Why are minor party Maori ministers within Cabinet so important to Maori?

A Horizon poll –of fewer than 500 – indicates that Maori do not want the Maori or Mana parties to enter a National Cabinet. They’d rather them enter a Labour cabinet or support a government on an issue by issue basis- as opposed to entering government under the Maori Party's current arrangements.

It’s quite clear that Mana will not have a presence in a Labour Cabinet after the election, if Phil Goff is to be believed. But it is unlikely that any Mana or Maori party MP will be a Cabinet minister whoever is the government after the election.

The Horizon media releasesays that just 16.1% of Maori want the Maori Party to again accept Cabinet seats in a National led Government, 43.5% in a Labour led Government. Again? There has never been any ministers of support parties in Cabinet - including the Maori Party.

Fewer Maori want Mana to accept cabinet seats. Only 9.7% want Mana to accept Cabinet seats in a National led Government, but 38.7% in a Labour led one. It is unclear how many wanted them to accept Cabinet posts – indeed, or to refuse Cabinet posts - irrespective of whoever is the government.

Notwithstanding the agree to disagree procedures, I really wonder why so many Maori are so keen to have their minor parties accept Cabinet posts, along with the associated collective responsibility - particularly given the implosion and loss of support of minor coalition parties with Maori Cabinet Ministers. Just 2.8% of Maori surveyed would prefer the Maori Party to govern with ministers outside of cabinet (our current arrangements), with less than 2% stating likewise for the Mana Party.

Around a third wanted each party to offer support to the government on an issue by issue basis. However there was no breakdown of the split on offering support to a Labour-led government as opposed to a National government as the question wasn’t asked.

The best chance of Mana and Maori party MPs have of being ministers is outside of Cabinet. It looks like many Maori who support these two parties are going to be unhappy after the election.

Poll results are here.

Just as an aside, I wonder how many would like the Mana and Maori parties to do a pre-election deal. Because those who do will be disappointed too. It won't happen. Both parties will do their own thing - and no doubt attack each other.

More about → Why are minor party Maori ministers within Cabinet so important to Maori?

The relationship between the Mana and Maori parties

Now that the Te Tai Tokerau by-election is over , questions are arising as to whether the Mana and Maori parties will be able to work together.

I doubt it. Activists and politicians tend to clash.

Hone Harawira is making noises that both can work together, and believes that a relationship between Mana and Maori is best for Maori. Yet his priority is not working with other parties, it is building the Mana movement within parliament.

If there is not a good relationship between the two parties, Harawira has no answer to questions around Mana Party gains for
Maori except for standing against the Maori Party.

So, nothing’s changed then. He has staked his political future in working with the Maori Party or taking it over. If he can’t do either, Harawira will be an ineffective MP with a leader’s budget.

Pita Sharples says that that the Maori Party will work with Mana to same extent as he would with other parties. If Harawira works with the Maori Party on his terms only, the Maori Party “ won’t be having a bar of him” according to Pita Sharples on Morning Report today.

There is no way that the Maori Party and the Mana Party will be able to work together for mutual benefit, with Harawira in activist mode. However Mana may not contest other Maori seats if the party thinks it will get enough list votes to get a couple of extra MPs. The Maori Party will try to work with Mana, but they'll be political opponents until the election – with Harawira bad-mouthing off in the media - and that won’t be good for Maori political aspirations.

More about →

Hone Harawira’s expensive divisive politics

We all know that Hone Harawira is a loose cannon and a drain on the taxpayer. He draws an MPs salary and trips around the country attending hui and promoting himself and his new party. The speaker line up for the launch of the party this weekend is here and includes Veronica Tawhai, Annette Sykes, Sue Bradford, Nandor Tanczos, Matt McCarten, Margaret Mutu and John Minto. I've met most of them and it is an impressive list.

Since Harawira left the Maori Party the Maori Party travel expenses have dramatically reduced. In the past few months the Maori Party has spent $44,000 on travel, just $1000 more than Harawira alone. So Harawira was responsible for half the Maori Party travel bill bill and we are still paying that half while Harawira trips around as an independent MP trying to stitch up his divisive party.

And it will be divisive. It will pit Maori against Maori at the taxpayers expense. If he wins his seat as a leader of a parliamentary party he will get even more money. There was even talk of Harawira resigning from Parliament to force a by-election to get a mandate for his new party so he could be a Parliamentary leader in parliament before the General election – at a cost of $500,000.

Harawira must realise that the only way to get extra MPs for his Mana party is to challenge the Maori seats, just like Tariana Turia did. So you can expect that Harawira’s agreement not to challenge the Maori seats will be broken.

Then it will be an all-out Maori-against-Maori divisive political battle. Instead of Harawira discussing white mother***ers raping our land, he`ll be focusing on the Maori Party, tripping around the country attempting to create a wedge between his party and the Maori Party, and many ofthose speaking at the launch of the party this weekend will not be impressed. In addition the party will struggle to create an identity, as it jumps between nationalism, unionism and left wing politics. That has started already with Sue Bradford announcing she is unwilling to join a party that is more focussed on nationalism than the Left.

The Mana party will get nasty as it will need all the publicity it can get, in the absence of broadcasting funding. If it is successful it could split the Maori vote and be quite divisive. A similar scrap has happened before when Christians Graham Capill and Graeme Lee had their public scrap within the Christian Coalition in the 1990s, and more recently when the Gordon Copeland and Brian Tamaki kissed and fell out. The difference here is that Capill and Lee were never going to win seats, and Copeland was a list MP-turned-independent.

In addition, the leaders of the two Maori parties are current MPs thanks to MMP, and are likely to retain their seats after the election.

Harawira wants to be an “independent” voice - and I think he`ll get his wish as the lone MP from his party in parliament. Whether this voice will have any worthwhile influence within Parliament, even if he does take others in with him, is another matter.

More about →

The battle for Ikaroa-Rawhiti

Earlier this month Labour MP Parekura Horomia was considering his parliamentary future. What this means is that he was considering whether to bother contesting his seat of Ikaroa- Rawhiti, a seat nobody else has held. He can afford to do so as he is guaranteed a seat in Parliament as he is a stupidly high sixth on the party list.

Horomia is a party man – he’s Labour’s Maori vice-president. One of his roles is to ensure that the best Labour candidates contest the Maori seats – it’s just that he is starting to recognise that he is not one of the best. This, despite not only getting the highest plurality of votes in the past two elections, he got the majority of votes.

So Horomia may stand down from contesting his seat in favour of promising candidate Meka Whaitiri, the CEO of her Iwi, Ngati Kanungunu. Whaitiri also played for the U21 New Zealand Netball team and was the chairperson of the board of Trustees at Te Kura Maori o Porirua while a public servant. Like Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, a new MP after the 2011 election, she has worked for Horomia in Parliament.

Whoever Labour selects may be up against Mereana Pitman. She is the president of Hone Harawira’s new party and unsuccessfully contested the presidency of the Maori Party. She’d be right up Harawira’s alley – one of her stated favourite quotations is f**k off.

The only other candidate in the race will be the Maori Party candidate, Na Rongowhakaata Raihania. Late last month iPredict said that he was the candidate most likely to win the seat.

Doubt it. Labour may well come up the middle and retain the seat and Horomia will be the second highest ranked Labour list MP.

More about →

The politics of Maori seats and Maori appointments

Some appear annoyed that Maori officials can vote on council committees without being elected by Aucklanders. Others are annoyed that the Government has refused to provide Maori seats in the Auckland supercity.

While the Auckland supercity legislation does not permit specific Maori seats in the Auckland City Council, it does permit unelected and advisory members of Maori statutory boards being able to vote on council committees – including having a casting vote. Two members from the nine-member board had been nominated for each of the majority of 20 council committees, and have advisory roles, notwithstanding the ability to have the casting vote, and thus be full decision makers.
However if a Maori representative did provide the casting vote, there is nothing to stop the full council overturning the decision.

Act Leader and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide said he would resign if the council had specific Maori seats. Perhaps he didn’t threaten to resign if there were appointed Maori who could enact a casting vote on council committees because he was aware that the Select Committee hearing the Super City legislation could well approve that decision, giving them “membership rights” – which Act voted for, while not agreeing with it.

It seems that not everyone realised that full membership rights also meant full voting rights.

But the Select Committee snubbed the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, who wanted two Auckland Councillors elected by voters on the Maori roll and another appointed by mana whenua - local Maori with ancestral ties to the land. This decision is why Maori were given a separate forum called the Maori Statutory Board, while retaining the one electoral roll instead of an additional Maori roll, like we have for general elections.

Maori seats normally have a rationale based on indigeneity. Decisions on appointing Maori voting rights are not made on the basis of indigeneity. Even if you accept the indigeneity argument, most Maori in Auckland came from areas outside of Auckland so are not mana whenua – they are taura here and have ancestral ties to other areas. This was probably why the Royal Commission recommended a better compromise: One appointed mana whenua representive, and two others elected from the Maori roll.

This also has problems, as the appointed mana whenua representative would not be elected; and the two elected members will also be elected in part by mana whenua, as well as other Maori who reside in Auckland.

All this has led Labour – who supports Maori seats, while having a bill in the ballot to remove Maori parliamentary seats - to criticise the Government for not appointing Maori seats, but giving unelected Maori voting rights. Providing appointed voting rights sounds less democratic – although more politically tenable - that the provision of democratically elected Maori seats. Act supports neither, and has said so. National is quietly happy as it has Act on side on the prevention of Maori seats (which the Maori Party opposed, but voted for), and the Maori Party on side on the issue of voting rights ( which Act opposed, but voted for).

More about →

MMP is better for New Zealand than every other electoral system. Here’s why.

warning: longer than usual post
The upcoming referendum on the electoral system next year will end up being a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) walkover, or a choice between two electoral systems: MMP and either First Past the Post (FPP), or Supplementary Member (SM). Either way MMP should remain and then be modified.

Incidentally, the ‘first past the post’ label is completely misleading because there is no fixed winning post. The system was not designed for national elections, and is unlikely to enhance democratic accountability when a significant proportion of the population wishes to vote for parties other than National and Labour. Under FPP, what you need to win a local seat is just a ‘plurality’, namely more votes than anyone else. So the more parties compete in each seat, the lower the winning ‘post’ gets, and the greater the likelihood that most of the the voting public will vote for a party other than the governing party. Consequently political scientists call this system ‘plurality rule’, a much more accurate label.

MMP is proportional in that proportionality extends to all elected members – both on the list and through constituents. The SM electoral system - a bastardised FPP system which was comprehensively rejected in the 1992 referendum - has all of the claimed disadvantages of MMP, such as the status of list MPs, plus the disadvantages of FPP, including parties getting most of the seats with a minority of the votes. SM allows for a relatively small number of list MPs which “top up” the electorate MPs.

The big difference between the SM and MMP lists is that, under MMP the list is used to offset the distortions to proportionality that are inherent in the FPP electorate system, as the party vote only determines the composition of the list seats. Under MMP the party vote determines the composition of parliament. SM, however, uses the list to reinforce those distortions, and this list gives token representation to minor parties. List MPs are way outnumbered by electorate MPs, with list MPs only providing the proportionality. This means that a smaller percentage of list MPs would lead to decreased proportionality than is currently the case, and single party government will be the norm, as it is under FPP.

The advantage of a mixed-member proportional system arises because voters can indicate a preference for a candidate without supporting that candidate's party. A good candidate in an unpopular party has a stronger chance of election.

As an electoral system, SM is closer to FPP than MMP. FPP will only survive as a functioning electoral system if a high majority of people in the electorate support the two main parties, and the voters for these parties have sufficient confidence in their party to form a single party government. In most cases since 1996, SM would have produced the same government outcome as FPP, based on current voting, although minor parties would have had fewer MPs. In 1996 SM, under a 90/30 electorate/list top-up split, as proposed by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, would have generated the same government outcome due top NZ First’s capture of the Maori seats. But in 1999, in one of the lowest election turnouts, Labour’s share of the seats was over two percent higher than its share of the party vote and had NZ First and the Greens not crossed the threshold, that share would have been higher.

Supplementary Member is likely to lead to Māori being disproportionately represented in parliament. While it won’t affect how Maori electorate seats are elected, due to split voting it may influence allocation of supplementary seats. Overall proportionality would not exist as the “top-up seats” are likely to be as low as 30 percent of total parliamentary seats. Alternative Vote is likely to rely on second choice preferences, as is STV; FPP is majoritarian in the extreme, is disproportionate, and is likely to “waste” votes. Perhaps this was among the reasons why the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, in its 1996 report Towards a Better Democracy, recommended that MMP was ‘to be preferred to all other systems’. FPP would lead to winners being over represented and losers under represented. This is particularly the case in the Maori seats, where, for example, in 1990, Labour won all the electorates with 65.4% of the vote. More than one in five Maori electorate voters voted for Mana Motuhake, which won no seats. If voters behaved the same way, the party would not be under represented as its share of the nationwide vote, nor would it have won a supplementary seat under SM either, as its overall vote was only 0.6% ( which is also under the MMP 5% threshold).

Single Transferable Vote (STV), in single member districts, as we have in New Zealand, is better than FPP, but not as proportional as MMP. Under this system candidates are ranked and the candidate with the lowest number of votes drops out and votes are reallocated among the remaining candidates and so on until a candidate gets the majority of votes. It is unclear whether this would lead to single party or coalition governments, but it would require a national top up to guarantee full proportionality between the larger parties.This system was rejected by the Royal Commission in 1986.

MMP is the better bet provided the proportion of list seats does not go below 40% - i.e. 48 seats in a house of 120. Currently under MMP it is 70/50.When discussing the choices between electoral systems, the discussion should not be which of the electoral systems - FPP, STV, MMP, SM etc – is preferable. Rather it should be whether one supports single party government or multi-party government – or whether one considers that the party with the most votes should get the most seats. Most supporters of single party government will probably prefer FPP. But when they realise that single party governments are less likely to do what the people want and are less likely to keep their promises, FPP support starts to diminish among those that value democratic ideals. Furthermore, as FPP was never designed for national elections it cannot guarantee that the party with the most votes will get the most seats. Indeed, in 1978 and 1981, the winning party, National, got more than half of the seats with less than half the vote. In 1981, National governed with just 38.8% of the vote. Had these elections been held under a Supplementary Member system (SM), with that vote, this would have still been the case.

There has been some discussion over recent years regarding the 1990 election. That year National got 67 seats for just 48% of the vote, and Labour got just 29 seats, as New Labour got the other one. That was more disproportionate than Labour’s 1972 result. That year Labour also won 48% of the vote but got 63% of the seats and Social Credit got its lowest ever election result (6.7%). Just three minor parties have since got a higher share of the party vote, all whom had leaders with parliamentary experience. Similarly, in 1951, the UK Labour Party lost the election despite outpolling the Conservatives and winning a majority of the popular vote. In 1974, Labour won the election despite the Conservatives gaining most of the votes. So FPP fails to ensure that the party with the most votes gets the most seats. FPP is not a fair system when 21% of the electorate can vote for one party and be represented by fewer than 2% of the members of parliament, as did Social Credit in 1981.

In fact, of four electoral systems - FPP, STV, SM, and Preferential Voting (PV), not one guarantees that the party with the most votes gets the most seats because some seats are allocated to parties who have not won them based on their share of the vote. The non-proportional preferential voting system maintains the basics of the Westminster system intact, but allows second-place votes to count towards determining the winner if no party wins more than fifty percent of the vote. FFP is likely to foster majoritarian extremes. Only MMP guarantees that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, and without these extremes.

While MMP makes it easier for a greater number of parties to enter parliament, it is not without problems. In the 2008 election, NZ First got more votes than Act, United Future and the Progressives combined, yet NZ First was out of Parliament because it failed to have its threshold effectively lowered by securing a constituency seat to gain representation. The others remained in Parliament purely because they did. All four parties- along with the Māori Party, polled less than the 5% threshold. Had the MMP threshold been 4%, NZ First would have relied on the threshold for their parliamentary existence, as would have the Christian Coalition when it gained 4.3% in 1996.

Open lists; or either lowering or removal of the threshold – which would prevent the situation where Act got fewer party votes than NZ First, who got no seats - is preferable to introducing a new electoral system such as SM. Also, as the population increases, this will lead to a greater number of electorate seats – and a fewer number of list seats, if the number of South Island electorate seats continues to be pegged at 16. Currently there are 52 list seats ( down from 55 in 1996) and 70 electorates (up from 65 in 1996) – including the seven Māori electorates which currently provide a two seat overhang.

But the fact remains: To the average voter, MMP, STV, FPP, PV and SM are not electoral systems, they are merely letters without much meaning. Prime Minister John Key has said that any change to the electoral system requires a major advertising campaign. "We can't ask people to make constitutional changes without understanding what the options are."

Politics is often seen as two sections: the left and the right. Act will go with National and the Greens with Labour. Many other PR systems are like this. New Zealand is different as we have centre parties that can go either way - United Future and even the Maori Party. So the left/right splits are not so relevant, as we have seen with New Zealand First when they held the balance of power in 1996, and chose National to govern when most thought Labour would have been picked.

There are a lot of matters on our electoral system options that need to be understood. The task of making sure any possible changes are understood will fall on the Electoral Commission.

More about →

Māori Party has a new president

The Māori Party has a new president. He is Pem Bird and was elected at the Māori Party conference. Bird beat Mereana Pitman, a former contender of the party's Ikaroa Rawhiti candidacy last election. Before the vote, Pitman told the conference that one of the reasons she was standing was to support Hone Harawira - who is campaigning against his colleague's deal on the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

She also said she did not trust Prime Minister John Key and did not support the Maori Party's coalition with National but that she would meet with and work with Key for the sake of the party.

Bird supports the replacement legislation of the Foreshore and Seabed.

The party now has to elect a vice president to replace Heta Kingston,. Kingston is a retired judge whose decision on the Ngati Apa foreshore and seabed claim in the Maori Land Court led to the Court of Appeal decision which led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which led to the Maori Party.

It will be interesting to see how the new leaders handle the Iwi Leaders Group.

More about →

Voting for MPs who speak for Māori

The Māori Party does not speak for all Māori any more than any other political party -apart from ACT, perhaps - speaks for non-Māori. Much is made of their polling of around 3% - yet those in the Māori electorate who support the Māori Party acknowledge that the electorate vote is the vote that counts in terms of getting Māori Party MPs in the House.

Unlike Lindsay Mitchell, I don’t consider that the Māori Party is pushing a separatist line, and should its vote drop, that NZ First will pick up the support. There may well be just as much extra support for the Greens as NZ First. Even if the Māori Party support does drop to 1% and most of the electorate vote holds, all it would mean that support of the Māori Party, in terms of getting seats in the house, holds. List votes will go to other parties, not necessarily to NZ First. In fact NZ First would probably get no more than 1000 extra votes per Māori electorate. In some Māori electorates, more voted Green than NZ First in the past three elections. The Māori Party normally gets at least three times as many votes as NZ First does in the Māori electorates, so more lists votes will go to other parties – probably Labour.

The Māori Party does speak for Māori. However that does not preclude the notion that its policies are for all New Zealanders – including Whanau Ora. Furthermore, the Greens (perhaps National even, without ACT influence) are more likely to speak for Maori than NZ First. It appears that most have forgotten that NZ First was the party that put forward a bill to delete the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from all legislation - including the Treaty of Waitangi Act.

More about →

Goff’s Nationhood speech

Rather than do an immediate post on Goff’s Nationhood speech, I thought I’d wait rather than attack Goff for a racist speech that Shane Jones vetted before delivery.

What Goff appeared to want to do is open up a split within the Māori Party at the same time as divide a wedge between the Māori Party and National. He wanted to play the race card, but in a non-racist way. His speech was not racist like Brash’s 2004 Nationhood speech, but Goff pulls on the same strings, articulating a latent belief that Māori were getting special treatment at the expense of other New Zealanders.

Goff may be correct in calling the emissions trading scheme a “shabby “political deal, (twice), but it is a bit rich saying that it will harm New Zealanders for generations to come when he has said that Labour will repeal the ETS when in power, thus minimising that harm.

Goff attacked John Keys leadership, saying it would lead to a country with "one New Zealander turned against another, Maori against Pakeha". Yet Labour has led the way on this. In addition, it has now withdrawn an offer to create enduring consensus over the Foreshore and Seabed legislation.

Perhaps Goff wants to see the Māori Party destroyed - hence the hope of engineering that destruction - as he sees it as the only way Labour can form a government in 2011. Like Helen Clark before him, he could well be willing to reopen wounds in race relations to gain power, and use the race card to expose any rifts between National the Māori Party as they appear, in the hope that NZ First will come back in 2011. And that is a real pity.

Sure, the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process should not be used as a basis for privileged treatment of certain iwi, thus causing disagreement among Māori - but Goff’s speech was not exactly about kotahitanga either. His unsubstantiated implication was that Key’s lack of criticism of Harawira’s mofo comments was because he wanted to get this “shabby political deal” enacted.

Goff’s comments that the Foreshore and Seabed legislation that deprived Māori to go to court was ‘working well’ is contrary to Labour’s submission to the Foreshore and Seabed Ministerial review. It’s a U-turn in Labour policy. Warning that repeal would make ‘wounds fester’ was a politically irresponsible statement to make, given that it was Labour who did the wounding that initiated the formation of the Māori Party.

Labour still sees the Māori Party as the last cab off the rank. Now that the party is bleeding supporters who are looking for another cab; will they go to a party that is happy to exercise wedge politics to open up a boiling pot in race relations, ask questions and demand change in Māori Party leadership, or be politically apathetic.

Goff, in trying to articulate concerns about emerging problems seems unable to offer practical solutions to problems in race relations and unfair treatment.

But that’s what is needed now. Extending a narrative to touch a nerve for short –term exposure is not going to do much. Labour needs a new leader - and quickly.

More about →

Interesting interview with Shane Jones on the ETS

Update And a fantastic speech as well. When is Shane Jones going to be the leader of the Labour Party?

More about →

Hone Harawira to stay with Maori Party

The Maori Party has announced that Hone Harawira is to stay with the Maori Party but be suspended from caucus for a while. I wonder if they`ll use his vote for the ETS legislation.

What we have is an MP who wants to stay with a party that passes legislation he doesn't agree with run by leadership aligned to a political party he doesn't like.

This is pure self-interest. Harawira doesn't listen to his party in terms of discipline, he doesn't listen to his constituents - whom he says he is answerable solely to - in terms of how he votes. So when he votes against his constituents wishes what do they do?

Nothing. What a bugger's muddle.

More about →

Harawira set to leave the Maori Party?

Maori Party president Whatarangi Winiata has proposed embattled Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira leave the Maori Party and become an independent MP..

This proposal was made at todays hui. Mainstream media outlets were barred from the hui.TVNZ's Te Karere and Maori TV's Te Kaea were granted entry, but only because it was felt they would cover proceedings with a positive slant and the Maori Party had reservations about the coverage they would get from the major news organisations.

Harawira's response: "It's the silliest idea I've heard. He wants to stay. They should kick him out now. It is a decision that was needed, not a proposal.

"Hone has said a number of times that he does not give a toss what anyone thinks except the people of Te Taitokerau, and his behaviour over the past couple of weeks has underlined that position," said Party President Professor Whatarangi Winiata.

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

"We require our MPs to work as a team, and Hone clearly has difficulty with this, given his words and deeds, which have had a devastating effect on his colleagues and the party as a whole.

"This situation will cause upset and anxiety for Maori Party supporters in Te Tai Tokerau, who may feel their loyalties to the party and their MP are now conflicted. We assure them that the Party will maintain a presence in the electorate,and we will be in contact in due course.

There was heated discussion at the hui, which wants to wait two weeks before deciding Harawira's fate. They should kick him out now, not wait two weeks. They've had the hui. Harawira will never be known for his achievements, but his foul language and his distaste for rules. But although it is looking likely that Harawira will stay with the party unless he is removed, it can well do without him.

The Human Rights Commission has now received 675 complaints and expressions of concern about Hone Harawira.

Pita Sharples has said he can't see how the caucus can work together with Harawira. What to do?

More about →

Maori Party leader disagrees with Race Relations Commissioner over Harawira e-mails

During the week Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres was careful to avoid saying that Hone Harawira's expletive-ridden email was abusive, because to do so would be an admission that Harawira had breached the Human Rights Act, which says

It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting

However, Tariana Turia disagrees with him, describing the e-mail as abusive.

I think that what was in the email was particularly distressing. There's no doubt that number one - nobody likes to be spoken to in that manner. No one likes abusive emails, least of all myself. So I have found that incredibly distressing.

So Turia thinks the email was abusive. Why doesn't Joris de Bres? For that matter whys doesn't Harawira's local electorate committee?

Ngahuia Kapa, the Te Tai Tokerau committee chairwoman, said the electorate supported Mr Harawira, but wanted to lay down three "conditions" to make sure a similar episode did not happen again.

Perhaps one of these conditions will be directed at the Maori Party leadership. There is a crack appearing between Harawira's electorate committee and the Maori Party leadership. The Maori Party leadership will not be at the hui today.

Update Pita Sharples unexpectedly attended the hui, turning up with president Whata Winiata. That's interesting, given that Turia said he wouldn't be attending.

More about →

Tariana Turia breaks her silence over Harawira

Maori Party leader Tariana Turia has finally broken her silence describing Hone Harawira's expletive filled e-mail as "unfortunate" "very distressing". But she has described his behaviour "unacceptable", and it is his behaviour that has done considerable damage to the Maori Party.

Tariana Turia usually chooses her words well. Unacceptable is a stronger word than distressing. This means that Harawira's filthy language around Parliament and outside of it is not unacceptable to the Maori Party, only very distressing if the public becomes aware of it.

updateThe Maori Party has received emails over the Harawira kerfuffle. Turia has described them, not as "unfortunate" or "distressing" but as "offensive" and "racist". Strange how Turia thinks Harawira's comments are not offensive or racist, just distressing and unfortunate.

It's high time the Maori Party formed a view that Harawira's filthy language is as unacceptable as his behaviour, whether the party considers he is provoked or not. Would it be appropriate to call Harawira a tero heihei, or will a little tutae be more apt?

More about →

The Rise of the Maori Party?

Marae has published the results of a poll done by Digipoll between 18 October and 3 November 2009. It is of 1,002 voters of Maori descent – 700 on the Maori roll, and 302 on the General roll. It is an endorsement of the Maori Party arrangement with National, although Maori voters would have preferred Cabinet posts for Maori Party ministers.

The poll reveals some pretty interesting stuff. I asked for and received a breakdown of the roll split,as this was not published, although I haven't got an electorate split in the Maori electorates. I was sure there would be an increase in support for the Maori Party in the Maori electorate at the expense of Labour. I was right; 62% of those on the Maori roll would vote the Maori Party, up from 27.4% at the election. That's a huge increase.

Furthermore, of Maori in the general electorates, 10.8% will vote National, up from 7.6% at the election - but take that with a grain of salt as there are only 23 votes in it, due to the 302 sample.

But look at Labour - it is way behind on 23.3%. On election night Labour got more than 50% of the vote in the Maori electorates. Labour's vote in the Maori electorates has reduced by more than half since the election. That's a staggering drop. For the first time in living memory Labour is not topping one question in a poll in the Maori electorates.

On election night nearly 55,980 voted the Maori Party, nearly 33,000 of those were in the Maori electorate. Now it looks more like 74,500 in the Maori electorate support the Maori Party. It is possible that the Maori Party could get more than 85,000 votes in an election - but they`ll still only have 5 MPs in Parliament, as all it will do is wipe the overhang by lowering the number of Labour MPs, while giving at least one extra list seat to National.

But while the deck chairs would not have changed in the Maori Party, this poll is also encouraging for the Maori Party. Why would National ditch the Maori seats on these figures?

In the general electorate, 42% of Maori indicated they'd vote National; just 33% would vote Labour, with 15% voting the Maori Party. Low numbers were polled, but it certainly shows a trend.

No wonder Hone Harawira's constituents want him to be within the Maori Party as a current MP.

More about →

Racism is a lawful freedom of expression

post has been updated

According to the Human Rights Commission [pdf], racism is a lawful freedom of expression under some circumstances, and Hone Harawira was within his rights to be racially offensive, because his comments were not insulting, abusive, or likely to bring contempt to any group.

This is despite quite a few people considering that Harawira's comments have brought contempt for a group called the Maori Party. Harawira implied that non-Maori have been raping the country and ripping Maori off for centuries, starting from colonisalism. Race Relations Commissioner Joris De Bres is known for comparing New Zealand's colonial history to cultural vandalism by the Taleban, for which the Human Rights Commission turned down complaints.Harawira's comments are no worse.

However, de Bres he thought the "cheeky darky" comments, earlier made about Kofi Annan by Paul Holmes were insulting and belittling. . He was very careful to say that the comments made by Hone Harawira were not insulting, abusive, or belittling - merely offensive. According to the Human Rights Commission guidelines, being offensive is not unlawful, When a public figure (such as a politician) or people in power that make comments that are racially offensive, there are other options, even though the statements may not be unlawful. These options do not extend to actions undertaken by the Human Rights Commission.

So it is fine to be offensive, but not insulting. It is within your freedom of expression to make offensive racist comments, and do so lawfully. Glad that's cleared up, then.

Dr Ranginui Walker on Breakfast this morning was adamant that Harawira's comments were not racist. But when asked if the same comments were to be directed at Maori, if that would be racist, he gave a big breath and said, "I'm not sure". Appalling.

More about →

Maori Party release statement on Harawira

The Maori Party has released a statement today, making it clear that it wants this business with Harawira cleared up, with him continuing as a Maori Party MP. A meeting will be held on Thursday and there`ll be no further comment until then.

These recent incidents are inconsistent with the standards of behaviour, the kaupapa and tikanga that our party is based on. We have asked Mr Harawira to consider a number of actions which we hope will address the offence that has been caused. Our intention is to resolve the current controversies concerning Mr Harawira, a creative, talented, intelligent and energetic person who has the potential to be a very effective politician for the Māori people and for the Nation.

Meanwhile Rodney Hide has released this unprecedented apology over his recent actions. Will Harawira do likewise? Only if he is told to, perhaps. He will be told to. Furthermore, as the electorate is the group that has the final say on whether Harawira remains an MP, the Maori Party will go to the electorate recommeding his retention and an apology. He will not be punished, just told to apologise, even though he is not sorry.

More about →

Harawira could quit

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira said that he might quit at the next election.

However he said he'd like to quit, not over his intemperate language and behaviour, but because National is too close to the Maori Party. Yet he can't stand Labour either. If he doesn't want to be in a party that seeks to be in power with either party, perhaps he should question why he desired to be an MP in the first place. Likewise, if Pita Sharples thinks that it is fine for Harawira to break rules like he does, he should think again.He said:

New Zealand has to weigh up the value of his intellect and his perception of issues as opposed to his odd rule breaking and that’s how it is.

I was told by someone in the Maori Party last night that had Harawira been a list MP, it is a strong possibility he would be gone ,as it would have been much easier to remove him. Harawira is not sorry for his language, he is only sorry if his e-mail "might have harmed the party". If harm is caused to the party, that is a breach of the constitution. Harawira is well aware of the Maori Party constitution - he is the co-author.

The Dominion Post reported that several supporters in his Te Tai Tokerau electorate are unhappy with the Maori Party's relationship with National. Yet last night Harawira's mother and other supporters said they were adamant that they wanted Harawira in parliament, and as a Maori Party MP. They just want the whole episode to go away and pretend it never happened.

Harawira is the Maori Party equivalent of former Green MP Sue Bradford - he disagrees with the direction of the party but as an electorate MP it is a different matter resigning from the Maori Party to stand as an independant as he will not be replaced. The government will have a majority of one. If Harawira resigns from Parliament, that will force a by-election, which could possibly go to Labour. But he won't.

If Harawira wants to utilise his talents he could always do something like this. He'd be good at it, too.

More about →

Harawira's e-mail

With reference to this post, this is the e-mail Hone Harawira sent to former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere.
From: Hone Harawira
Sent: Tuesday, 3 November 2009 10:38 p.m.
Subject: FW: Ae Marika - 03 November 2009 - Hone Harawira MP Te Tai Tokerau

Gee Buddy, do you believe that white man bullshit too do you?

White mother******* have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries, and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit.

I don't often respond to comments like this, but I will to you.

I put in shit loads of hours and bucketloads of energy in my commitment to advancing Maori, and I am happy to put my body, my freedom, and my personal credibility on the line for that cause.

And I don't do it because of the salary, or the political position I hold, or for any other reason than that I believe in fighting for Maori rights and I love doing what I do.

As far as my wife is concerned - I don't know what your relationship is with whomever, but my wife is my partner, my adviser, my critic, and my best friend, and she has marched with me, fought alongside me, suffered the hard times with me and stood by me for more than 35 years, so if I get the chance to take her with me as part of my role as an MP I will.

And quite frankly I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks about it.

OK?

Hone

PS and if you want to take this to the press, go right ahead. I answer to my people, not to them or to anybody else.

More about →

Maori Party about to kick Hone's butt

The Maori Party is very concerned that Hone Harawira's behaviour in Europe, and a subsequent email that he sent,are serious breaches of the kaupapa and tikanga of the party.Harawira skipped an important meeting in Brussels so he and his wife Hilda could spend a day in Paris.But he lied to Tariana Turia, telling her he didn't attend meetings because he was sick - all to get a day of fun in Paris. He paid for the extra travel himself.

Former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere emailed Harawira complaining about his actions.

"Gotta ask the question eh? Who's paying for [wife] Hilda? You're no better than that wanker Rodney Hide and the white mofos you complain about," Mikaere wrote, referring to Hide's actions in taking his partner on an overseas ministerial trip despite the Prime Minister John Key's direction against the practice. And get off your moral high horse while you're at it -- nobody forced you to be an MP."

Harawira wrote back starting his email; "Gee Buddy, do you believe that white man bullshit too do you? White motherf...ers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit."

Harawira then went on to say how much time and energy he put into fighting for Maori and what a big role his wife Hilda played in that."And quite frankly I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks about it. OK?

Party president Whata Winiata has emphasised high standards of integrity, and expects its members to be role models. He is concerned that Hone Harawira's language and behaviour fell short of "of expressing the party's kaupapa". But Hone's language and behaviour often falls short of expressing the party's kaupapa.

In an email I received from him some time ago, I was told "piss off arsehole". I forwarded the e-mail to party leaders who did nothing. For Hone this language is normal and is accepted by the Maori Party. So is his behaviour. That has to change. He is a disgrace to the Maori Party.

Also, his spending was easily double that of virtually every other MP, but says he could not care less about what people about that. He says his constituents are the only people he is answerable to.

More about →