Labour and the Maori vote

Now that David Shearer is Labour leader, one of his top priorities is to win back the Maori vote. Labour has five Maori MPs. Only one holds a general seat, she is fairly new -and one is brand new.

Recent strategies include putting Maori too low on their list (Mahuta-Coyle, Davis) and selecting non Maori in general seats. So really, Labour has to do better than to rely on one or two Maori seats primarily held by long-term MPs with the odd token Maori selection in a general seat.

How about doing what National has done - select good Maori candidates in safe general seats, instead of having them contesting Maori in seats that they have no show. For example, it was a mistake putting Deborah Mahuta-Coyle against Simon Bridges in Tauranga as her main competition was the NZ First vote. Tauranga was second only to Epsom as Labour's worst electorate performance. Also NZ First got 14.9% party vote, Labour got 15%, whereas Nationals party vote in Tauranga was almost the same as in 2008 - more than 54%.

In terms of winning the party vote for Maori, Labour will have to reverse the increase in party vote in the Maori seats to National Greens and NZ First, get more people to vote in rural areas and promote the Maori electoral option.

Will the Mana "party" get increased taxpayer funding?

It is quite clear that Hone Harawira has every intention of breaking his agreement with the Maori Party not to stand any candidates in Maori seats. Furthermore he wants to get as much money as possible to contest the general election.

That’s why he announced yesterday that he is having a by-election, after lying about it by denying it earlier that day, at a cost to the taxpayer of $500,000. It’s got nothing to do with getting a mandate. It’s to do with getting the $100,000+ leaders budget and other perks in parliament to set up his new party. Whether he succeeds is another matter. I think he is somewhat misguided.

If I was Act leader Don Brash, I'd contest the by-election for the publicity.

Having missed out on the deadline on election broadcasting funding, Harawira is trying to scrape together 500 people to quickly register his party so he can have “Mana” (instead of independent) on the ballot paper and have more money for the general election. An unregistered parliamentary party will not be able to get a leaders budget if it is not recognised as a parliamentary “party”. There is some information about that, here. All registered parties are recognised as parliamentary parties if they have an MP in the House - and the MP was elected on that party banner.

Election candidate Annette Sykes has been asking for 1000 people to support the party by today, so that it can quickly register – even though only 500 are needed. She is also calling on people to enrol on the Maori electoral roll. Once enrolled on the Maori roll, these voters can only vote for candidates on the Maori seats – the seats that Harawira earlier agreed he will not contest. She is talking up the numbers at the weekend’s hui that launched the Mana party, claiming that “more like 700 to 1000” people were there. The media reported 300.

So why are people like Sue Bradford and Matt McCarten behind the Mana Party, when they don’t particularly like Maori nationalism? I believe it is because they see this party as the only party that will threaten John Key’s leadership for the benefit of the Left as Labour is no threat, even with union backing. With the assistance of the unions, they consider this support can increase the party vote beyond five per cent after the election – and perhaps take a few MPs away from the National-supporting Maori Party.

Anyway back to the leader’s budget. If Harawira resigns on Monday he won’t be getting paid as an MP from the day he resigns until the day he is elected - which could be as late as July. And he`ll lose all his parliamentary responsibilities. I’m wondering if there will be much difference between the money Harawira loses between resignation and election in unpaid salary and perks compared to the money he gains as a parliamentary party leader between the by-election and the General election - and to what extent he and his party are aware of this.

Graeme Edgeler has an pretty good post on the numbers, detailing the perks, what Harawira loses when he resigns, as well as providing more information on how the various instruments outline the status of political parties.

Our 23 Maori MPs

We now have 23 MPs of Maori descent now that Louisa Wall has been sworn in (again).

Just for the record these are the 20 Maori MPs who were elected in 2008.

National
Paula Bennett, National, Waitakerere; Simon Bridges, National, Tauranga; Aaron Gilmore, National, List; Tau Henare, National, List; Hekia Parata, National, List; Georgina Te Heuheu, National, List; Paul Quinn, National, List.

Labour
Parekura Horomia, Labour, Ikaroa Rawhiti (East Coast); Nanaia Mahuta, Labour, Hauraki-Waikato; Kelvin Davis, Labour, List; Shane Jones, Labour, List; Moana Mackey, Labour, List; Mita Ririnui, Labour, list.

In addition, Labour MP Darien Fenton’s mother is Māori , but Fenton does not identify as a Maori MP, nor is she part of Labour’s Māori caucus.

Maori Party
Te Ururoa Flavell, Māori Party, Waiariki ( Bay of Plenty); Hone Harawira, Māori Party, Te Tai Tokerau (Northland); Rahui Katene, Māori Party, Te Tai Tonga ( Wellington and South Island) ; Pita Sharples, Māori Party, Tamariki Makaurau (Auckland); Tariana Turia, Māori Party, Te Tai Hauauru (Western/Central.

Greens
Metiria Turei, Green Party, List.

Since the election Hone Harawira has left the Maori Party and is an independent, and three more Maori MPs have been elected: David Clendon, Greens, List (replaced Sue Bradford) Jami-Lee Ross, National Botany, Lousia Wall, Labour , list (replaced Darren Hughes).

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

New Zealand finally formally agreed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) early yesterday, more than a year after indicating it may do so, and a year after Australia voiced its support .

Last month, Canada indicated it would support the declaration, meaning the US will soon be the only UN member not to support it.(Update well, maybe not). And from the outset, may I remind everyone that that this declaration was not “signed” - it is not a treaty, it is not legislation, in fact it is not even a convention like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - and it is not legally binding. Any influence it has on law is open to interpretation by states - meaning it could have influence on legal matters, but it doesn't have to.

This support should have happened ages ago, but unfortunately Labour refused to support it based on Article 26, which gives indigenous peoples the right to lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired and that states should give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources.

The Government has that covered by stating that approval of the declaration is conditional on a proviso attached saying that progressing Māori rights occurs within New Zealand’s “current legal and constitutional frameworks”. Canada, no doubt, will do something similar. Article 27 of the Declaration urges governments to establish a ‘fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process... to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used’. Arguably, National’s current process with regard to the Foreshore and Seabed is doing this.

But that hasn’t stopped ACT saying that the declaration is divisive, is about “separating New Zealand into two”, and about providing special rights to Māori, but ACT has never shown any willingness to understand indigeneity. Clearly Article 46 of the declaration notes that nothing in the declaration may be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

Phil Goff could see no point in "signing up" to the declaration, claiming that the Government did not intend to fulfil it after John Key said that the agreement has no practical effect. If that is the rationale behind support or opposition, perhaps Goff should ask himself why he supports our position on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [PDF]. Perhaps he could ask himself why he supported the anti-smacking legislation, which, unlike a declaration, is legally binding.

Like other UN declarations and conventions agreed to by New Zealand (including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by NZ in 1948), rights recognised in UNDRIP have been supported in New Zealand for years, and there's no harm in officially reminding the UN community of it.

Maori seats and ETS

Could someone explain how the Maori seats are seen by National as special treatment, whereas horsetrading over the Emissions Trading Scheme with the holders of most of the Maori seats in a willingness to disproportionately benefit the Maori elite (and earlier the not-so-elite Maori) is not special treatment?

Another thing: Who does the Maori Party represent? Is it Maori, those who voted for the party, or some Maori,such as those involved with certain iwi groups, many of whose members voted for a party other than the Maori Party.

Maori are not listening to Maori Party over smacking

Those in the Maori electorates are more opposed to smacking being a criminal offence in New Zealand , on average, than those in the general electorates, despite the Maori Party's stance on the issue

The Maori Party has been encouraging a Yes vote. Yet in one of their electorates it holds, 90.74% of those who took part in the referendum voted no. The lowest was 85.13%. Overall Maori are more opposed to the current law than those in the general electorates.

Wonder what the Maori Party thinks of that.

New Zealand to sign indigenous declaration

At the Maori and Parliament conference, we were told that the Government is on the way to endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This follows Australia's lead in accepting the guidelines for dealing with indigenous populations.

A week later Waatea News reports it.

Mr Key says New Zealand could follow the Rudd Government in Australia in belatedly accepting the guidelines for dealing with indigenous populations.

“Australia's sort of caveated its position. If New Zealand was to move, there would certainly be some caveats there. We’re working our way through it, and if we can get to a position where we can sign it I think that would be a good thing. It’s another step forward. It’s on the world stage. We’d be viewed in a slightly better way event though the ridiculous thing is we should be viewed a lot better than many of the countries who have signed it because we are actually walking the walk in this country when it comes to the rights of indigenous people.

Only New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States voted against the declaration in 2007.

Nice name, pity about the content

Have many noticed the irony that the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill - now passed - is now called the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill - but allows for no Maori representatives or say by Maori. Perhaps they could change the name of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, which sets out the detail of the new council. It is before a select committee now. No doubt lots of Labour and Green supporters will be making submissions.

A tale of two New Zealands II

Yesterday I wrote this:

Two New Zealands came face to face with each other in a Hastings courtroom last week...

One was a woman widowed when her husband was stabbed while trying to assist someone who was being assaulted. The other was the mother of the stabbed child - an angry sickness beneficiary who is now in prison for contempt of court.

It happened again today. Two New Zealands in a court room. One was the sister of a boy who was stabbed to death. The other was a businessman who stabbed the boy after believing he was tagging his garage. Manurewa businessman Bruce Emery claimed he took a knife for self defence and after a 300 metre chase the teenager, Pihema Cameron, was stabbed in the chest and died. The boy's sister said she hated Emery and wanted to rip his eyes out. But what does she do all day? "I just stay home, bum from my dad, get some money, go get stoned, drink alcohol and do whatever," she said.

She's 15, about 18 months younger than her former brother. Does she go to school?

What’s the bet that the young teenager has got no qualifications and was not doing too well at school. What's the bet that Emery has a better job than most of the Cameron whanau, had more qualifications than Camerons mother and father, gets drunk less often and takes less drugs. What's the bet that had the poor kid been encouraged to do well by his parents, instead of his sole parent taking off to Australia on her own, he would still be alive today.

I`m not defending Emery's actions at all. His actions were despicable. Had he not reacted the way he did the boy would also be alive and Emery would not be in prison. But what is our society turning into when people get stabbed to death for helping someone, and killed for petty crime. And why, of late, is it Maori families who are running around courtrooms with the head of their dead offspring plastered on their t-shirts - the same dead offspring they should have cared for a little more when they were alive.

A tale of two New Zealands

A great editorial in the Dominion Post today.

Two New Zealands came face to face with each other in a Hastings courtroom last week.

One was the New Zealand of Paula McCutcheon, the young mother widowed last month when her husband, Mark, was stabbed while trying to help a woman who was being assaulted outside a Hawke's Bay pub. Hers is the New Zealand most inhabit a land in which citizens go to work each morning, take pride in standing on their own feet, abide by the law and teach their children to respect others.

The other was the New Zealand of Victoria Stevens. It is a New Zealand in which adults healthy enough to rob and to steal, and to wrestle with the police, prefer to claim benefits than to go to work and in which mothers show their love for their sons by barking like dogs. To most New Zealanders theirs is a foreign country, but it is a foreign country that coexists alongside mainstream New Zealand.

Stevens is the 43-year-old invalid beneficiary who was jailed for contempt of court last week after barking like a dog a Mongrel Mob gesture of support during her [unemployed] son's court appearance. Her son, Hulio Ataria, is the Mongrel Mob associate who has been charged with Mr McCutcheon's murder.

What’s the bet that Victoria Stevens, a sickness beneficiary, has more of her whanau involved in crime than the McCutcheon whanau. What’s the bet that Stevens is more overweight than McCutcheon. What’s the bet that those in Steven’s whanau drink more alcohol, have more tattoos, take more drugs and left school earlier with fewer qualifications. What’s the bet that had McCutcheon had sons they would have shared the same surname as her, unlike Steven’s kids.

You can read the entire editorial here

PM wants to learn Maori

John Key wants to learn Maori. He wants to be fluent in Te Reo, but says he has no time to learn it. Thats bollocks. If he wanted to learn it he'd make time for it. He could do a basic Te Reo course extramurally through Massey and it`d take just six hours a week for 13 weeks. He could relinquish the Tourism portfolio for that time and he'd easily get that done. Imagine having John Key at your Massey contact course.

But I noticed this from the Newstalk ZB report :

Mr Key was asked whether it was time for a New Zealand prime minister to be fluent in both of the country's official languages.

Given one of our two official languages is sign language, I wonder what use Newstalk ZB would see in Key being fluent in both languages, let alone one.

English is not an official language in New Zealand

Mangere MP Sua William Sio is fuming after being told he cannot be sworn into Parliament in his native language, Samoan. Some bloggers have covered this, saying that only "official" languages in this country should be used in Parliament. Samoan is spoken more frequently in Mangere than Maori is.

Whale Oil maintains that English and Maori are our official languages, David Farrar says English, Maori and sign language are our official languages.

Both are incorrect. English is not an official language in this country, never has been. English, the medium for teaching and learning in most schools, is a de facto official language by virtue of its widespread use, but is not noted as an official language. Just like civil unions are not marriages, but are defacto relationships that have legal benefits of marriage.

In any case the reason that Mangere MP cannot speak in Samoan is not because it isn’t an official language, it is, apparently, because Parliamentary Services rejected his request to be sworn in Samoan because of limited time.

Limited time for what?

Wake up, Maori

Whats the point on Maori going on the Maori electoral roll when just under half of them don't even bother to vote? I

It appears that Maori go on the Maori roll not to vote, but to elevate the number of Maori electorates and that is something the Maori Party should be concerned about given that it is the Maori Party who is pushing the Maori electoral option. According to the pre-election polls, about 15-20 percent of Maori in the Maori electorate hadn`t decided who to vote for, with most of the balance deciding on either the Maori Party or Labour.

Now if a third of those polled that say they would "vote if an election were to be held tomorrow" and subsequently don't vote at all, there's something wrong with Maori attitude to democracy that needs fixing - starting now.

Perhaps we should put polling booths in pubs and in Marae.

Up to 40 percent of the Maori electorate support the Maori Party

This election is about the Maori vote - because that vote will decide the election. The media knows this, and knows that an increasing Maori Party electorate vote could reduce the overhang - but less likely lead to a Labour government it is seeking.

Perhaps that is why in its latest Marae poll ( which polled more than twice as many non- Maori as Maori), it chose not to differentiate the vote of Maori between the general and Maori electorates.This is significant given that a higher proportion of Maori in general electorate seats are likely to list vote Labour.

According to recent polling, Maori do support Labour - but one in five Maori have indicated they`ll vote for the Maori Party. But in the Maori electorate thats even higher - except that the media don't want you to know that as it has not split up the Maori vote between the two electorates. But pollsters have told me that Maori electorate support the Maori Party is a lot more than 20 per cent - in Tamaki Makaurau it is 36 percent.

The Maori Party could make a clean sweep of the seats as well. If this election is a close contest between the centre left and the centre right, National will benefit more than Labour as the fewer seats the Maori Party wins, the harder it may be for National to govern.

One in ten Maori expected to be looking for work

Thanks to the economic downturn, unemployment is expected to to rapidly increase - and it appears Maori will bear the brunt of it. According to the Maori Party unemployment is expected to increase by 50 percent and given Maori unemployment according to the Household Labour Force survey is 7.1 percent, one in ten Maori will be telling the survey they are looking for work.

Actually one in ten could be on a benefit as whenever there is an big increase in unemployment in an economic downturn, a substantial proportion of that increase is Maori.

It may get pretty bad in Australia where one in seven Maori live. They`ll be making a decision whether to come back to New Zealand or whether to stay in Australia if they lose their jobs. And if lots of Maori think it is better to be unemployed in New Zealand than unemployed in Australia guess what is gong to happen to our welfare bill?