Written By: - Date published: 12:10 pm, November 12th, 2008 - 69 comments
Categories: maori party, national/act government -
Tags: class
The New Zealand Herald has a telling story today about how the Maori Party’s decision over whether to prop up a right-wing National/ACT government “has exposed a schism between iwi elite views and ordinary Maori”.
Ordinary working class Maori who’ve felt the brunt of right-wing policies in the past are, unsurprisingly, not keen to sacrifice their whanau’s interests again, while those at the head of the new Maori business class who stand to gain from a National/ACT government are all for it.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, it merely exposes the fundamental contradiction in an identity-based party. Because while the Maori Party claims class isn’t an issue and that it can speak for all Maori, the simple fact is we live in a capitalist society where class is the defining political and economic divide.
There are times when the Maori Party will have to choose between backing the interests of the Maori working class or the interests of the Maori business elite. A common Maori identity is no use when one side wants a pay rise and the other wants to keep its profits; when one side wants a top-bracket tax cut and the other wants better public health and education.
We saw this contradiction when the Maori Party backed, then opposed, National’s 90 day fire at will bill. We saw it again when the Maori Party said it was for raising the minimum wage, then opposed an increase for workers on foreign fishing vessels. We will no doubt see a lot more of it in the weeks and months to come.
My concern is that in its pollyannish refusal to accept the reality of class the Maori Party will sell its people down the river on the false right-wing promise of ‘ambition’, and they won’t realise what they’ve done until it’s far too late.
Identity politics can be a dangerous thing.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
You’ve got to say that Key and the Nats aren’t wasting time.
Maori party happy with talks – NZH
I accept the issues raised and understand the sensitivities.
Being a pollyanna, I genuinely hope that this will be better for Maori and NZ.
“it’s class rhetoric.”
No class in general you saying there xy?
From that Herald report: “The hui were expected to be complete by Sunday”.
That’s pretty fast. Anyone else get the feeling that these hui won’t make the slightest difference to the outcome?
Winston Peters once said in a pre-election interview that when the Maori Party first got into parliament Pita Sharples rang him to ask his advice on who they should go with, maybe its time to give him another call. I somehow don’t think Winston was making this up then again Winston’s advice aint worth alot these days..
Ana’s point is correct.
The MP does not represent the majority of Maori let alone Maori workers.
Any sellout deal with NACT will alienate those Maori workers who did vote for them.
Key is presenting himself as ‘centrist’ and a natural ally to Maori.
But as Key’s real agenda begins to bite then the realities of class will make themselves felt.
Maori, Pakeha, Pacifica and Asian workers will have to overcome any ethnic barriers to unite as a working class to bring down this government.
Happy class struggle everyone.
Seems to me there are two seperate debates here and we are merging them together. Define class and how YOU measure it
There is no middle class Maori? Class system in Maori?????? In Asian society???? If I’m marketing 42 inch Plasma TVS??????
gobsmacked: The public see one thing only: the minor party goes with the government, or it doesn’t.
This is a good point – perception does equal electoral reality. However it’s a bit simplistic. If the MP manage to extract some good policy concessions when otherwise they might have been shut down, it might work out in their favour.
L
Well Scoop reckons that the entrenchment of Moari seats and the Forsehore and Seabed Act are on the table plus more than one ministerial position. As I said earlier, I thought the Maori seats would be a crucial consideration because there was the threat of National abolishing them. IMO this would be part of an offer the MP couldn’t refuse. It would win them some kudos with Maori generally. Ditto revisiting the Foreshore & Seabed Act. But still other compromises eg on class issues, could split Maori – that’s the danger.
Just a side issue. I don’t need a pay rise, I’ve just stopped buying the nanny herald. Saved myself at least $400 bucks and a lot of grief to boot. I don’t know why I supported that sorry saga for so long.
Another thing, has anyone noticed the good news on tv1 and 3 now? NZ best place to live, people coming back from Australia. We have lower tax’s, crime. Great weather. Interest rates down. More affordable housing all of a sudden. Canterbury farmers optimistic. Petrol coming down. NZ banking system robust. Great summer weather. Overseas financial crises impacting on NZ, suddenly due to overseas forces, not this government. Where’s the NZ sucks campaign now? Big money, don’t anyone be fooled; is still influential. Especially to all the dummy voters who are coerced, badgered, bribed and fooled. We need to get educating, both ourselves and others.
gobsmacked: “That’s pretty fast. Anyone else get the feeling that these hui won’t make the slightest difference to the outcome?”
Absolutely agree. Fast tracked is the way itll go, just like new developments under a ‘more streamlined’ RMA.
The iwi elite will give the MP the go ahead to sign themselves away. Id feel very disenfranchised with that bunch if I were Maori.
Word on the street has it that Tariana personally believes the only good that has ever come about for Maoridom is from National governments. It’s a very interesting take on history, probably formed after her bust up with Clark. It seems she’s looking back to the days of Doug Graham and the good things he did from within National – but she has to realise he was one person, and he’s gone. She could also smarten up and realise that the party that eliminates poverty has the biggest impact on Maori – it’s not about starting a kohanga or ramming a treaty deal through.
I don’t want to be a prophet of doom. It’s not about short-term party politics, it is in the interests of ALL of us (except right wing nutjobs) if the National party sees Maori as people to work with, not bash for cheap votes.
But I cannot see this working out. It’s not about the deal, on paper, as of now. That’s the easy part. It’s about making it stick.
The basic question for all minor parties doing a deal with the governing major party is:
What will you do when the government does something that you really dislike?
There is no point saying “it won’t happen”. It always has. It killed the Alliance (troops to Aghanistan), it almost killed NZ First with National (Wellington airport was just a pretext, the coalition was doomed after Shipley rolled Bolger). By the third go at MMP (2002), Clark had worked out that minor parties need to be able to vent. She was also lucky that she had malleable newbies in United Future who didn’t put up much resistance – but of course they had no ministerial roles either. Then after 2005 she gave Dunne & Peters so much latitude that the Foreign Minister even opposed a major foreign policy (China FTA). Will Key’s patience stretch that far? Will his supporters’?
The Maori Party may well get policy gains and portfolios. Good on ‘em for turning five seats into influence. But it’s not the positives, the bits they want to claim credit for, that make or break the MMP relationships – it’s the negatives. And unless John Key has completely neutered National (never mind ACT) there are going to be serious disagreements ahead.
You can only walk out once.
Chris G/Gobsmacked: Have you ever been to a hui with mÄori party MPs in attendance? I have. It’s not just about the elites, as you say – those discussions can take place behind closed doors. The hui is about talking to the ordinary folks who turn up to a marae on the day. Everyone with standing gets to talk. The mÄori party gets to listen, and then make decisions on the basis of the mandate they’ve been goven (which is partial, and they know it).
So while I’m more positive about the hui process and the mÄori party’s consultation, Gobsmacked is possibly right – there’s trouble ahead if they end up bound by collective responsibility and unable to criticise the government, or if they otherwise allow their hands to be tied. The coming years will be complicated and although John Key has proven himself a strong leader, I don’t think he’s strong enough to tell the redneck base (National’s own word for them) that they’re no longer wanted.
But rumours are that the deal is Foreshore and Seabed repealed, MÄori seats guaranteed (I’m not sure if this means entrenched), two ministerial positions and genuine policy influence. That’s a big slice o’ pie.
L
northpaw – you’re so misinformed and grammatically challenged its funny. CDO = collateralised debt obligation. In legal terms absolutely nothing different about a CDO versus any other financial instrument or indeed any other contract. And aside from NZ and Australia CDO’s weren’t sold directly to retail investors anywhere globally – they were an institutional investor only product, particularly in the US. And the biggest individual holders of these securities were insurance companies and investment banks. Thats why investment banks no longer exist. But this is off topic so sorry everyone else, but just to help you with your education I’ll email the site administrator a humourus presentation which will explain all. Hopefully he/she can post it for all to see.
Winston Peters was never bound by any form of collective responsibility – not even with respect to his Foreign Affairs portfolio (judging by some of the comments he made at various times).
And given there seems to be almost universal agreement from both left and right that :
a) MP collectively is way smarter than Winston , and
b) MP has collectively (and individually) way more integrity than Winston
I’m prepared to believe this is a good thing for wider NZ society that is being proposed. Engagement is always a better place to start than antagonism for the sake of it. They will always have the right to withdraw if they ever feel they are being used as a trojan horse by the business roundtable/ACT secret agenda. And the burden of proof to their constituents will always be high for the Maori Party when dealing with National.
It looks to me like a deal that will ne good for Maori in the long run, especially if it is a fairly low level confidence and supply aggreement, rather than one involving ministerial involvement.
It’s a pity tho it will be National that gets the credit fior it, when it is the result if a chain of events set in motion by racist dog-whistling within the National party. However, if Labour had tried to make deals on the Maori seats & the Forsehore & Seabed, there would have been a major right wing backlash against it. But, ultimately, I approve these gains for Maori, and realistically, it needed the right on-board for them to pass.
OTOH, the deal seems to be to protect, not entrench the Maori seats. Maori need to be protected against National abolishing the seats, but it falls short of entrenchment that Labour would have proposed.
Daveski just a few point to your first thread
Firstly National opposed the F & S Act because it did not go far enough. They wanted any reference to customary rights removed. National did achieve some major settlements with Maori, however it was labour which amended the act to allow historical claims…allowing such settlements, which were prohibited under the National legistlation. Kohanga Reo was and remains a great Maori achievement which neither major party should take credit for. Closing the gaps wasnt scrapped it was repackaged partly due to a Maori backlash!
The Maori Party is about to be tied to National and worse be associated with a range of detrimental policy about to be unleashed.
Mike E
Im not sure what a devolution of welfare to local level means. If that means that Iwi trusts administer say the dole or sickness benefits? I would be very very unhappy about having to front up, cap in hand to members of my whanaunga. Like most people, id prefer to maintain my privacy and anonymity in such circumstances and have the choice of who a share my personal circumstances with.
I think the MP has no choice but to do a deal with National over the Maori seats, otherwise they risk losing them totally. Revisiting the Foreshore and Seabed Act, underlies the whole reason for existance of the MP, so is understandable. But the changes that National wanted are strongly opposed to the changes the MP want. So any compromise needs to be scrutinised carefully.
I think the devolution of welfare to local areas should be considered. I understand it involves more than benefits, and people have pointed to Hone Harawira’s initiatives in Northland. It seems to involve provisions, eg health or education, being managed and delivered at a local level. The pros and cons need to be weighed up. It could provide a new model that has advantages, but I am not knowledgeable about the details.
The ministerial positions seem to me to be a step too far, and could cost the MP amongst it’s lower socio-economic supporters. But, if Key manages it well, maybe it will bring him a lot of Maori support? But how will this impact on the more conservative elements on the right? Or will they just shift their support to ACT?
There are some possibilities of gain from the deal for both Maori, and those who want the government to remain near the centre. But there are also some dangers for the least powerful Maori people and New Zealanders in general.
Carol: The Foreshore and Seabed is an interesting case, because it’s a gamble. The mÄori party just want the right to test claims in court – due process of law. You’re right in saying the Nats objected to the act because it didn’t go far enough, so if the Nats will repeal the F&SA in order to allow them to test those claims, they must be quite confident those claims will fail – because once a claim is upheld there’ll be no legislating it down. For their side, the mÄori party must be quite confident the claims will prevail – as Derek Fox said when debating Parekura, `if we lose, we lose, that’s how the courts work.
The danger is if the claims are not upheld, and then National pass their own version of F&SA which is even more draconian.
L
“But rumours are that the deal is Foreshore and Seabed repealed, MÄori seats guaranteed (I’m not sure if this means entrenched), two ministerial positions and genuine policy influence. That’s a big slice o’ pie.”
Big slice alright, possible to upset Act you think?
“But rumours are that the deal is Foreshore and Seabed repealed, MÄori seats guaranteed (I’m not sure if this means entrenched), two ministerial positions and genuine policy influence. That’s a big slice o’ pie.”
Big slice alright, possible to upset Act you think?
No, ACT support both the repeal of the F&SA and the entrenchment of the MÄori seats.
ACT believes the F&SA was unjust because it denied claimants their day in court – it opposed the idea of the government nationalising the F&S and would therefore support the repeal to allow the claimants to have their claim heard. (What happens if the claim is not upheld is the complicated bit).
In one of the leaders’ debates (I forget which) Rodney Hide said he supported the entrenchment of the MÄori seats for the same reason – they should have the same protection in law as other electorate seats. (what happens if they are entrenched and NZ is stuck with them is the complicated bit.)
I wonder how many conservative right-wingers who vote ACT because they think of them as `like National only righter’ realise this.
L
gomango – 13/11 — 8.05a.m.
another note left by jo was “gomango – don’t know if short for ‘go-man-go’ or go mango. Do know lacks patience, displays know-all and prefers insult to inquiry..”
You wrote: northpaw – you’re so misinformed and grammatically challenged its funny. CDO = collateralised debt obligation. In legal terms absolutely nothing different about a CDO versus any other financial instrument or indeed any other contract.
Which pretty much fits jo’s take…
I respond: you’ve gotten your CDO and I’ve gotten mine — how long has yours been going on..? Serious question.
Helpful hint: what was yours known as before your definition..? In what forms was it formulated and trialed..? To whom..?
Retail..? In your language I’d have to say that either you did not read my full comment above, else did not comprehend. Retail—first mention was yours.
But yes, my metaphor was aimed at minds capable of taking it up and on.. plainly this does not apply to you.
… it occurs to me I’ve left out the bit about it being not as simple as that.
ACT would probably support the repeal of the F&SA, but would lobby hard for alternative legislation giving anyone the right to challenge for ownership of the coast – not just in the MÄori Land Court as before the F&SA.
So it’s still a matter of being careful what one wishes for.
L
As an officially designated hater and wrecker, I’ll be glad to see, but nervous about, the F and S issue up before the courts.
Will it go straight to the supremes or will it start out in say, Nelson District court? Or will it’s historical nature mean it goes to the privvy in Pommyland. Anyone know? And will repealing the FandS Act make it like it was never passed, or will that be something the court would be looking at as evidence one way or t’other?
How ever it plays out, it’ll be tense.
PB: As I understand, it starts in the MLC because that’s the lowest court Sian Elias (in the Court of Appeal) ruled had jurisdiction (the High Court also seems to have jurisdiction which is circumscribed by the F&SA too). Absent the act, if a case failed in the MLC it could in principle be appealed through the usual channels. So yeah, it could end up in the SCONZ but I don’t expect that’d be the first stop on that particular magical mystery tour.
L
Lew – forgive my ignorance but how does one get ‘standing’ to speak at a hui? Can anyone speak?
Tigger: Well, anyone can physically talk, but to address the meeting you need to observe the protocols of the hui, which vary from marae to marae and from hui to hui. By saying the hui are open to their supporters, the mÄori party are sending a fairly strong signal.
L
The hui is about talking to the ordinary folks who turn up to a marae on the day.
Correct the media if they are wrong but I heard these huis are for MP supporters NOT the Maori people just to turn up!!!
That seems to be the story anyway, anyone been?
Lampie: By which I meant it’s not just a forum for the so-called MÄori Business Elite to rubberstamp the `Hori Tory’ plan, as it’s being called.
L
Lampie: By which I meant it’s not just a forum for the so-called MÄori Business Elite to rubberstamp the `Hori Tory’ plan, as it’s being called.
Appreciate that Lew, seems one or two media are reporting that these huis are attended by MP people rather than say all Maori representation as you suggest it should be. Perhaps this is not truely representing all Maori interests???
Surely there is a problem even in quantifying Maori views when sadly Maori turnout at elections is low with the Maori seat turnout barely over 50%.
Lampie/GC: Representation and mandate are complicated and they don’t always seem fair. John Key represents NZ, although only 45% of electors voted for his party. Yes, the mandate the mÄori party claim isn’t rock-solid – their result was not as decisive as they’d have liked, and low turnout is also a problem. But people who don’t vote get the sort of representation they deserve – that is, the sort of representation everyone else wants. Ultimately the meaning of winning an electorate is that you represent its electors in parliament, and that’s what they’ll do over the coming years.
L
Yeah, bite you in the arse hmmmm interesting