Winston Peters endorses murder of 500,000 children

Winston Peters is back to his usual tricks, making a lot of noise about things he knows are of little consequence but play well to his base.

Peters has ordered Foreign Affairs officials to investigate why two New Zealand companies were involved in questionable dealings under the United Nations oil for food programme in Iraq.

Ecroyd Beekeeping Supplies of Christchurch and pump maker J B Sales International were among 2400 companies, half of them from the United States, named in the "independent" inquiry by former US treasury secretary Paul Volcker. Both transactions were under $1 million and neither involved allocations of oil, where the bulk of the kick backs to Iraqi officials occurred. Ecroyd is listed as supplying $US273,000 of honey extractors and pesticide, and JB Sales as providing pumps worth $US393,000. Both transactions were cleared by the NZ government at the time.

National Party foreign affairs spokesman Murray McCully supported the inquiry, saying New Zealand's reputation "would be hanging out there to dry" until the matter was resolved.

Rather than litigate problems two small NZ firms had getting their goods through a difficult border, we should be asking why New Zealand supported the sanctions against Iraq which killed at least half a million Iraqi children - a prolonged of medieval proportions and one of the most barbaric acts of the late 20th century. Challenge on those deaths, former US secretary of state Madeline Albright said "we think the price is worth it," a statement which lays raw the evil and hypocrisy at the heart of the west's policy.

Fact. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Fact. Saddam destroyed the remaining chemicals he had been sold by the US and its surrogates soon after the end of the first gulf war, a fact western governments were well aware of after Saddam's son in law defected, with large amounts of documents, in 1994. The sanctions, which were not imposed by the UN as a whole but by the US-dominated Security Council, stayed on though because their sponsors were not prepared for any outcome but regime change.

The reason many New Zealanders are unhappy with Peters being foreign affairs minister is because they want the independent foreign policy positions Labour governments sometimes deliver. Peters seems to want to suck up to the unelected rogues running the US (or at least those who have so far not been indicted).

On the topic of sucking up to Americans, Peters cried crocodile tears for singer Barry McGuire, denied permanent residence because at 70 and with a pacemaker, he could be a burden on the health system. This is someone with a NZ wife of long standing who has lived here for extended spells, taken part in its musical life and paid taxed on international earnings here.

But before we are too critical of a manifestly stupid decision by Immigrations officials, let us not forget why they are playing hard ball.

Step forward … Winston Peters, whose multi-year campaign against immigration has led to a major tightening of our borders, with significant economic and cultural impact, not to mention damaging our international reputation.

Too many ministers spoil the wrath

What do you do when you have been dissed, yet again, by your party?

Of course, you put out a press release!

Despite being a former minister of Maori Affairs (albeit under the guise of NZ First and Mauri Pacific), Tau Henare is only associate Maori affairs spokesman in the new National line-up, with a ranking of 24.

It is a task he shares with Georgina te Heuheu, who is 21 on the pecking order and newcomer Chris Finlayson, who ranks above both of them at 18.

All three of course are under "two fisted" Gerry Brownlee, who retains overall responsibility.

And of course there is another de facto Maori affairs spokesman, Wayne Mapp in his guise as "political correctness eradicator", there to make the world safe again for white men in suits.

Interestingly, National's webite menu includes a link to political correctness eradication, but not to Maori affairs, so we must assume four out of these five spokespeople are acting in a policy vacuum - ie, making it up as they go along.

So Raymond, sorry Tau Henare, decides to back Mapp's campaign, while taking a swipe at his former leader at the same time.

Henare challenged foreign affairs minister Winston Peters to "to support Wayne Mapp's call to eradicate the practice of 'dial a kaumatua'", calling in elders to open foreign posts.

"Such performances pervert the integrity of the culture, particularly in view of Mr Goff's recent comments that karakia are performed merely as promotional gimmicks to attract media attention in foreign countries.

While some kaumatua may willingly hop on the 'plastic tiki tour' abroad, Labour's recent hash of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill back home is proof of the double standards inherent in their politically correct agenda," said Henare, throwing haymakers every which way.

Georgina te Heuheu voiced similar concerns, citing former probation officer Josie Bullock's challenge to the Corrections Department's practice of discharging prisoners with a formal poroporoaki, at which women are required to take a back seat.

"I would imagine Maori might already be thinking that they should withdraw those protocols from those environments which are really not necessarily suited to our protocols, and maybe take those protocols back home to where they belong," said te Heuheu.

Te Heuheu makes a better point than Henare, but it will be lost in the unsubtle campaign being run by Mapp, Henare et al. I think as a society we are still learning how to develop protocols and processes which make all feel comfortable and included. We all notice the powhiri which goes on too long, or seems wrong for the occasion. But is there a similar level of outrage about similar manifestations of protocol from other sources - the introductory speech which goes on too long, the inappropriate comment from the mayor, the failure to acknowledge people. What is worse, welcoming people, or making them feel not welcome?

Getting back to Finlayson, who was head boy at St Patricks College when I started there in 1973. His Maori affairs, treaty issues role probably comes from his acting for the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission in his former job as a Bell Gully lawyer. It is worth remembering though that Labour left National's treaty framework intact.

Ngapuhi doubles profit

Te Runanga o Ngapuhi declared a $2.6 million profit for the year ended June 30, compared with $1.23 million the previous year.

Auditor Steve Bennett said that represented a margin of 22 percent.

I haven't seen the full report - not available on the Ngapuhi.iwi.nz site yet - and the reporting in the Northern Advocate is particularly informative, so it's hard to make meaningful comparisons.

The result does not include the $67 million in assets, including $3.8 million cash, transferred to the runanga this month as Ngapuhi's share of the fisheries settlement.

I understand a lot of the revenue comes from the fisheries joint venture, which paid a dividend of about $1.8 million. There are also some government contracts and the return of investments, which come from fisheries earnings accumulated over the past five years.

The last year under the previous management regime there was a $800,000 deficit, so it is a substantial achievement.

Running costs for the runanga are about $1 million a year, although there could be some extra costs this past year around the need to build up membership numbers and pass the tests required to receive the settlement allocation.

Including the settlement cash, Ngapuhi now has about $7 million in cash or investments.

More once I get the result.

Not mainstream and proud of it

After discovering it might have to make accommodations with Maori MPs if it is ever to regain the treasury benches, National has revised its Maori-bashing strategy.

Don Brash has given Wayne Mapp the job of "political correctness eradicator", based on a speech the North Shore MP made in June claiming "polical correctness" ran counter to the basic freedoms of society.

"A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority and become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups," Mapp said then.

Mapp, whose doctorate is in international law, tries to justify finesse his definition of political correctness as being of concern when it is given the power of government through legislation or advocacy,

Examples he gave the NZ Herald were the Waitangi Tribunal, Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Mapp, who is married to lawyer Denese Henare, is ranked at 14 in the National ranks, despite his supposed skills and experience.

Deputy PM Michael Cullen said Mapp has a hard task ahead of him: "I think Wayne Mapp would have significant difficulty doing anything. I always thought [that] with Wayne, actually managing to walk into the chamber, one foot in front of the other, was a major achievement in life."

Back to Mapp's definition of political correctness as ceasing to represent the interests of the majority, a common bleat of privileged.

The majority interest is always looked after. White men in suits wrote the rules, and they enforce them, despite numerous examples of failure and incompetence.

Majoritinarianism went out with First Past the Post - Mapp's jihad is yet another example of how the Brash Nats fail to understand MMP.

If political correctness means not behaving as if everyone is white and middle class, bring it on. What is called "politically correct" is often just people acknowledging structural issues of control, and arise out of techniques of political and social analysis which emerged in the 70s and 80s.

What next - will Mapp start attacking analysis of economic discrepancy as "class war". On Morning Report he said there was no need for a ministry of women's affairs. Obviously he hasn't read the data showing a persistent lag between men's and women's wages.

Mapp again raised the bogey of PC being opposed to "mainstream values". Whatever they are.

A party of one

Over on Public Address, Keith Ng tries to get his finger on what it is about Winston Peters that makes him such a formidable political actor:

"He's in politics for the love, for the status, for the glory - especially the glory of being persecuted. The more he's being attacked, the more he feeds off it and grow stronger. Perhaps one more blast from the media's Why-Do-You-Keep-Lying-to-Us Ray will finish him off? No, he just soaks it up."

Ng noted an observation from political science on an Agenda panel interview with Peters, regarding the statement by NZ First deputy leader Peter Brown that NZ First was an opposition party, not a government party.
Boston: "You cannot have the leader of a party representing the country internationally as the Foreign Minister, claiming at the same time that it is an opposition party. The only way you could realistically maintain that position would be to decouple the leadership of the party from the party, that in effect would mean Mr Peters leaving his party."

I think the resignation of Doug Woolerton as party president was a clear sign the party knows Peters has given up any pretence the party is about anything but Peters. Labour knows that too - this government isn't about doing stuff, it's about getting through to the next one.

Not a new net yet

For a Cabinet reshuffle which was supposed to be about regeneration, the lack of movement in the Maori portfolios is disappointing.

Labour has to seriously address not only winning back the Maori electorates, but comprehensively winning Maori voters' party votes and ensuring it also wins their electorate votes where they are enrolled in general seats. Given the changing demographics of New Zealand society, it cannot afford to concede to the Maori Party.

Parekura Horomia continues as Minister of Maori Affairs with a range of associate portfolios - education, fisheries, social development and employment, and state services. While piling resources into the East Coast is a good tactic for retaining Ikaroa Rawhiti, it falls short as a Maori policy.

New minister Nanaia Mahuta gets Customs, Youth Affairs and is associate minister for the environment and local government. That is a relatively safe way of ensuring she learns how to do the job without major risk.

In local government, she will be working alongside Mark Burton, who keeps the treaty negotiations portfolio. Burton still hasn't made his mark in this role, but given the pressure from NZ First for a review there could be opportunities.

Despite losing their electorate seats, Dover Samuels and Mita Ririnui keep their jobs, Samuels as associate minister of Maori tourism and under secretary for economic and regional development, Ririnui as under secretary to conservation, corrections and treaty negotiations.

If anyone can point to evidence Ririnui has retained his job based on performance, I would like to see it.

Mahara Okeroa gets a promotion, becoming associate minister for social development, arts, culture and heritage, and conservation.

Mahuta in Labour's Top 20

Congratulations Nanaia Mahuta, for getting to Cabinet. After nine years of slogging away on the committees it is time to see what she has got.

Lianne Dalziel gets another crack at full ministerial status, having been punished enough for her mess up in immigration. Clayton Cosgrove, David Cunliffe and Damien O'Connor are also among the favoured 20 who will file into the cabinet room on Monday mornings, as is David Parker. As a lawyer (a short supply in Labour's parliamentary ranks these days), Parker probably benefited from Russell Fairbrother's failure to live up to expectations and his unforgivable loss of the Napier seat.

Parekura Horomia was re-elected. Given the lack of inspiration he brought to Maori affairs, it would be good to see him moved over this time and Mahuta put in that slot.

While the associate positions haven't been announced yet, don't expect to see Dover Samuels and Mita Ririnui retain their spots on that list - Clark isn't wanting to give them any reasons to stick around.

Mahara Okeroa may get some associate portfolio, given he upped his work rate over the past year and held his seat comfortably.

Clark would also be foolish not to give newcomer Shane Jones something meaty to get his teeth into, given the talk about the need for rejuvenation and the generally pedestrian look of most of Labour's line-up.

Minister of cocktails and cigarettes

In a world where John Bolton can become the US ambassador to the United Nations, having Winston Peters as New Zealand's foreign affairs minister makes perfect sense.

It's not that Peters is a xenophobe - he will say anything he thinks will shore up his support among his remaining aging and deluded base of fearful white males and their blue-rinsed wives.

He thinks it will give a statesman-like cast to the end of a noisy but undistinguished political career, but he is the same Winston we know and 6% of us love - an opportunist in built up shoes.

The rounds of diplomatic cocktail parties will fill in his evenings between his days at the racetrack and early mornings in Courtenay Place.

Maybe he should have sought an associate health job - minister of smoking and drinking. After all, Labour did have a minister of wine and cheese.

The racing portfolio will be interesting. Peters isn't cheap to maintain, and he has had a lot of support from that quarter, so expect a quick pay-off. The industry has been lobbying for the $26 million or so in gst on its betting to be ploughed back into larger stakes and more support for clubs.

It does leave the rest of the party sitting on the sideline watching Winston gobble the goodies. Doug Woollerton has woken up the the ride he has been taking on for enabling Peters for so long (to borrow language from the world of therapy) and members with a bit of self respect like Brian Donnelly and Ron Mark are going to find their self-respect challenged in the months to come.

Looking through the Labour-NZ First agreement, Labour has left itself plenty of wriggle room.

It only has to support giving a select committee a crack at Peters' bill on taking references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi out of legislation. Once there, the committee will probably conclude that the principles are now embedded in case law, and the references are merely helpful reminders to make sure agents of the state don't make expensive blunders which will see the Crown battling Maori in court all over again.

NZ First also wants a select committee to consider lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years, either through a members bill or a government bill by the end of the term. Given Ron Mark's own history with under-age crime, the already high rate of imprisonment in New Zealand, the disproportionate number of Maori in the criminal justice system, it won't be good law but it will be a political bone for their reactionary base.

On the Treaty front, NZ first has asked for more resources for negotiations, the use of "expert external negotiators" and more direct negotiations, by-passing the Waitangi Tribunal claim process which it describes as "lengthy and expensive".

It also got Labour to agree to review the appropriateness of the chair of the Waitangi Tribunal also holding an appointment as a Maori Land court judge.

Brief points. Compared with the alternatives, the Waitangi Tribunal system is relatively inexpensive. The costs escalate around Office of Treaty Settlements and the bureaucracy the Crown has developed to fight every claim to the wire.

If OTS was competent, there would be no need for "expert external negotiators" - who in practice would turn out to be another bunch of expensive negotiators. For claims to be settled, there needs to be forceful engagement at the ministerial level at appropriate pints in the process, and a bureaucracy which is able to straddle the cultural divide. That cultural facility has been lacking.

As for splitting the tribunal and the court, Maori land law is an arcane but very necessary administrative system. The court's resources are an important part of settling any claim. However, the tribunal workload is larger than was originally envisaged when the tribunal was set up, and creating a separate tribunal head is not a bad idea.

What making the chief judge of the court also the chair of the Waitangi Tribunal does is establish a status benchmark within the legal system of the tribunal. Any change should not reduce that status. I would suggest requiring the chair of the tribunal rto also be a High Court judge.

Clear as mud

Patrick Crewdson in the Sunday Herald reckons Helen Clark and Tariana Turua buried the hatchet the day after the election. But he sounds unconvinced, and turns to Matt McCarten for clarification - who dumps on the Labour leader.

"Clark's a self-confessed control freak - she'd feel very miffed that Tariana Turia didn't do what she was told. And then she not only didn't do what she was told, she actually went out, left, survived, and came back with numbers... Clark would find that very hard to stomach," McCarten said.

More light from unnamed Labour sources, who say Turia's behaviour in caucus was septic, with Clark repeatedly having to intervene. "Clark tried to accommodate her every step of the way," one source told Crewdson.

His sources suggest two strategies. Labour could tolerate the Maori Party as an ally and not go hard out to destroy it next election, or sideline it and hope it withers or disintegrates before 2008.

"Strategy" is not the right word for the current state of NZ politics, in any camp. It's all tactics.

The Sunday Herald Sunday Star Times said it conducted a poll which showed voters want Labour to form a coalition with the Greens and NZ First. However, the figures it reported left me scratching my head as to what the poll actually asked or found. What is this supposed to mean?: "Of the parties Labour is negotiating with, voters' preferred coalition partners are the Greens (35 per cent), followed by NZ First (29 per cent), the Progressives (26 per cent) United Future (21 per cent) and the Maori Party (17 per cent)."

Meanwhile, Russell Brown has some good points to make on why the prospect of a National-led government can't be taken seriously yet.

Dr Cullen and the tide of history

Deputy Prime Minister Dr Michael Cullen used the Michael King Memorial Lecture at Otago University on October 14 to set out his version of the history of the foreshore and seabed controversy.

He said right was on the side of the claimants, but the political cost was too high to let the original Court of Appeal decision stand. "In the intensely heated atmosphere of the time [letting the Ngati Apa case go on to the Maori Land Court] was not a real possibility and those who still argue so are refusing to recognise the depth of pakeha anger and alarm."

Dr Cullen's version of events may help other historians as they try to unravel political management from constitutional theory. "Already the facts have been substantially lost in a welter of ex post facto wisdom and rewriting of both history and the law, not least the legal decision which occasioned the need for a policy response."

To recap. In June 2003 the Court of Appeal granted an appeal by iwi from the top of the South Island which would have allowed them to ask the Maori Land Court to rule on whether they had customary rights to parts of the Marlborough Sounds which the local authority was busily leasing for mussel farms.

Existing case law, dating back to the 90 Mile Beach case in the early 1960s, was that Maori claims to customary rights had been extinguished by the assumption of sovereignty by the Crown, and subsequent legislation asserting Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

In this New Zealand was at odds with comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions, which held that governments had to specifically extinguish such rights.

Each claim for customary rights still endured therefore needed to be tested in the courts.

"In arriving at this conclusion I am sure the Court of Appeal was correct and the seemingly settled case law wrong," Cullen said.

Where the problem arose for the Government was the way the Court of Appeal directed the case back to the Maori Land Court.

"If satisfied with those claims, [the Maori Land Court could] declare areas of foreshore and seabed to be customary land under the 1993 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act."

While the Government was confident proving title would be a hard ask in the High Court - "the tests to be applied would be the fairly rigorous and reasonably well established common law tests," is the way Cullen put it - it was not so clear how much leeway the Maori Land Court would have under the 1993 Act.

If such coastal areas were declared Maori customary land, it would be a relatively simple procedure to convert them to freehold ownership.

"For the Government, the situation was an impossible one. Already the Treaty settlement process was causing deep concern amongst many pakeha, despite the fact that it was proceeding in a largely smooth fashion and Maori claimants were usually showing remarkable moderation. Now the nation had all but convinced itself that very large chunks of the foreshore and seabed were about to pass into private ownership. Maori were pleased, by and large. Pakeha were in a state of incipient revolt, by and large," Cullen said.

"The issue was further complicated by the differing views of what ownership meant. For pakeha, it did imply the ability to buy and sell, to exclude and to exploit. It raised deep atavistic feelings about who we are as a people and what pakeha believed (rightly or wrongly) they had escaped from in the old world. It was like some new Norman yoke being imposed (even though it is Maori who in this case actually come closer to filling the historical role of the Anglo-Saxons).

"For Maori, ownership was more about a mutual relationship of belonging between the people and the land. What I found emotionally scarring about all of this was that the Government ended up trying to seek a way of crystallising the actual status quo, as it were, on the ground while many Maori considered that we were engaged in another raupatu or land confiscation.

"The Government could have left things to the Maori Land Court. But, in the intensely heated atmosphere of the time that was not a real possibility and those who still argue so are refusing to recognise the depth of pakeha anger and alarm.

"Moreover, such a process would have been dragged out over many years creating massive uncertainty about the legal status of foreshore and seabed. It certainly created an opportunity, but with no security."

Cullen said the political process was fraught, as the National Party "early on determined that its interests continued to lie in playing the race card and claiming the legislation gave everything to Maori. The Maori Party was formed and claimed it took everything away from Maori."

Cullen seemed to offer a hint the Foreshore and Seabed Act could be changed in future.

"Much will, I think, depend on the outcome of the current discussions and pending Maori Land Court cases," he said.

Those discussions are with the Ngati Porou from the East Coast and the neighbouring Te Whanau a Apanui, "which I believe will be successful. They will demonstrate that there can be real substance to the Crown’s recognition of areas where there are enduring and ongoing Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed while preserving the rights of the population at large (including it needs to be said, Maori who are not tangata whenua in those areas)."

An interesting read. Thanks to Te Karere Ipurangi for catching my old friend John Gibb's original Otago Daily Times story.

1000 words

Tom Scott from the DomPost (don't know how long the link will work).

You should have seen it coming

Many people have been surprised at how much effort Tariana Turia has put into seeking an accommodation with National, despite Don Brash's Orewa speech etc.

Co-leader Pita Sharples has been going along with it, claiming on Mana News on Friday that Brash was seeing Maori issues and in particular the foreshore and seabed issue "in a new light now".

They obviously weren't listening hard enough before the election, when Turia and other party leaders repeatedly outlined positions on the socially conservative side of the fence. Don't lump us in with the gays and the prostitutes and the tree-huggers, and don't tell us what's good for us, was the gist. After all, what is "whanau-hapu-iwi" but family values writ large.

"This whole notion we are a party of the left and we have got to be a party of the left. Oh no," Turia told me in July. "We are a party that is on about kaupapa. Politics needs to change. Politics does not have to be about the left or the right. Politics can be about values and principles and integrity and commitment and honesty. It can be all those things and we can have politicians who genuinely believe they are there to represent the interests of the people they serve."

She said there was little or no difference between politicians like Winston Peters, Don Brash and Trevor Mallard.

On coalition with National, she said once the election was over Brash would want to sit down with the party if he was short of the numbers.

The fact is the rupture between Turia and Helen Clark was deep and bitter, and was about more than the foreshore and seabed. It won't be healed overnight.

Clark went out on a limb to bring Turia into Parliament and into a ministerial position, and it blew up in her face. Turia has never courted the wider Pakeha public, and made no compromises in power. The occupation of Pakaitore/ Moutoa Gardens, which made Turia nationally recognised, did not win wide public support in the same way the Bastion point occupation eventually did. As a minister Turia stymied initiatives which did not conform to her idealised views of Maori social structures failed to provide the kind of leadership Clark was looking for from her.

Turia's side: "I lost complete respect for Helen Clark. I held private and confidential discussions with her which were leaked to the media, and I knew there was an attempt to portray me as someone who wasn't well, who was stressed, who was basically unsure of things, mentally diseased. The same as they did to John Tamihere actually. I knew I would have to leave as quickly as possible to maintain my integrity with the people, or they would portray me in quite a different way."

This is the same person who told a Maori asthma conference last week that she overcame stress-induced asthma by leaving Labour (as well as by adopting the Buteyko method of breathing exercises).

Tariana's utu has given Winston Peters with a far stronger hand than he merited, which he seems to be using to block the Greens from any useful role in government and to wring a number of trophy policies which may, like those of his inspiration Rob Muldoon, shore up some of his votes but cost the country dearly in future.

Over on the Tino Rangatiratanga mailing list, tree chopper Mike Smith suggests the Maori Party should keep its powder dry in anticipation of winning more seats in 2008, and "don't let personality politics get in the way of the kaupapa".

Too late Mike. The powder is sodden and personality politics are rampant.

A mighty totara

Claude Edwards died this month, aged 73. He was a long serving secretary of the Opotiki-based Whakatohea Maori Trust Board and the most public face of the tribe for many years.

Edwards' long-standing friendship with National's treaty negotiations minister Doug Graham meant Graham took a personal interest in getting negotiations off the ground for Whakatohea's claims regarding confiscation of land in the eastern Bay of Plenty.

In October 1996 Edwards and his chief negotiator John Delamere signed a deed of settlement for a $40 million package of land, cash and other management rights. The signing was on short notice because the parties wanted to get Cabinet sign off on the deal before the election. Delamere was also headed to Parliament as a NZ First MP.

A communication breakdown in the tribe meant some members of the negotiating committee were not informed, resulting in a campaign led by Ranginui Walker and his brother Tairongo Amoamo to reject the deal. A mail ballot of beneficiaries, conducted over the heads of the negotiating committee by the Whakatohea Trust Board, found against accepting the settlement.

With divisions between claimants deepening, the settlement offer was withdrawn. In March 1998. Graham spat the dummy and said Whakatohea would have to go to the back of the queue.

Even at the time that seemed an appalling decision. It cemented the notion that settlement offers were made on a "take it or leave it" basis and showed the Crown was not equipped to handle the tensions and disruptions in tribal life its interventions cause.

This year Edwards applied to the Maori Land Court for a determination on Whakatohea's customary rights to its coastline, including "rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga". It is the first application under the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and poses real challenges to that legislation.

A mighty champion has fallen.

Winston wins this hand

The Maori Party promised us a new sort of politics.

Now we find it's not politics at all, but some kind of therapy as co-leader Tariana Turia works through her antipathy towards Labour.

Turia's courting of Don Brash and United's Peter Dunne, for what reason it is hard to fathom, seems to have pushed Labour to give more to Winston Peters and NZ First than it might have needed to if the Maori Party had stayed in the game.

The Christchurch Press reports that in exchange for guaranteeing confidence and supply, Peters is asking for an increase in the pension and the minimum wage, free doctor's visits for the under-sixes, a review of all Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation and a commitment not to repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation.
The Maori Party wants more Treaty. NZ First wants less. Guess who will be at the table.

More alarming for the Maori Party's strategic ambitions is the Maori option. After each census, Maori voters are given the chance to switch between the Maori and the general electoral rolls. An increase in the Maori roll will lead to more Maori seats for the Maori Party to contest.

The census will be held on March 7. The option will be held later in the year. If the numbers go up, boundaries will need to be redrawn. This all takes time. A stable government which lasts the maximum term is in the Maori Party's best interest - and allowing Winston Peters to have his hand on the switch that can turn this government off is the last thing it should want.

Send in Kenman

You're a new party, trying to get the most out of your parliamentary numbers. Coalition negotiations are tricky, and the party trying to put together a government has a lot of experience.

So you send in the best negotiator you can find, someone with a reputation for toughness and strength under fire who knows parliament inside out and can maximise whatever small leverage you have.

Fanfare of trumpets. Spotlight falls on … Ken Mair.
Ken Mair? Don't get me wrong, nice guy. Came out of the navy, got jobs as a probation officer, social worker, got involved in protests, some clever, some just plain dumb, moved back to his tribal area in Whanganui just in time to stand shoulder to shoulder with Tariana Turia at Pakaitore.
But is Ken the best the Maori Party has got?

Matt McCarten fell out with some in the Maori Party over its strategy of chasing the party vote (he was right, they were wrong), but could still be available to once again carve out an accommodation with Labour. Laila Harre is another experienced political negotiator who could give the novices in the Maori Party a sense of what to ask for and what to set aside for another day.

But no, cousin Ken is the man. Meanwhile Tariana has regular tete a tete's with Don Brash, despite her party membership's disquiet about that direction.

Tariana's perverse strategy gives more leverage to Winston Peters, who experience shows is not going to do anything to advance any of the causes the Maori Party holds dear.

Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira put out a press release saying the party's that consultation hui "consistently expressed their confidence in us, the four Maori MPs, to deliver the best deal that we could for our people."

That sounds like religion, not politics. "Trust us, we know what we are doing."

Harawira said the party has three policy priorities: the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the constitutional status of the Treaty of Waitangi and preparation for next year's Maori option.

Earlier posts have discussed the foreshore and seabed. Might I also suggest the party's focus on the constitutional status of the Treaty of Waitangi may result in perverse outcomes.

Short version. This debate has been around a long time. Matiu Rata, who spent his political career working on this issue, backed by decades of debate and discussion within Ratana about what needed to be done, eventually succeeded in getting enough of the Treaty into legislation to give it force, in the right circumstances. But he came to the conclusion that it was a bad thing to "ratify" the Treaty or incorporate it fully into legislation. Any number of reasons, but one stands out. There is a political dimension to making the Treaty work in a real, practical way, which would be jeopardised by putting interpretation in the hands of judges.

The Waitangi Tribunal, a standing committee of inquiry including what should be some of the best Maori and Pakeha minds, is the body charged with advising parliament on how the Treaty should be interpreted. That is a system that works.

The relationship between the tribunal, the courts and parliament is evolving, but it is not broke.

Rather than grandstand, Harawira and his fellow Maori Party MPs should reread the words of Justice Cooke and his fellows in the Court of Appeal's 1988 judgment in NZ Maori Council v Attorney General 1988 - in fact it should be required reading for all new MPs and for Winston Peters, who keeps claiming no one knows what Treaty principles are.

(If anyone can find a link to the full judgment, I would appreciate it. Meantime, here is a link to a Waitangi Tribunal paper on Treaty principles.

Election sudoku

Time to play some E9 sudoku again, mining the election statistics for patterns and clues to the future.
The Maori roll expanded to 208,003 voters this election, but only two thirds of them - 67.07% to be exact - turned out to vote. That is 10 percent better than 2002, when Maori voters didn't feel there was a choice on offer, but it is still below 1996 when NZ First slate of dynamic candidates drew 77% of Maori electors to the polls, or 1984 when more than 80% turned out to throw out Rob Muldoon.
That means the Maori party failed to capitalise on the huge amount of support it seemed to be generating and getting those people to the polls.
Since its next major task is likely to be whipping up Maori interest in the electoral option - which could result in one or two more seats for it to win - that may present a problem.
Certainly, while it will never come out in public and admit it, Labour's interest is for Maori voters to cross over to the general roll. Under MMP, winning Maori electorates isn't as important for Labour as it once was, and with the right candidate it can win them back anyway. What is important is winning the party vote in those seats - which it does. But it doesn't hurt to have a big chunk of Maori and Pacific Island voters around when chasing to general electorate seats, especially in the provincial towns.
We can say conclusively that the Maori Party's hunt for votes in Australia and elsewhere was a waste of plane tickets. For the Maori electorates were only 602 valid overseas votes, including defence force votes, down on the previous election.
They were evenly divided between Labour and the Maori Party 267/266. Pita Sharples, who went doorknocking across the ditch, only got 41 overseas votes to John Tamihere's 63.

Foreshore too far to fore

The Maori Party has the potential to be an independent voice for Maori within an MMP system, if it can get over the trauma of its birth.
The problem which seems to be emerging is the baggage party co-leader Tariana Turia is taking into coalition talks.
Being told to lie down in the back of the limo may take a while to get over, but get over it she must if the party is to have any chance of making a long term contribution.
According to the Sunday Star Times, Turia is talking with Don Brash about what it would take for the Maori Party to support a National-led government.
That is despite Maori voters showing almost no appetite for National.
Turia says if National axed Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act, as it has considered doing, Maori Party members may come in behind.
"It's the number one issue why this party started. If a political party was prepared to repeal and we were able to get through some of the other discussions that we're having, they will go with who repeals," Turia said.
At the risk of seeming insensitive, Tariana should stop using the foreshore and seabed issue as the excuse for her disaffection with the Labour Party and her inability to advance her political ambitions inside what is an extremely tough environment.
Sure, Labour did a bad thing constitutionally by refusing to let the top of the South Island case go through the courts. It was stupid. It was inept. It was Margaret Wilson at her worst (which is pretty bad). But let's pretend we are in an alternative universe and think what might have happened.
For starters, there would have been no let up from National whipping up the "beaches will be for Maori only" nonsense. As it is, if the Act was going to have such a heinous effect, why was National able to get away with its Beaches: Iwi/Kiwi billboards? I don't recall Turia challenging the accuracy of that meme.
Meanwhile the issue would have been back before the courts, chewing up more time and legal fees for what could have been an uncertain outcome. The same problems with actually identifying and defining customary rights would have remained.
The fact is, as a nation New Zealand has always been extremely uncomfortable with customary rights. Occasionally they have been codified, such as the right to take muttonbirds from the offshore islands of the south, but in the main anything with a whiff of exclusive license has been resisted. Where practices have persisted, it has either been because white NZ does not see them (ie, attaches no monetary value to the practice) or because of a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" environment.
If the claimants had succeeded in establishing their rights at common law, it would then create the problem of writing those into statute. While not strictly necessary, the fact is in the absence of large amounts of case law, the ministries would be pushing the politicians to come up with legislation or regulation to help them do their jobs.
More importantly, let us go back to where all this started - the carve-up of coastal space for aquaculture by the Marlborough local authority with no regard for the rights and aspirations of tangata whenua.
The crazy thing for Labour, and an indication of their mismanagement of the whole matter, was the fact it did come up with a solution to that problem, by treating aquaculture space as a subset of the wider fisheries settlement. That solution was always on the table, but when it was announced, it said it had nothing to do with foreshore and seabed. Stupid. Inept. Etc.
As it is, the Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act is unworkable, in part because of Winston Peters insistence there be no legal aid for claimants. It needs to be tweaked to make it workable, but it's no big thing. People either have a relationship with their beaches or they don't.
The more important thing is to ensure the 20% of aquaculture space going for iwi is usable. That means making sure there are robust processes to ensure iwi don't get the marginal bits, and could involve some changes to the Resource Management Act, Marine Act, Local Government Act etc to ensure the "settlement" isn't negated by red tape.
That means the Maori party knuckling down and doing some real politics, rather than this fantasy stuff of snuggling up to a party whose current Maori policy is "shut up and be assimilated".

Sore loser

So Winston Peters is taking Bob Clarkson to court for handing him a right thrashing in Tauranga. Remember his old line, "I'm happy being the MP for Tauranga," which he used to say whenever he was asked if he wanted Jim Bolger's job?

Peters claims Clarkson over-spent his $20,000 campaign limit by at least $30,000, mainly because the Bay of Plenty Times covered Clarkson's construction company as part of a series of advertising features on the region's building sector firm.
Setting aside the small point that all NZ First's campaign spending went towards promoting the Peters brand, this brings back echoes of an incident after the 1996 election, when won all five Maori seats.

The Sunday Star Times and Holmes reported that NZ First Te Tai Tonga MP, Tutekawa Wyllie, had over-spent to secure his spot, including chapter and verse of where the overspending occurred.

Rather than standing up for clean elections, Peters lashed out at the reporter - me - and took the blanace of power Wyllie's seat gave him to put National back into power.

Wyllie's campaign spending return came in under the limit, but there were obvious gaps. Printing for mail-outs but no envelopes and insufficient postage. A check of his suppliers turned up expenses he hadn't reported, taking him over the limit. So filing a false return, as well as the over-spending.

Considering the former Maori All Black was playing in an MPs vs police rugby game within weeks of getting elected, it came as little surprise the electoral office and the police didn't want to touch the case. The police investigated for an hour in the last week before the six month limit for bringing charges, after which it was automatically deemed no crime.

Peters of course won Hunua for National in 1979 by challenging Labour's win in court. Peters used legalistic attacks to strike out hundreds of votes which went to Malcolm Douglas, Roger's brother. As a result of that the law was changed to allow votes to be accepted as long as the voter's intention was clear. Peters was getting votes thrown out if they had a cross rather than a tick, if I remember rightly.

Bad mainstream reporting on Maori, example 743

The National Business Review online reported today that "Ngapuhi leader" David Rankin reckons Ngapuhi Runanga is heading for a financial crisis over what to do with the $66 million in fisheries settlement assets it received last month.

"We have known for thirteen years that this settlement was coming, and in all that time, the Ngapuhi Runanga failed to develop a plan for managing and allocating the money. Now, they have received $66 million and they are scratching their heads, wondering what to do with it," Rankin said.

No comment from runanga chairman Sonny Tau. No context. So the story is, "Maori confirms NBR prejudices, Maori can't handle money."

Normal reporting practice is to give readers some context as to how much authority or credulity someone has. This rule doesn't seem to apply to stories about Maori. MBR tries to fudge it by saying Rankin "heads a group of (unnamed) Ngapuhi kaumatua and academics", as if it meant something.

Te Runanga o Ngapuhi is a democratic organisation. If Rankin can't win the confidence of enough of his fellow tribespeople to be elected, what makes his criticisms so compelling?

Rankin describes himself as a direct descendent of Hone Heke - a considerable feat, as Heke had no issue. The Rankins do come from the same descent lines as Heke, so no argument there. His grandfather was Hone Heke Rankin, a leading figure in Northland Maori life from the 1930s until his death in 1964. Hone Heke Rankin's mother, Matire Ngapua, was the daughter of Niurangi Puriri and Hone Ngapua, a nephew of Hone Heke Pokai, treaty signatory and flagpole feller.

Because of the Hone Heke connection, Rankin and his father have tried to claim ascendancy in the north since the death of Sir James Henare. Ngapuhi tend to be even more suspicious to claims of arikitanga than most Maori, and while they respect a distinguished whakapapa, they aren't about to bow down before it.

Rankin is able to make contributions to Ngapuhi on a cultural level, even if he cannot secure a mandate for political and economic activity. His Hone Heke Foundation oversaw the creation of an exhibition on Hone Heke at the Museum of NZ Te Papa this year, and it is attempting to create a museum in Kaikohe to display artifacts relating to Hone Heke.

In 2003 he got into a stoush with the Auckland War Memorial Museum over its refusal to supply Heke-related material to an exhibition at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra re-examining the role of Heke, Ned Kelly, Geronimo and other “rebels”. He tried to take two taiaha out of the museum, but failed to win support of other descendents. Rankin eventually loaned Canberra some items form his own family's collection.

The fact organisations like Ngapuhi Runanga are getting large infusions of assets is a significant business story, which the business press should find ways to cover sensibly. That may require a bit of work to work out the metrics which make sense: profits, return on assets, amount and nature of returns to beneficiaries.

Merely providing platforms for disaffected tribal members to vent their individual spleen is not the way to go about it.
More illuminating is a piece from the Northern Advocate of September 22.

Runanga chairman Sonny Tau outlined some likely places revenue from the settlement will be spent:
- hapu economic development
- education scholarships
-preservation of tribal knowledge
- funding for resource management oversight (an unfunded or unfunded obligation on tribal groups under the Resource Management Act and other acts)
- Other business investments to build up iwi assets

Mismanagement of its fisheries portfolio was the major reason the previous runanga leadership was voted out. As the Advocate pointed, when Tau was elected chairman in 2000 Ngapuhi fishing company was $860,000 in debt after a decade of secretive deals and unwise investments.

"We got rid of the company boat and today, without the settlement money, that asset is worth $15 million and we have had $4 million in the bank from its operation," Mr Tau said.

This year Ngapuhi fished deepwater quota leased from the commission in a 50-50 joint venture with Northland Deep Water, and on-leased inshore quota to Ngapuhi fishermen at cost.

National looks out for its loyal soldier

The first political hit of the new season is in. National's Maori Affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee is demanding new Labour list MP Shane Jones quits as chairman of Te Ohu Kaimoana, the successor to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission.
Apart from the obvious - that National rates Jones a threat - what is going on here?
Jones says Te Ohu is now an administrative body, shorn of the political contention and workload of the allocation debate.
"Te Ohu is a completely private body, and I am staying at the encouragement of the current directors," says Jones.
Last week Jones stepped down as chairman of Sealord, the fishing company half-owned by Maori through the fisheries settlement, to avoid potential commercial conflicts of interest. He was replaced by another former commissioner, Business Roundtable chairman Rob McLeod. Former Fonterra chief executive Craig Norgate also joined the Sealord board.
One Te Ohu director who is not encouraging Jones to stay is former National Party Maori vice president Wira Gardiner, who was put on the commission by Parekura Horomia in what seems to be some misguided eruption of tribal loyalty.
Labour's willingness to put Gardiner in sensitive positions is irrational. Party president Mike Williams told me it is because Gardiner is "competent". This is confusing activity for outcomes. The former lieutenant-colonel's style is aggressive reorganisation, which never get to problems of substance and have negligible positive outcomes for Maori.
The fact National's first major attack is on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Gardiner should wake Labour up to what the problem they have create for themselves by putting political foes into politically sensitive positions.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10348537

Talking your way out of influence

The Direct Democracy Party got just 717 votes, 0.04% of the total, in the election. That's how much regard the voters of New Zealand have for the notion that once you elect representatives, you stick around to do their job for them.
So why is the Maori Party going out for a series of regional hui before its next step into the world of parliamentary politics?
Sure, they promised to before the election, but it was a dumb idea then and it's an even dumber idea now.
The Maori electorate made it clear the sort of government it wanted, giving 85 percent of its party vote to either Labour, the Maori Party or the Greens. Centre left coalition with respect for the treaty and Maori aspirations please!
With the exception of Tamaki Makaurau, the Maori electorates are geographically huge. This sort of direct democracy exercise will be hugely taxing on the party's resources, human and financial.
And what about the people who can't get to these workday meetings? Do their views not count?
Part of the task of being a party and being an MP is developing formal and informal methods of consultation.
The conference and remit system favoured by the major parties is currently at a low ebb, but it still can serve as a warning to errant policymakers.
The informal method is probably more important in our system, and the evidence is once politicians stop listening to those channels, their support quickly ebbs. The charges of "arrogance" against Labour during the first half of this year and the confused messaging of its campaign were an indication its back channels to voters were in poor repair.
Rather than immerse itself in hui, the Maori Party core should be taking its new age list of governing principles and turning them into a policy agenda for the next 100 days, one year, three years. What is likely to emerge on the political landscape? What select committees do they want to be on? How closely do they want to attempt to work with Labour?
If, as seems reasonably likely, there is a Labour-Jim Anderton-Greens minority Government, a Maori Party commitment on confidence and supply would sideline NZ First and United Future. Taliban Tariana may not be ready for that step just yet, but the party as a whole may need to weigh up whether encouraging a continuing climate of uncertainty is in its best interest.
While the party is huiing, the Greens are consolidating their position and the other minor parties are staking a claim for influence. The Maori Party does not want to consign itself to irrelevance this early in the game.

Final election tallies

Final election results are in, and the Maori Party improved its party vote percentage from1.98% on election night to 2.12 percent. The effect of this was to reduce its overhang from two seats to one, so the new Parliament will have 121 members.
Its improvement was at the expense of the Green Party, whose share of the vote went up from 5.07% to 5.3% - not enough to get Nandor Tanczos back in the House.
Labour's total went up 0.36% to 41.1%, leaving it with 50 MPs, while National slipped back 0.53% to 39.1% and lost an MP, giving it 48.
National can't form a government, but Labour can, if somewhat untidily.
With Jim Anderton in coalition, Labour has 51 seats and can rely on the 6 Greens for confidence and supply. While the Greens want to be in Cabinet, that could result in United's 3 MPs and NZ First's 7 voting with National and Act - which means Labour would need the Maori Party's 4 votes on every issue.
A more likely scenario is NZ First abstaining - Winston Peters can go on holiday again, like he did in the last Parliament, until election season rolls around again.
Where does this leave the Maori Party? Learning the ropes. Labour doesn't intend any major reform this time around, but may have to look hard at its Maori and treaty policies to ensure nothing will bite it. The Maori Party needs to identify some policy objectives and try to get them through, so it can go back to its voters next time and show the notiuon of an independent Maori voice in Parliament counts for something.

Donna Awatere-Huata refuses to bow before court

In the Auckland District Court September 30, Judge Roderick Joyce jailed former ACT MP Donna Awatere-Huata and husband Wi Huata for defrauding the Pipi Foundation, the organization she set up to promote her five minute reading programme.
Donna was sentenced for 21 months for the frauds and 1 year for obstruction of justice, ie, creating a paper trail to cover up the frauds., a total of 2 years 9 months. Wi was jailed for a year for each crime, so is within the two year limit for home detention to apply.
Listening in the court to the judge's convoluted 90-minute explanation for his tariff, I was struck by a feeling he had written his judgment some time ago and the pleas in mitigation would have no effect.
Former Labour MP Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan said she felt "great aroha because Donna will be standing to be judged like her father before her." , Colonel Pita Awatere, former commander for the 28 Maori Batallion and later a Maori Affairs welfare officer, was jailed for murder in 1968. She spoke on the pressures of being part of a family which is expected to lead, something which requires a lifetime of largely voluntary service.
Te Wananga o Raukawa founder Professor Whatarangi Winiata offered the court some principles which could have allowed for a more creative sentence, pointing to the seal behind the judge with included both Maori and Pakeha. Joyce acknowledged the contribution, but was not going to act on it.
Joyce also noted a written submission from Neville Baker referred to the importance to the Maori community of Pita Awatere, and the way Donna sacrificed her chances of an opera career when he was jailed for murder, giving up a scholarship in London to look after the family.
Joyce noted Awatere-Huata had always led with her chin, but later in his summary criticised her for not showing remorse - a kind of ritual humiliation demanded by judges. If Joyce were to assess the ranks of politicians with his judicial eye, he might find remorse in short supply - saying sorry doesn't get you elected. It also seems somewhat sadistic to demand someone displays weakness before consigning them to an environment where showing weakness may carry enormous risks.
In court to show personal support for Donna were new Maori Party MPs Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira, who have shared many battles with her. The proceedings will be a warning to them of the dangers that MPs can face.
Also on hand were Sir Graham Latimer, Titewhai Harawira, Donna Hall, and a large contingent from the Huata whanau and Ngati Kahungunu.