Written By: - Date published: 7:42 am, May 7th, 2008 - 40 comments
Categories: interview, maori party -
Tags: interview, Interview the Leaders, Maori seats, Tariana Turia
We’re very pleased to have Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia respond to your questions as part of our Interview the Leaders series.
Question to all leaders:
Of which of your achievements in politics are you most proud?
I am most proud of having played a part in the creation of a movement which has given our people an independent voice in Parliament. Any achievements I may lay claim to are really the achievements of many people over a long time. The photographs of Maori politicians which adorn the walls outside our offices remind us every day that we, the current Maori members of parliament, are part of a movement which started with them, way back in 1868. We owe them so much, those early Maori politicians who paved the way; we know they did the best they could in a political environment that was hostile to Maori.
The dam-burst and outpouring of political commitment and grass-roots involvement by tangata whenua that led to the creation of the Maori Party is a further development in the political maturation of our democracy.
As we say in the Maori world “Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini” which in this context is interpreted as meaning. “Mine are not the achievements of the individual but the achievements of the many”
From reader “higherstandard”: Can you envisage a NZ when there is no need for Maori seats in parliament?
Our position is crystal clear. The Maori seats are here to stay until our people decide otherwise.
On the wider question of Maori representation, it is important to note that the four Maori seats were created in 1867 to limit the political influence of Maori who would otherwise have been entitled to 14-16 seats in the parliament of 76. The term “European seats” finally ceased to be used in 1975.
Maori MPs in other political parties cannot claim to be the authentic and independent Maori voice in the Parliament. They are the Maori voices of Labour, National, Greens and New Zealand First who are bound by party whips to expound the views of their Parties, not of Maori.
With the advent of the Maori Party, as an authentic and independent Maori voice in Parliament, we aim to increase Maori participation in the democratic processes of Aotearoa.
The Royal Commission into the Electoral System thought the emergence of a Maori Party might make separate Maori seats unnecessary. But tangata whenua opposed that idea, arguing successfully that the seats had come to represent the voice of the Treaty partner, and a guaranteed Maori voice in Parliament, as a constitutional matter, should not be subject to the vagaries of political choices.
The Maori Party is keen to discuss constitutional arrangements tailored for Aotearoa/New Zealand, which may include the creation of a Parliamentary Tikanga Maori House alongside a Parliamentary Tikanga Pakeha House – to recognise the bicultural roots of the Nation envisaged by the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.
Treaty Settlements and the Maori seats should not be linked, one is about justice, the other about democratic participation.
From reader “Daveo”: Having an ethnic-based party makes a lot of sense when faced with a dominant settler majority often hostile to indigenous rights, but how do you intend to address the fundamental economic and class contradictions inherent in drawing support from both powerful Maori business interests and the large Maori working class?
The Maori Party is not ethnic-based, except that our kaupapa, or guiding principles and values, are drawn from tikanga Maori:
None of the above lend themselves to the western non indigenous political commentary and analysis of binary opposites implicit in Daveo’s query. We do not necessarily buy into the contradictions others do and then use those contradictions as a basis for forming relationships. We appeal to Maori on the basis of an independent Maori voice in Parliament regardless of economic status. Many people from many diverse cultures endorse the values espoused by the Maori Party. The fundamental principles of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga and kaitiakitanga will determine the nature of the relationship with all our people.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“My preliminary research indicates these sorts of problems apply more or less equally to the maori party”
In terms of the amount of coverage they receive, would they get any less than other parties of comparable size? My general impression is that their members are regularly sought for comment in print & on tv/radio. If anything, they seem to have a relatively high profile for a party with 4 seats?
“I don’t buy into this theory of anti-racist backlash. I’m not really talking about the specific things commentators say in response to maori party issues, but the overall ways in which the issues are handled. ”
I don’t know if you call it “anti-racist backlash” or simply reverse racism. Whatever it is, it seems that a maori party member can make a comment on race & reporters/commentators will not blink an eyelid, but if a white policitian says the equivalent, there is an outcry. Look at the reaction to Turia’s comments on immigration against the reaction to Peter Brown’s comments. I think the media were a lot more critical of Brown. It’s as though it is acceptable (in fact expected) that maori party members would be racially biased.
Ben R – I can see what you’re saying from an anecdotal perspective. It took Turia (or whoever it was) to call the Land Wars akin to the Holocaust before she got a seriously negative reaction. (If my facts are wrong, my apologies; though it might just serve to illustrate the fragility of anecdotes, but that is my perception of the MP take on race issues – they never seemed to be called on it).
Ben: Minor parties can be relied upon to garner more than their proportion of coverage on the basis of pure representation. I haven’t done any quantitative, but my instinct is that the maori party do get a bit more media time than other minor parties, but nowhere near as much as the Greens, for instance.
Not getting into the debate as to whose pronouncements on immigration were worse (i’m not very familiar with them), I’d just note that `reverse racism’ is essentially a propaganda term. It’s like `forward slash’ and `back slash’ on your keyboard: there is no forward slash, only slash. There is no reverse racism, it’s racism whichever way you slice it.
But Pakeha in NZ are notoriously quick to cry `OMG racism!’ when they perceive it as it emanating from anyone other than them. Read Tim McCreanor & Ray Nairn’s research on Pakeha reactions to the Haka Party incident if you want an insight into this.
L
Captcha: `Emigration 29′. Heh.
rOb: not sure if this got answered. This all recollection.
The origional provincial electoral franchises were based on property – something in the order of “male and owning x pounds of property”. This lasted until about 1880 when the property requirements were removed.
The problem was that maori owned property in common as part of the hapu/iwi – not as individuals. So they couldn’t fufill the property requirement, despite ‘owning’ more than sufficent land. So 4 seats were set aside that did not have the property requirement.
There has been discussion ever since about equivalences. Think about it. In the european population is you owned x pounds of property you could vote, less then you couldn’t. That meant that there was a proportion of ‘wasted’ property. Of course it would have been difficult to figure out that wastage factor for maori.
Those 4 maori seats were retained even after the 1880(?) reforms. That went through the maori dieback (mainly disease) and resurgance in population.
I think thay remained 4 seats up until the 1996 election(?) when they became proportional to the population enrolling on the maori roll.
Why am I saying all this – try this wikipedia article
captcha: yelling and
sounds like this comment stream
AG, many thanks, very interesting, and fills a gap (I have far too many) in my understanding of our history.