissive. When Tariana Turia says the Māori Party will have to consider its position in government if an appropriate solution isn’t reached, Key responds "I'm extremely confident the Maori Party will remain part of the Government for the next three years." He reckons it isn’t a deal breaker, and a solution can be found, but his dismissal of Turia’s concerns oozes smugness (PM confident Maori Party will stay). In return, she posted a full page ad in the Herald schooling Key, and explaining why it is important that she stand her ground on section 9. Key’s mantra that the Māori Party will continue to support the National Party on confidence and supply must be frustrating the Māori Party. Every time Key says this, dismissing the Māori Party’s own assessments, he diminishes them. This looks more like a parent-child relationship by the day. They must realise they need as much distance from National as they can to have any hope of surviving. I’m looking forward to developments.

The Māori Council is asking the Waitangi Tribunal to stop the planned sales of SOEs until it has heard a claim that Crown management of freshwater and geothermal resources breached the treaty of Waitangi, and whether the Crown is acting in good faith (Waitangi Tribunal claim seeks to halt asset sales). The Council is asking for the return of water resources, or a large portion of the state owned energy companies as compensation. I don’t know what relationship National has with the Māori Council, but after the years Graham Lattimer put in for the Party, he must be disappointed at the way Nick Smith and Key are discrediting the Council and their claims. Smith is trying to make them look unreasonable with statements that they hadn’t come to see him in the three years he has been responsible for fresh water issues—he doesn’t mention whether he has made any contact with them. He calls the claims divisive, and says arguing about the ownership of water is neither practical nor useful. He is using the perennial favourite when Māori want ownership of a resource returned—you can’t own natural resources. Nevermind, that the Crown act as if they have ownership, or that they took it from Māori. The Crown will redefine the English language if need be to retain control over resources. And Key is being dismissive: “water ownership a no-brainer” and “anyone can go to court, but court over what?” (Tribunal action sought over asset sales). Key refuses to acknowledge that there are ways of looking at the world other than the western legal system. It’s good to see the very respectable Māori Council back in the fray.

(I also heard Key on the radio this morning saying he wasn’t concerned about the Waitangi Tribunal holding up sales of SOEs because their decisions aren’t binding—but I don’t know what station I was listening to, and I can’t find reference to him saying this. If I could find a reference, I would add this to the list of things Key says are symbolic.)

Meanwhile, Bill English used the raru at Te Tii to insult Māori on Waitangi Day: “If the northern tribes could run a marae properly, New Zealand might have a more positive view of the Treaty.” Which also implies that Māori aren’t part of New Zealand (all are insulted by Dipton dipstick). Nice one Bill. Personally, I think the reason most New Zealanders have little respect for the relationship between Crown and Māori is because we have such an appalling education system that most of us don’t know our history.

With enough National ministers talking enough crap, even the more conservative Māori organisations are calling them out. When we’re all back on the same page, things are going to get fun.

The bullshit

There will be plenty of court cases to enrage us this year, as there are every year. The first big one will be against the remaining Operation 8 defendants. This is the case stemming from the arrests of around 20 people in 2007. After a year of surveillance, houses were searched in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Ruātoki, Whakatane, Taupō, Palmerston North and Wellington, including 300 police shutting down an entire community. All up, the operation cost around $8 million, and they found a total of four firearms plus ammunition. Insufficient evidence has meant charges have been dropped against all but four defendants. The Crown will try to justify its violation of Ngāi Tūhoe and all those targeted by Operation 8 by going hard against the four remaining defendants. There are heaps of issues worth discussing in this; it is another case that looks like it’s about one thing, when actually, it’s all about colonisation and sovereignty. As Moana Jackson said: "the colonisation of Māori ... has always been about the dispossession and ... terrorising of innocent peoples. ... indigenous peoples being defined as a threat whenever they have questioned their dispossession... The real or perceived ‘threat’ has always then been met with violence." (Jackson, p2 in Terror in our midst? Searching for terrorism in Aotearoa New Zealand).

There will be the fights to defend our whanaunga, Papatūānuku, Hinemoana, Tangaroa, Ranginui. There will be the court cases that try to redefine our sovereignty. There will be all of the day to day ignorance.

The real mahi

While holding on to the little we’ve got in the face of this crap is distracting, Māori are quietly working on some really big issues. An independent constitutional working group – Aotearoa Matike Mai has been discussing constitutional models for the country. The group is convened by Margaret Mutu, chaired by Moana Jackson, and made up of members nominated by Iwi, co-opted for their expertise, and representing particular interests such as Urban Maori Authorities. They are working with whānau and hapū around the motu to develop a constitution based on Te Tiriti and reflecting tikanga Māori.

The WAI 262 report came out last year, and while the recommendations are conservative and disappointing, the claim and the report itself still provide a leaping off point for us. The Iwi Chairs Forum has agreed to support an Interim Taumata, to engage and work out how we can use the WAI 262. Remember this was the Waitangi Tribunal’s first whole of government inquiry, it shouldn’t just affect all branches of government, it will change the way government is imagined. This work should tie in with the independent constitutional working group’s, and I have no doubt that the results will be exciting.

There are also always tauiwi who are willing to engage genuinely. I’m looking forward to hearing back from the Decolonise you mind hui last weekend, which focused on “the connections between racism, sexism, colonisation, classism and other oppressions, and working in predominantly pakeha activist scenes... and how these things affect us and the feminist/ social justice/ peace/ revolutionary/creative work we do.” I look forward to hearing about other exciting projects this year.

So, a big year. There will be many projects and many fronts. For those of us who have been taking a break, it’s time to prioritise, think about what we can give, where we fit in, and to reconnect with the struggle.

"Māori Party might walk"—if only they would

There are two reasons why I think this is interesting. The first is John Key’s reaction. He is making sure we know the Māori Party will not walk: PM confident Maori Party will stay. He is patronising and smug, he is telling us that he has the Māori Party under control. If the Māori Party want to look like anything other than National Party pets, they need to stick to their words, and most importantly, to the meaning of their words. This cannot be like the fight to repeal the Seabed and Foreshore Act, where the Māori Party kept to the letter of their words, while betraying the spirit of the movement that created them.

The second reason this is interesting is because it is essentially about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Māori Party wants any investors in (currently) state owned enterprises to be subject to the State Owned Enterprises Act, which includes a treaty clause. That clause is probably the strongest treaty clause in New Zealand legislation:

“Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” (section 9 SOE Act 1986)

What does this section mean? John Key calls it “largely symbolic”, and as evidence says that he cannot find any examples of it being used. This is Key at his most cynical. The wording of the section is clearly not symbolic, it is binding; and there are no obvious examples of its use, because it is largely a constraint to aid SOEs in their planning—if it’s working, we shouldn’t hear about it. The real difficulty is in working out what those constraints are—what are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

I’ve written a little about this before (Happy Independence Day). The principles of the Treaty may not be vague, but they are not just either. They are intended to provide a bridge between two incompatible documents:

• te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by 500+ rangatira on behalf of their hapū, reaffirming that rangatiratanga remains with hapū, while the Crown is delegated some authority in order to manage its people; and
• the Treaty of Waitangi, signed by 30+ rangatira on behalf of their hapū (because for some reason te Tiriti wasn’t available), ceding sovereignty to the Crown, while leaving property rights with hapū.

The principles have been developed entirely by the Crown, and reflect the document that favours the Crown—the Treaty. Ironically, if one of the principles is partnership (which is what the Crown says), then the development of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is clearly inconsistent with the principles developed. The process did not reflect partnership, it reflected the Crown imperialism we know so well.

Retaining a section in a law the Crown wrote, which holds the Crown to principles it developed, isn’t a big ask. There’s no reason to expect section 9 would not be extended to private investors—if it is not, then the Crown is avoiding the tiny responsibility it has according to its own law (eg, the Lands decision found that land transferred from the Crown to an SOE is still available for settlement of Treaty obligations (New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641). SOEs hold more resources than only land; selling parts or all of those SOEs without continuing the protection required by the Crown’s own law over all those resources is surely just a way for the Crown to get out of its obligations). In other words, the Crown set itself a very low bar for justice, but has now decided it’s too high (as it usually does when archaic concepts like justice get in the way of something it wants to do).

Do I think it’s worth fighting for section 9 to be binding on purchasers or investors in state owned enterprises? Sure, it’s useful. But it’s important to remember that it only imposes the principles of the Treaty, and every aspect of those principles is creepy and imperialistic. Meanwhile, while we are asking the Crown to consider not walking all over concessions that Māori fought hard for and won, we have less time to talk about the real issues—our own agendas and how to achieve them.

The Māori Party have been at the table with National for 3+ years, and it’s clear that National haven’t learnt a thing. They aren’t paying attention. They have no concept of partnership, or sharing power.

If they aren’t listening, what’s the point in being there?

Update: clownishly sloppy mistake shows National want to use their "mixed-ownership" model to get rid of the constraints of section 9. Apparently, (partially) state owned enterprises should behave like private companies, and clearly, private companies should not be encumbered by any obligations to tangata whenua (nice spotting at Maori Economy).

Post election post

Okay, so the election happened, and it’s both not as bad as it could have been and worse than I had hoped.

I had hoped that at least Annette Sykes would have joined Hone Harawira in Parliament, and I think that would have been fun to watch. They are both smart, ethical and really frickin vocal. I believe that having a debater like Annette in the house would have made a difference to how the public think about some issues. She gets shit for being as smart and unrelenting as she is, which is bad enough in a woman. But Annette’s worst crime is that she is not just smart and unrelenting, but that she is always demonstrably right. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard in the last few weeks “I agree with what Annette and Hone are saying, but they’re just so bitter/ angry/ racist.” Bearer of discomfort has a great post on this. Mana have to work out how to best use Annette outside parliament, because I still think she and Hone can change political conversations, asking good questions, showing alternative strategies, and being honest.

I suspect a lot of voters who completely agree with Mana, instead voted Green. There’s no doubt that Metiria Turei is a great politician, she works hard, she is smart, ethical and vocal. Put her next to Annette and Hone, and she has a couple of other things in her favour—the public only know her as smiling and friendly (even when she is tearing into policy that is anti-Māori, anti-poor, or anti-environment), and a middle-class accent goes a long way. I know lots of Māori who voted Green just because of her. The Greens do have good policies, and usually have some exciting MPs. Perhaps they have become more interesting than my experiences 5-10 years ago. Then, their membership seemed dominated by comfortable, liberal Pākehā—green capitalists who were conservative on everything except the environment (people who love Russel Norman), but who for some reason filled their list with much more radical and inspiring people (like Metiria, Jeanette Fitzsimons had a warm, friendly face to go with her principled staunchness. Sue Bradford was just straight-up staunch, which is why she isn’t a co-leader). I thought that Metiria was pretty quiet in this election campaign, I hope that her party allows her and the other radical MPs to speak out in this term on a wide range of issues. Metiria tore into the Māori Party over their support of the Marine and Coastal Areas Act, and humbled Destiny’s political front man and Māori MPs who spoke at a Destiny meeting. Attacking the Māori Party, Māori MPs and Destiny is pretty safe territory for the Greens. I hope that she is allowed to target non-Māori groups with the same awesomeness.

New Zealand First is another odd party that many Māori probably voted for, unable to bring themselves to vote Labour, but unsure of Mana and the Māori Party. New Zealand First attracts two types. Conservative Pākehā like what Winston has to say about old fashioned kiwi values–patriotism, hating on immigrants, protecting New Zealand ownership of land and businesses, and not pandering to Māori (which is particularly awesome, because you can’t be called racist if you vote for a Māori to hate on Māori). The one thing this group has in common with Māori voting for New Zealand First is that they distrust politicians—only Winston calls it the way he sees it, and has the guts to stick it to the man. Winston is smug, confident and represents a type of success that some Māori are inspired by—no hand outs, just hard work (imagine if he and Paula Bennett formed a party). I can’t stand him or his politics, but with all the shit representation of Māori that we live with every day, I can understand his appeal to some people.

The Māori Party didn’t do so well, because they confused Māori voters with their unwavering support of National, even when the policies were obviously crap. Pita Sharples made things worse by trying to spin shit—no-one expected the Māori Party to fight for a repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and then support its replacement by an effectively identical act. Trying to sell that as anything other than a loss shows a complete lack of integrity, and is an insult to their supporters’ intelligence. I would love to see them use this term to re-invigorate themselves and build bridges with Mana and the Greens. Unfortunately, I expect we will see more embarrassing fawning over the National Party.

And what about us? We who don’t ever expect party politics to get us what we want? The next three years are going to be hard. National and ACT are going to take support away from poor people (making the poor poorer), education (keeping the poor poor), the environment (making future generations poorer). There is going to be a shit tonne of stuff to react to, which means less time for dreaming and making headway on our own agenda. All we can do is organise, find allies and work on those relationships.

There will be rhetoric about putting aside our differences—I think we need to embrace our differences. This is a time for Pākehā and male activists to embrace the different strategies and goals that Māori, tauiwi, women, queer, etc activists may bring. This is a time to talk about why we see things differently, whether and why my goals and dreams are as legitimate as yours, whether there is real conflict or just difference. We need to not attack each other just because we don’t completely agree, and we need to listen when people tell us that we are shitting on them. There will be talk about building a movement—equally there is nothing wrong with small groups, the main thing is to get involved, whatever that means to you. We need to get our shit together fast, because the National Party is going to move fast.

Election 2011: I don't get it

Okay, against my better judgment, I’m going to write a short post about the election.

The one thing I really don’t get about politics is the politics, or maybe it’s the voters—maybe I just don’t understand people. Two things about the current election exemplify this: I do not understand the cult of John Key’s personality, and I do not understand why the Māori Party pushed Hone Harawira to leave and build another party.

I am completely at a loss as to why National is doing so well in all polls so far. Their policies are spiteful (hating on those most in need) and incomprehensible (I know it’s just that the ideology doesn’t make sense to me, but I can’t get my head around the idea of choosing to sell even parts of your cash cows/life support systems). Either most New Zealanders agree with this shit (if the polls are representative), or they support National because of John Key. And this is even more bizarre to me. Here is an incredibly rich businessman playing the affable every-guy blokie-bloke, waving away the hideousness of their policies with a smile and a trust-me-I’m-a good-guy speel. And it seems to be working. I can only compare this to US voters electing George W Bush.

If anyone is in any doubt as to Key’s post-election desires, they only need to look to the support he is giving ACT (and I assume this support is the reason New Zealand First has rejoined the living). I remember John Banks as my local MP; he was hateful. He is consistently on the wrong side of any social justice issue. I don’t need a transcript of the cuppa kōrero—it was a conversation with John Banks, of course it was ugly. The fact that John Key wants to work with Banks and Brash tells me all I need to know about his politics. So yep, I don’t get why he’s so popular.

And then there’s my confusion about how it came to be that we have two Māori parties competing for the few Māori seats (I put the blame entirely on the Māori Party’s shoulders, as I explain in this post). The Māori Party have untethered themselves from National for the purpose of campaigning—and all of a sudden, they sound like they used to. In fact, their policies sound just like Mana’s policies. Effectively identical. So why did they make it so hard for Hone to push these policies when he was part of the Māori Party? The Māori Party is so focused on keeping their seat at the table, they fall silent as soon as they sit down. This campaign makes it clear (to me at least) just how badly the Māori Party needed people like Hone—instead of making it impossible for him to stay, they should have promoted him. He kept them true to their kaupapa. It’s ridiculous that they are now competing against each other with their identical policies.

Based on polling, I expect New Zealand will elect a government that I will hate even more than usual. I don't understand why people will do this. There are many other things that bewilder me about elections—like why we keep voting at all when every government is a disappointment, when it always seems to work out the same way (as many people have said: whichever way you vote, the white guy always wins). Which brings me back to my main point—I don't get it.

The Māori Party and tino rangatiratanga

The argument between Harawira and the other Māori Party MPs has inspired me to write a post about the problems of Māori parties, and the problems I have with the direction the Māori Party has chosen in this election term. This is not intended to be critical of the Māori Party caucus or any individuals within it. I see the pressures they have been put under. I know I don't have all the answers, I hope that this essay is useful.

I’ve held off criticising the Māori Party until now. At the time the Māori Party formed, there was so much optimism among the people I knew, it would have been rude and unnecessarily self-righteous to be critical. Additionally, the Māori Party was certain to get a whole heap of criticism that they didn’t deserve from people who don’t understand the difference between white supremacy movements versus movements for indigenous worldviews, issues and experiences to be included in decision making. I thought the Māori Party deserved a chance. Having said that, it is essential to be critical. Now seems like a perfect time to think about the problems in having a Māori party, and strategies that I think would keep a Māori party relevant and useful to the decolonisation project.

Problems

The Māori Party and tino rangatiratanga

I believe the existence of the Māori Party within government damages the struggle for tino rangatiratanga. By agreeing to work within the parliamentary system without speaking against it, especially within government, the Māori Party gives legitimacy to that system. They show that the coloniser can accommodate tangata whenua without having to give up any power. We are simply another minority partner like ACT. An amazing protest movement, pregnant with potential, has been turned into a prop for the status quo. Symbolically, the same has happened with the tino rangatiratanga flag—it has gone from a symbol of Māori resistance to one of national pride and unity under the current system.

The Māori Party is now positioned where they say they want to be, in government. This puts them between Māori people and the government. The Māori Party confuses Māori by selling us National Party policy, like private prisons, subsidies for polluters, and foreshore and seabed legislation. They tell us we can’t see the bigger picture, and refuse to explain it to us. They diffuse our dissent—instead of fighting the government for their anti-Māori policies, we are arguing with our whanaunga in the Māori Party, who now appear to be on the side of the Crown.

This gives the National Party the moral high ground—they have spoken to the Māori Party and the iwi leaders who were referred to them, they have made concessions to the Māori Party and the iwi leaders. They believed in good faith that these people represent Māori, what more can we expect of them?

The Māori Party argues that by being in government, they are able to influence the decisions that are being made. They have won some symbolic victories, such as a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act (which told us what we already know, and doesn't appear to have resulted in any real gains), signing on to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which Key immediately said is non-binding and won't make any difference to the government's approach to Māori issues). Whānau Ora is the only real victory I see that has come from a Māori Party agenda (and I hope it is hugely successful).

It looks as if the Māori Party is bogged down with fighting for small concessions. I'm not hearing anything of the Māori Party agenda, their visions for the future. It looks like they are only reacting to Key's agenda. This risks turning the fight for recognition as tangata whenua, into one for consideration as just another special interest group. Instead of fighting for ideals, acting as our mouthpieces in parliament, the Māori Party is stuck haggling to make government policy less bad (at least, I assume that’s what they do. It's hard to tell when they do so much that looks like National Party PR). Small concessions do nothing to inspire Māori—it reinforces the message that this is all we can hope for and all that we are worth. Whatever tino rangatiratanga means to each of us, no amount of National Party concessions is going to get us there.

The Māori Party and kaupapa Māori

Representative democracy is a system where individuals are elected by popular vote to represent a portion of the population in decision making for a period of time. Elections are the only way representatives are accountable for the decisions they make. The system can be described as top-down, because information and power are concentrated with the few representatives, who make decisions for the people. By contrast, kaupapa Māori is a participatory system of decision making, meaning everyone affected by an issue can be part of deciding what to do. Nothing is decided by popular vote, instead decisions are made by consensus, allowing minority views to be included in outcomes. Rangatira are directly and immediately accountable to their whanaunga, and cannot make decisions without their support.

Recently, many people have been criticising the way decisions have been made by the Māori Party, and the direction that they are heading (e.g. Annette Sykes discussed the role of Iwi Leaders, Moana Jackson looked at the National Party’s Marine and Coastal Areas Bill, and Harawira has asked questions from within). The Māori Party strategy is explained by their desire to remain part of the government. At the same time, the Māori Party claims to be kaupapa driven. I think it would be impossible to operate as part of the government in a system of representative democracy while remaining kaupapa Māori. The Māori Party are receiving criticism because they have strayed from kaupapa Māori, and are now operating as any other political party within parliament.

In order to support the government, the Māori party is making decisions on timeframes set by the National Party. To a large extent, the timeframe determines how much involvement the public can have in those decisions. As shown by the emissions trading scheme and the Marine and Coastal Areas bill, the Māori Party is agreeing to timeframes that cannot possibly allow Māori to have any meaningful participation. If decisions are not coming from the people, then the process is not kaupapa driven, no matter how politically expedient the Māori Party think their decisions are.

Another aspect of kaupapa Māori is that it is always clear who someone is speaking on behalf of and accountable to. This is not true of the Māori Party—it is unclear who their MPs are mandated to speak for, and they appear to only be accountable to each other outside elections.

Is there a role for a Māori party?

There are certainly ways that a Māori political party can be useful to the tino rangatiratanga movement. Political parties get funding for research and organising, they get media attention, and they get access to people and places most of us don’t. All of these are fantastic resources for the movement. But there are really important things that a Māori party would need to do that are different from what the Māori Party is currently doing. Many of my suggestions correspond to those already made by Harawira in the Sunday Star Times.

• the message of tino rangatiratanga is important—with a clear and positive vision (or visions), a Māori party can inspire and motivate us to join and continue struggling. It can also educate tauiwi about what this means.
• a Māori party must be guided by kaupapa Māori. Kaupapa will help the party make decisions that advance tino rangatiratanga.
• a Māori party needs to be focused on the long term. Decolonisation is not a short term project, Māori have been fighting colonisation for generations. Anything that can be achieved in a single election term can be overturned in the next. All short term potential gains need to be checked against the long term goals of tino rangatiratanga.
• I agree with Harawira that a Māori party has to loudly fight any policies that are bad for Māori. If we send them to parliament, they need to be our champions in parliament. Turia’s unwavering opposition to Labour’s foreshore and seabed bill was inspirational, likewise Harawira’s opposition to National’s bill. We need this. We need people who show that we are worth fighting for.
• a Māori party needs to remain part of the movement—this means it needs our strong and critical support. Parliament is its own world, removed from the people, removed from te ao Māori. Those in parliament need advisors to keep them safe: whanaunga, activists, kaumātua, visionaries, rangatahi, academics. They need regular time away from parliament to be immersed again in the world where the rest of us live—not in their offices or ministerial cars, but in our homes, our marae, our sports clubs and hui.
• like Harawira, I believe that any Māori party must spend a good deal of its time on the road talking to Māori. Not only will this allow the party’s policy to be driven by the people, but the party can also contribute to relationships among Māori. They can help build kotahitanga.
• I also agree with Harawira that a Māori party will voice diverse opinions. There is no reason why it shouldn’t. Kaupapa Māori decision making includes listening to the variety of voices and working together to find solutions that will endure.

All of these points suggest that a Māori party working according to kaupapa Māori, and working towards visions of tino rangatiratanga, will not be in government. A Māori party’s decisions must be accountable to Māori people, not to a coalition agreement. The Green Party has shown that with a strong vision much can be achieved from outside government.

Conclusion

Harawira’s suggestions for the future of the Māori Party seem about right to me. Many Māori—activists, academics, rangatira, kaumātua, rangatahi—have also been increasingly confused by and critical of the direction the Māori Party has been heading in this electoral term. It is helpful to have someone in the caucus speaking frankly to the rest of us about what is happening, and it is heartening that someone in the caucus is being reflective.

Supporting the government was always a dangerous path for the Māori Party, requiring that the two party leaders be immersed in parliament, with the risk that they would become isolated from their people and the kaupapa. I believe this asks too much of them, and is the reason the party appears to have lost its way. Māori politicians need time away from parliament, me hoki ki ngā maunga kia purea e ngā hau o Tāwhirimātea, and they need support when they are in Wellington. In order for a Māori party to advance tino rangatiratanga, it must be careful where it positions itself. If it is within government, or not vocally opposed to government, it becomes a tool for assimilation. In my opinion, no amount of small concessions can balance that. Māori are not a special interest or minority group, Māori are tangata whenua. I don’t want to be consulted, or get some set of special and superficial rights. I want a completely different system.

A Māori party can help us move towards tino rangatiratanga, but only if they know exactly what they are there for, only if we can keep our politicians safe from the pressures they will be under, and only if they are clear that the current parliamentary system is illegitimate.

Māori Party politicians behave like politicians

The response of the Māori Party to perceived criticisms from Hone Harawira appears both arrogant and desperate. Te Ururoa Flavell has lodged a complaint with the Māori Party National Council. The complaint relates to an article Crunch time for Maori grumbles in the Sunday Star Times last weekend. His complaint is supported by Tariana Turia, Pita Sharples and Rahui Katene. The Council is seeking legal advice from Mai Chen, whose comments to Radio New Zealand imply that the Māori Party is considering expelling Harawira.

Harawira's article was surprisingly diplomatic. His article is balanced, thoughtful and positive. He discusses where the Māori Party has come from, their achievements so far, the problems they are currently facing, and where he thinks they should be focusing their efforts for the election this year. I think most Māori Party voters would agree with his analysis.

According to Harawira, the Māori Party's problem is its relationship with National, which links it to “anti-worker, anti-beneficiary and anti-environment (and therefore anti-Maori) legislation”. Before the Māori Party confidence and supply agreement with the National Party, the two parties voted the same way 30% of the time, now they vote together 60% of the time. Either the National Party has become a lot more pro-Māori, or the Māori Party has become less. High profile examples, such as the emissions trading scheme and the Marine and Coastal Areas bill, suggest that it is the Māori Party that has shifted—as Harawira implies.

As far as representative democracy goes, his suggestions are positive and reasonable. The Māori Party should:

• represent their constituency
• fight for what they want, not what they think they can get
• oppose policies that are bad for Māori
• oppose the Marine and Coastal Areas bill
• build better relationships with the Green Party and the Labour Party
• encourage diversity within the Māori Party
• get back on the road and talk to the people

I am interested to know what it is in Harawira's analysis that Flavell mā are so offended by. If they had been listening, they would have already heard much stronger criticisms of the Party's direction from their members and past members. Perhaps they trust National and the Iwi Leaders Forum to tell them what is best for Māori. Perhaps they spend too much time trying to shut down dissent, and not enough time listening to their constituents.

I am reminded of these words of Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed): "In a situation of manipulation, the Left is almost always tempted by a 'quick return to power,' forgets the necessity of joining with the oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into an impossible 'dialogue' with the dominant elites. It ends by being manipulated by these elites, and not infrequently itself falls into an elitist game, which it calls 'realism.'"

This is where I think the Māori Party are at—more concerned with building relationships with those in power, whether the National Party or Māori elites, while Harawira is the only MP who seems serious about maintaining relationships with Māori people. Whose interests are the Māori Party serving? Who are they representing? Who do they expect to vote for them? If they think Harawira is their biggest problem, they really are out of touch.

The Emissions Trading Scheme and The Māori Party

I wrote this for school last year. Although it isn't topical now, I think it foreshadows some of the stuff that's happening (or not happening) with the Māori Party on the Takutai Moana bill.

Introduction

Andrea Tunks describes the over-arching environmental aim of tangata whenua as the protection of Aotearoa, the Earth and the Earth's atmosphere in accordance with Maori Kaitiaki obligations (Tunks: 68). Māori often refer only to Papatūānuku when speaking of the need to protect the environment; the need to protect Ranginui, or the Earth's atmosphere, is just as important, and is often implied if not articulated. Climate change, in particular, is an issue caused by long-term degradation of Ranginui through industry emitting ever-larger quantities of greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases add to the greenhouse effect, trapping more heat in the atmosphere, which is available as energy in climate systems. Not only does the world climate become warmer, it becomes more extreme. Climate change has been on the political agenda for decades: in 1988, internationally the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change was established giving its first report in 1990, and locally the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment established a Climate Change Programme to investigate the science, impacts of and policies for addressing climate change. It is an issue that the Māori Party, along with most New Zealand political parties and scientific authorities, believes requires urgent attention.

After decades of talk and inaction, there has been a burst of activity in the last two years. The 2008 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill gave a mechanism for responding to climate change. It created the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, which applied an economy-wide cost to activities that contribute to climate change, and benefit to activities that reduced or mitigated climate change. It was an all-sectors, all-gases response, meaning that when fully implemented it would apply across all sectors of the economy and all greenhouse gases. Just months after this scheme was announced (and one month after a change of Government), in December 2008 under the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand National and the ACT New Zealand Party, the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee was established to review that scheme. All political Parties in Parliament (excluding the Progressive Party) were represented on this Review Committee, including the Māori Party, represented by Rahui Katene. The Committee received submissions from nearly 300 organisations and individuals, 95 of which gave oral submissions. Advice was received from the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Specialist advice was purchased from Frazer Lindstrom Limited, PricewaterhouseCoopers and 37 degrees South.

The resulting report made recommendations about climate change responses to the Government. Four minority views were included in the report, one each from the Labour Party, Green Party, ACT New Zealand Party, and Māori Party. It is the latter view, which opposed an emissions trading scheme, and the Māori Party shift to supporting the specific emissions trading scheme proposed by the Government, that this essay will focus on.

Māori Party view

In 2008, Tariana Turia said of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill:

“Fundamentally, the emissions trading scheme is limited by being nothing more than an emissions trading scheme, when what we really require is an emissions reduction programme … Reducing our emissions is about honouring our commitment to those who have passed on that we will leave this planet in a better state than it is now for those who come after us … To make the world a better place we need to live differently and we all need to live differently.” (Turia, 28/8/2008)

The Māori Party minority report in the Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme and Related Matters, 2009 reflected this position, stating that:

“the nation urgently needs to grapple with the notion of sustainability and the increasing challenge posed by a changing climate system and pending peak oil to think and live differently, to live sustainably.” (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 114)

According to that document, the Māori Party was opposed to an emissions trading scheme as a mechanism for achieving this goal, for both fundamental and specific reasons, and preferred instead a carbon tax. The fundamental reason given for opposition was that an emissions trading scheme:

“allows sectors to pollute and trade up to the Kyoto target, but … does not include incremental emissions reduction targets in its design. With the emphasis on trading—establishing and maintaining the conditions for it—the overarching problem of unsustainable economic growth remains unaddressed.” (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 113)

The Māori Party was opposed to this specific emissions trading scheme because of its relative ineffectiveness and inequalities, including the subsidisation of the nation's largest polluters at the cost of households and small-medium businesses.(Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, p 113)

The report concludes that the Māori Party urge the government to develop a wide-ranging sustainability framework in which to consider policy development on climate change, renewable energy, transport, roading, industry, employment and so on, to best ensure our collective well being. Current and future Kyoto targets are a minimum response to addressing climate change. (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 114)

Specific reasons for opposing an emissions trading scheme given in this report were (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 113):

• an Emissions Trading Scheme will not make a significant contribution to lowering our domestic emissions
• the Māori Party was unconvinced that the market is the best mechanism to set prices on carbon
• the current mode of living in developed countries is not sustainable into the future
• The urgency of the climate-change crisis demands the development and implementation of an effective scheme that is not reliant on whether or when the price of carbon increases to a sufficient level to incentivise change.
• intensity-based allocations and subsidies distort the market model by allowing businesses to increase their emissions without penalty, and be rewarded for it.

Reasons given in this report for preferring a carbon tax were (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 114):

• a carbon tax is simpler
• a carbon tax provides certainty of price
• if set high enough and applied to all sectors, a carbon tax incentivises polluters to change without the option of trading their way out and continuing with business as usual
• tax revenue from a carbon tax could be used for research and policy development, assisting households and communities vulnerable to increased living costs from the scheme, and to offset health and environmental effects of global warming.

They state that the Māori Party remains deeply concerned that an ETS remains a stand-in for a more comprehensive climate change policy, and that complementary measures rely on the notion that scientific and technological innovation is capable of manipulating the environment to enable the nation to continue as we are. The resources of Papatuanuku are finite … The Māori Party strongly believes that more needs to be done. Instead of relying on carbon sinks from forestry or buying credits on the international market to achieve our targets, we need to be focused on decreasing domestic emissions. (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 114)

This is a clearly and strongly stated commitment to the environment, to sustainable living, and to contributing to a global solution on climate change. It is an equally clearly and strongly stated opposition to an emissions trading scheme, with very specific and clearly articulated reasons. The Māori Party view is especially opposed to a less stringent version of an emissions trading scheme than the one in place at the time of the report. Turia's earlier statements opposing an emissions trading scheme show that the Māori Party had, until this point, maintained a consistent position that such a scheme was an insufficient response to climate change.

This report was completed August, 2009. In the week following completion, the Māori Party was attempting to change its minority view (submitted literally days earlier), delaying release of the report (see questions in Hansard 27/8/2009); by mid-September it was announcing its support for the National Party's revised emissions trading scheme. What made this turn-around most surprising was that the Māori Party had opposed the current emissions trading scheme because it was an inadequate and easily avoided response to greenhouse emissions, whereas the National Party's revisions are generally held to weaken the scheme (For example, The Press editorial, 19/09/2009).

How then did the Māori Party come to completely change their position? And given their statements about the ineffectiveness of the scheme to protect the environment, and their commitment to that environment, how are they justifying supporting the scheme proposed under the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill?

The new Māori Party position

Changes to the Scheme

In speaking of the current scheme, the Māori Party said it continues to oppose the introduction of an ETS ... and would do so more strongly if a replacement scheme were to be less effective and more inequitable (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 113). It is therefore useful to look at the changes proposed to the current emissions trading scheme by the National Party sponsored Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, which the Māori Party supports, to see whether they make it more or less effective and equitable.

These changes are (Clark, Weeks, Nicholls, Bougen and Appleyard, 2009):

• transport fuels will come into the scheme six months earlier (July 1, 2010)
• electricity and industrial processes will come in six months later (July 1, 2010)
• agriculture (New Zealand's largest contributor to greenhouse emissions) will come in two years later (January 1, 2015)
• for 2½ years after entry (from July 1, 2010 to January 1, 2013), transport, energy and industrial sectors will only pay for 50% of their emissions, and (until at least January 1, 2013) the price will be capped at $25 per tonne (in its report, the Māori Party specifically opposed taxpayers subsidising the nation's largest polluters in this way (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 113), and was concerned that price caps would be introduced without fixed end dates, as these are)
• allocation of free units to trade exposed industry will be on an intensity basis (the Māori Party specifically opposed this in its report saying intensity based allocations distort the market model by allowing protected businesses to increase their emissions without penalty, and to be rewarded for it (Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: 113))
• free allocations will be phased out at 1.3% per year, down from 8.5% now.

All but the first of these changes lessen the effectiveness of the scheme in reducing emissions. In addition, two of these changes were opposed by the Māori Party in its minority view report because they were inequitable, transferring the cost of polluting from polluters to taxpayers. So the scheme the Māori Party supports should be less acceptable to it than the one it opposed. How do they explain this?

Flavell speech

On September 24, 2009, the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Bill was presented to the House of Parliament for the first reading. Te Ururoa Flavell spoke on behalf of the Māori Party (as opposed to Rahui Katene who was both the Māori Party representative on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, and the Māori Party spokesperson for the environment). In his speech, he re-iterated the commitment of the Māori Party to the preservation of our environment and the need to invest in ensuring that the finite resources of Papatūānuku are safeguarded, and many other statements made in the Māori Party minority view report. He also outlined the reasons the Māori Party felt able to support the first reading of this Bill.

The provisions that the Māori Party has had added to the Bill at this stage are:

• an as yet undrafted amendment that will make specific reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi
• a halving of the increased cost of petrol and electricity for the first 2½ years of the scheme.

In addition, there are many statements about possible results of negotiations. For example, Flavell (24/9/2009) says the Māori Party:

• seeks an extension of the Government's energy efficiency assistance scheme, specifically targeted at low-income households
• has come to the Government with some very specific proposals around afforestation and offsetting (where liabilities from deforestation can be offset against tree-planting elsewhere)
• expect that the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group will play an ongoing role in international negotiations to allow for offsetting
• expect that the possibility of a Crown and iwi partnership will be scoped
• are arguing for the inclusion of post-1989 indigenous forests and the publishing of accurate tables of the carbon sequestered in them
• argue that the Māori Party be actively engaged in ongoing dialogue on a broader environmental policy programme.

Rhetoric aside, it appears that the Māori Party has traded some economic help for the public, inclusion of a Treaty of Waitangi clause, and the promise of goodwill and future consideration on some issues, against a weaker response to climate change. In an October 18 interview speaking of this deal with the Government, Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia (18/10/2009) admits We haven't had a lot of concession.

There are several things that make this even more surprising. First, the one unarguable concession is the reduction in increased cost of petrol and electricity. The Māori Party was opposed to subsidies and price-caps for industry because they are unfair and inequitable, transferring the cost of pollution to the public. Presumably, the subsidies on petrol and electricity are considered to offset this, making the proposed scheme more equitable. However, the public will still pay in taxes for the subsidies to industry, as well as those on petrol and electricity. Although it looks like an economic gain for households, the money must come from somewhere—either increased taxes, or reduced services. It is unlikely that a National Government will spare this burden from low-income earners.

Second, with very little change to the wording and none to the substance, Flavell's speech could easily have been a list of reasons why the Māori Party are unable to support this Bill. There are so many expectations and ongoing negotiations listed, all of which must represent shortcomings of the proposed scheme from the Māori Party perspective. It has been the experience of Māori to sign many documents on the understanding that beneficial provisions or improvements would be added later, and for those benefits to never eventuate. Rather than completing discussions so they are sure of what they are voting for, the Māori Party acted quickly to support the Bill. They have no guarantees of what the Government will concede. Presumably, this haste was because of the Government's desire to have the Bill enacted prior to the United Nations Conference in Copenhagen in December this year. It may be in the Government's interests, in terms of international moral high ground and grandstanding, to rush an agreement on this Bill, but I cannot understand how it is beneficial to the Māori Party. There is already an emissions trading scheme in place, and one which is more inclined towards the environment and Māori Party principles. In addition, without the support of the Labour Party there will not be a broad consensus on the Bill, so there is nothing to be gained in terms of certainty and security by supporting the Government's proposals. It therefore seems that the Māori Party was in a very strong position to negotiate for improvements, or to reject the scheme. I cannot understand why this did not translate to more concrete improvements in the Bill. Unless as a result of consultation, the Māori Party was not seeking such improvements.

Consultation with Māori on Emissions Trading Scheme

Climate change has been seriously on the international political agenda for around 20 years, but it is only in the last few years that there has been any urgency in responding.

In 2002, the Government passed the Climate Change Response Act to enable New Zealand to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. On December 18, 2006, the Government released a number of documents that contained information on New Zealand's options for responding to climate change. Despite the slow progress to this point, the huge amount of information in these documents, and the importance and wide-ranging implications of the proposals, the Government gave an extremely short timeframe for consultation. They organised eleven regional consultation hui with Māori, from 12 February, 2007 until 14 March 2007, with a twelfth hui added on 29 March 2007. This meant that participants at the early hui had less than 2 months (including Christmas/ New Year) to read, understand and consult on the documents the Government had given them. At each hui, attendees were required to discuss the information and elect a single representative to a Climate Change Māori Reference Group for a final consultative hui on 21 March 2007. Submissions were due by 30 March 2007. (Ministry for the Environment, 2007)

In July 2007, the Māori Reference Group met with Ministers David Parker, Michael Cullen and Parekura Horomia to hear the Government response to their submission, and decided to establish an executive group (the Māori Reference Group Executive) (1). The following day, Ministers Cullen, Horomia and Jim Anderton met with "a collective of iwi leaders" (Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group and Māori Reference Group Executive, 2008) to outline the Government's preferred response to climate change. From this collective, a leadership group was established, which included Apirana Mahuika, Paul Morgan, Timi Te Heuheu, and later Mark Solomon. (2) This was initially called the Climate Change Māori Leadership Group, but has since been changed to the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group (and is usually now referred to as simply the Iwi Leadership Group, speaking on issues less directly related to climate change). This Group organised a National Māori Climate Change Hui in Rotorua in October 2007, with three subsequent hui in November, December and February held in Hamilton and Wellington. At each of the hui organised by iwi leaders, the Iwi Leadership Group and the Māori Reference Group Executive were supported unanimously, as well as at two meetings of iwi leaders in February 2008. A statement in a letter to Ministers Cullen, Anderton, Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Trevor Mallard and Parker dated 13 December 2007 from the Iwi Leadership Group in response to an Officials' Report is telling:

"… we have advocated on two platforms. The first platform is the Treaty of Waitangi and the second is the Māori Economy. Due to the tight timeframes and the economic nature of the ETS, we have focussed on the economic impacts."(Mahuika, 2007)

The Iwi Leadership Group and Māori Reference Group Executive gave a joint submission on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 29 February 2008. It is implied in statements from the Māori Party that the Iwi Leadership Group has been actively lobbying both the Māori Party and the Government prior to and since the last election (eg, Turia, 18/10/2009 ). Although the Māori Party is not willing to talk about its relationship with, or the effect of lobbying by, the Iwi Leadership Group, their positions on an emissions trading scheme are now very closely aligned.

To summarise the Government consultation process with Māori:

• consultation has been organised by the Government on their terms
• from the beginning, the Government has imposed unrealistic timeframes for Māori to understand all the issues and implications, to discuss widely and form opinions on this, and to communicate these to the Government
• at all of the first twelve consultation hui, participants were concerned that:
  the focus of an emissions trading scheme was too strongly on economics at the expense of the environment (with environmental benefits unclear), the Treaty, and a Māori world view and broad tikanga approach;
  there was no obvious way for Māori to have meaningful input; and
  that it was inequitable with no analysis of the effects on Māori, and our largest and richest industries protected from the cost of their polluting that we instead pay for
  (These criticisms are very similar to the original Māori Party report.)
• at each stage, groups have become smaller and less representative:
  by requiring the consultation hui to elect only one representative each to form a group that was to represent all Māori (without the time to make this possible),
  by reducing that group to an executive (presumably because of commitments and time constraints), and
  by the role of the Iwi Leadership Group
• despite the feedback from the consultation hui that the focus was too economic, for whatever reason at each stage these groups have focused more on economics and less on the other concerns (environment, Māori worldview, Treaty relationships), culminating in the Māori Party completely changing its policy at the request of the Iwi Leadership Group

It appears to me that the twelve consultation hui in February and March 2007 and the Māori Party minority view report both reflected a Māori worldview. Both were asking for less focus on the economic impacts of responding to climate change, and more focus on our responsibilities to the environment and tangata whenua. The framework and timeframe the Government set for consultation meant that, no matter how well-intentioned or well-resourced officials were, meaningful engagement was impossible. Instead, Māori who attended consultation hui were forced to delegate responsibility to those with the most knowledge of the proposals. These few seem to have focussed only on the economic effects of the proposed scheme, rather than a wider look at the issues. One reason for this may be because those involved in the Iwi Leadership Group and the Māori Reference Group Executive felt that there was no time to include the issues raised at earlier stages of consultation. Another may be that it did not suit their specific interests to look at these issues. Either way, their failure to represent Māori concerns, for example, about the exclusion of Māori values, has given the Government a mandate and excuse to weaken a scheme that many argued was already an inadequate response to climate change. And the Māori Party has followed their lead.

In response to a question about what the Māori Party want in return for supporting the Bill, Turia (18/10/2009) replied: in the end, it's not so much particularly what the Māori Party want, it is what the Iwi Leadership want, and they are the ones who have been leading the dialogue, they have been asking us to definitely sign up for it.

Conclusion

The Māori Party campaigns under its kaupapa: rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga. Voters are told not to worry about policy details, everything is analysed according to these kaupapa (Fox, 2008). The Iwi Leadership Group is lobbying both Government and the Māori Party for Māori economic interests on behalf of Māori corporates. Turia's statement above shows clearly that the Māori Party has been captured by this Group. Who then is representing non-economic, kaupapa Māori concerns, especially on an issue as important as climate change? If we are expected to trust that the Māori Party is acting according to its kaupapa, then they should at least be helping us by speaking openly about such a massive change in policy direction.

Climate change is an issue that has been neglected for want of political leadership for decades. In the meantime, we are contributing more and more greenhouse gases every year. The Māori Party minority view report reflected Māori concern about this lack of action, commitment and leadership. Participants at the consultation hui with Māori from the start of 2007 were clear that climate change as a result of atmospheric pollution is an issue they have been aware of for a long time, and the Government's response is too little too late. It is sad that by engaging in a consultation process that could never allow their concerns to be heard, those participants have given a mandate to a policy that most did not agree with. The involvement and pressure from the Iwi Leadership Group ironically destroyed any chance of Māori showing leadership on this issue. The Iwi Leadership Group are lobbying for rushing this Bill into legislation so they will have certainty in their financial planning. This is not leadership, it is following the Government's lead and playing by the Government's rules. There is no rush. There is already legislation in place that arguably provides more protection for the environment than the Bill they support. What is needed is education allowing informed discussion and analysis of what response is most appropriate according to Māori values. That would take leadership. And one day, it might even lead to a proper negotiation.


ORAL SOURCES
Flavell, Te Ururoa 24/9/2009 Speech to Parliament

Fox, Derek 2008 Māori Party election campaign speech, Victoria University

Turia, Tariana 28/8/2008 Speech to Parliament

Turia, Tariana 18/10/2009 Interview with Guyon Espiner, TVNZ

PUBLISHED MATERIAL
New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee (2009) Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme and Related Matters. House of Representatives, Wellington

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (2007) Consultation with Māori on Climate Change: Hui Report. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington

The Press 19/09/2009 Editorial: Maori Party support for emissions trading scheme comes at a cost. The Press, Christchurch

Tunks, A (1997) "Tangata Whenua Ethics and Climate Change" Journal of Environmental Law 67

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Clark, L, T Weeks, A Nicholls, C Bougen, J Appleyard 15/9/2009 "The ETS deal – pure politics” http://www.chapmantripp.com/pages/Publication.aspx?ItemID=641 (accessed 9/10/2009)

Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group & Climate Change Māori Reference Group Executive 29/2/2008 Submission on Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Mahuika, Apirana (for and on behalf of the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group) 13/12/2007 Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group Response to Officials Report


NOTES
1. I have no information on the reason for this, but I expect it was in response to the decision to continue to meet, which required an ongoing commitment. It seems likely that some members were more available or interested than others.
2. Although all references to this group say it 'includes' these four men, I have found no evidence that it includes anyone else.