Just another sell-out

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, August 27th, 2012 - 130 comments
Categories: maori party, national, privatisation - Tags:

The Maori Party is meeting with National to discuss the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on water and asset sales today. Notice how no-one’s saying ‘will they walk if the Nats ignore the Tribunal and proceed to breach the Treaty?’ That’s what happens when you cry wolf then sell out time after time. Everyone knows Turia wants her comfy limo seat more than anything else.

130 comments on “Just another sell-out ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Glg 1
    27 August 2012 at 7:11 am

    I admired Tariana when she stood by her principles and left Labour. But to watch the Maori Party roll over time and time again for the Nats is just sickening. Maybe she’s just too old to fight any more.

    • Tracey 1.1
      27 August 2012 at 7:35 am

      +1

      The principle is the same. What is absent is the personal animosity toward Labour Ms Turia cannot let go. I understood she was unwell, hence no comment this weekend…

    • Carol 1.2
      27 August 2012 at 7:39 am

      +1 (except for the too old bit). And I also had more respect for Sharples than I do now. He seemed like a strong and down-to-earth voice for Maori. Now he just looks weak.

      And the Herald this morning is positioning the Maori Party as the conciliators – that will negotiate between the “freshwater iwi leaders group” that apparently want to continue discussing the issues directly with the government, and the Maori Council that reserves the right to go to court to sort out the water rights issue. Audrey Young is talking this up as a split within Maori.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10829714

      But Turia is ill and so that looks likely to delay the meeting between Key and the Maori Party.

      • Dr Terry 1.2.1
        27 August 2012 at 11:04 am

        Should this be a division in Maori opinion, the Nat’s will very quickly take advantage of it. I expect the Maori Party members to emerge from meeting with Key, all wreathed in smiles and good will (as usual). He enchants them many times.

        • the pink postman 1.2.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 3:18 pm

          Of course they will DrT.The so called Maori Party is the Brown National Party.The Brown Round Table. They have no interest at all in the welfare of working underpaid Maori people.They are a disgrace but worse still a disapointment .

  2. Adele 2
    27 August 2012 at 7:35 am

    Everyone knows Turia wants her comfy limo seat more than anything else

    The above is a complete bullshit line. Absolute fricking garbage. I personally don’t like the Māori Party because they are too ‘soft’ on hard issues but to accuse Tariana of being impressed with the baubles, beads and blankets of office to the detriment of her people is just a big maunga of manure.

    Why the fuck should the Māori Party play the game as you wish. The whities continue to treat Maori aspirations as simply an extension of their own. The Maoris should do this and they should do that for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

    Remember, the reason we have a Maori Party is because NZers did not give a fuck about Maori rights or aspirations. NZers do not give a fuck about the Treaty or Māori treaty rights. But now we have all these other people jumping on the Treaty rights issues to further their own interests – but the horis aren’t playing the ball properly, by their reckoning. Well, all I can to say to that is – why not go and play with your own balls.

    Focus your attentions on that bastion of stupidity – the Labour Party. A huge sloppy ballsack worthy of kicking to the kerb

    • Tracey 2.1
      27 August 2012 at 7:37 am

      You make some good points which also apply to the National Party, remember they wanted the seabed and foreshore to be tougher on Maori than Labour. It’s this short term memory and selective principles that upsets some people regarding Ms Turia, not her personally. Beware becoming a National Party apologist.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2
      27 August 2012 at 7:47 am

      So she walked out on Labour , but hasnt walked out on National , twice folding over core issues. Her party is heading for extinction when she goes. Its just now a personal vehicle for her own aspirations, no different than Rodney Hide or peter Dunne

      • marty mars 2.2.1
        27 August 2012 at 8:47 am

        she set up a brand new political party from scratch when she was shat on by labour – that’s history and although that party has not gone in the direction I and many others wanted it has germinated another party that is more aligned with my values

        that legacy is stronger than any loser labour mp in the house and probably most who have left IMO

        a mana wahine in a patriarchcal environment full of backstabbing friends and frontstabbing enemies – her legacy with her people is safe.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 9:03 am

          Hone , was expelled from the Maori party solely to keep the National partys conservative voters happy.
          Turia and Sharples were the glove puppets of Key and Joyce in this action.

          • marty mars 2.2.1.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 9:34 am

            did it work?

            You may have heard about a new party – it is interested in equality, social justice and supporting the disadvantaged in society – labour doesn’t like it because it shows them up for the pretendgnats they really are, lots of fake lefties don’t like it because it confronts their privilege and they fucken love that advantage and will fight hard to maintain it.

            will it work?

            Hope so.

            • Carol 2.2.1.1.1.1
              27 August 2012 at 10:07 am

              I hope so, too mm. But as I see it, new parties start off with high ideals, then as they gain ground they back off from those ideals.

              I also have some concerns about Hone’s self-admitted “social conservatism”. Though kudos to him for owning up to it, and for being willing to be guided by others in his party who may not be so socially conservative.

              • Tracey …
                27 August 2012 at 10:51 am

                +1

                As long as it’s about MP giving the two fingered salute to Labour (which it’s well entitled to do due to the ridiculousness of the Seabed/Foreshore travesty), sitting by while the right trample rights and mana isn’t going to advance the maori people. It’s another version of the lack of “trickle down” promised by such Iwi as Ngai Tahu… The rich got richer in the Maori version of asset administration too

                • marty mars …
                  27 August 2012 at 11:06 am

                  what exactly would you know about Ngāi Tahu? Your lines appear to be slogans or have you some evidence to present.

                  • Tracey …
                    27 August 2012 at 11:17 am

                    You first, proof for this “labour doesn’t like it because it shows them up for the pretendgnats they really are, lots of fake lefties don’t like it because it confronts their privilege”? You might want to use a capital “L” otherwise it appears you are referring to everyone who labours for a living.

                  • Tracey …
                    27 August 2012 at 11:35 am

                    You insist? Insist all you like. You made the first assertion, then pushed me for proof. You prove yours first, then I will provide something for my assertion.

                    As for politeness, do youmean like this?

                    “lots of fake lefties don’t like it because it confronts their privilege and they fucken love that advantage and will fight hard to maintain it.”

                    • marty mars …
                      27 August 2012 at 11:41 am

                      well I asked you a question based upon what you had written and instead of replying to my question you asked me a question about something I had written – see the problem there?

                      if you see yourself as a fake leftie that is your problem

                  • Tracey …
                    27 August 2012 at 11:44 am

                    I see the problem, you can offer rude opinions with no factual basis using bad language but others have to prove everything they write.

                    Are you really Pee Wee Herman?

                    • marty mars …
                      27 August 2012 at 12:53 pm

                      sitting by while the right trample rights and mana isn’t going to advance the maori people. It’s another version of the lack of “trickle down” promised by such Iwi as Ngai Tahu…

                      That is what you wrote denigrating over 50,000 iwi members

                      zero

                      and that is your evidence.

                      and please save your personal insults for someone else

                  • Tracey …
                    27 August 2012 at 1:43 pm

                    you forgot to say ” I know you are but what am I”.

                    • marty mars …
                      27 August 2012 at 1:57 pm

                      if the reply button isn’t there go up to the last reply button and it will put your comment after the last comment in that thread

                      and sorry for getting up your nose with my comments. Many people have the view you expressed – your comment was just a mote in my eye.

                    • Tracey …
                      27 August 2012 at 2:02 pm

                      Marty, I have no problem being challenged by you, and indeed, it sent me off reading about Ngai Tahu and their use of treaty settlements HOWEVER you were the one who stooped to poor language and name-calling not me and without evidence you then asked me for proof. THAT is what I was calling you out on.

                      Thanks for the tip when there is no reply button

                • weka …
                  27 August 2012 at 11:58 am

                  ” It’s another version of the lack of “trickle down” promised by such Iwi as Ngai Tahu… The rich got richer in the Maori version of asset administration too”

                  Tracey, I too would like to know what you know about Kai Tahu. It is true that they have been very successful at emulating the pakeha greed model in some respects, but it’s simply not true to say that nga tangata have not benefited at all. Have you actually looked at what the iwi does for its people and how management of its resources funds that?

                  I’m not saying they are perfect (there are some things that I find alarming), but here’s the rub:

                  After 150 years, pakeha society (or the Crown if you like) forced Kai Tahu into a corporate model with the treaty settlement. This over time puts them on a kind of even playing field with the rest of NZ for the first time. Why should they not take advantage of the way NZ works for the most part, given they’ve been forced on to the back foot for all this time? It’s unfair, unkind, and ungenerous at this time to expect iwi to be working at a higher ethical standard than the rest of us.

                  By all means criticise specific actions and structures of Kai Tahu once you have an inside understanding of them, but to condemn them as a people overall is extremely rude/arrogant and IMO ignorant. It’s also insulting to all the amazing work various people have managed to do within the constraints of treaty settlement structures.

              • Murray Olsen …
                27 August 2012 at 1:26 pm

                I’m not that worried at all about Hone’s “social conservatism”. His focus is on food, housing, education, and jobs, which are all absolute necessities. From what I’ve seen, he doesn’t seek to run Mana in a dictatorial way, therefore the more socially liberal politics will depend on the rest of the party. I much prefer a politician who might feel slightly uncomfortable about the sexuality of a beneficiary painting his roof, but still organise some means to help, than about one who wants to take the guy’s benefit away out of some sense of fairness to his redneck neighbour.

                • idlegus …
                  27 August 2012 at 1:53 pm

                  great comment, summing up. thank you.

                • Carol …
                  27 August 2012 at 2:40 pm

                  Murray, I like your re-working of the beneficiary on the roof from a Mana perspective. I’d go for that over the Normanisation of the Green Party.

                  However, I’m cautious about all (so-called) left parties, and will re-consider which I prefer come the next election, looking at the last couple of years’ record for each.

                  It’s sad that the organised left has become so suspect.

            • fnjckg 2.2.1.1.1.2
              27 August 2012 at 1:04 pm

              Like

    • North 2.3
      27 August 2012 at 8:19 am

      There are some Maori whose primary focus is self promotion and comfort. There are some Pakeha and some Pacific Islanders the same. There are many Parliamentarians the same.

      I wonder why I hear the names Pita and Tariana met with less and less reverence in Maori community ?

    • marty mars 2.4
      27 August 2012 at 8:23 am

      tautoko – plus nice summing up of deadbeat labour

    • vto 2.5
      27 August 2012 at 8:26 am

      Sheesh Adele, isn’t it about time you found something other than male genatalia for ‘enhancing’ your posts?

      • Adele 2.5.1
        27 August 2012 at 8:46 am

        VTO

        Are you missing the attention?

        • Carol 2.5.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 9:01 am

          Curiously, when I tried to link directly to this comment by Adele, I got this post:

          http://thestandard.org.nz/helen-clark-answers-your-questions/#comment-

          Is The Standard (yes the technological apparatus that it is, not any one person) trying to tell me something?

          • just saying 2.5.1.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 9:03 am

            snap.
            I had a read.
            It must be trying to tell us something……..

          • lprent 2.5.1.1.2
            27 August 2012 at 11:08 am

            I was fiddling with the get_comment_link trying to get rid of the /comment-page-1/#comment-number. Worked ok on the test system (except on the sidebar – which I missed). Seemed to have issues on the live system.

            Reverted now…. I’ll check the live theme against the version in subversion this evening, and use rsync to make sure that the test and actual systems are exactly the same.

        • vto 2.5.1.2
          27 August 2012 at 9:04 am

          ha ha, that made me laugh. I do miss our robust conversations though – perhaps sometime again soon…

    • just saying 2.6
      27 August 2012 at 8:28 am

      Well said Adele, with the caveat that Labour is not the only bastion of stupidity in Parliament. However it is the biggest problem for the broad left, so maybe it is fair to single it out from National and National’s other natural allies.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 2.7
      27 August 2012 at 9:21 am

      I don’t think the MP MPs have sold out. They’ve just drunk the neo-liberal privatisation kool-aid. As such they are probably “representative” of a percentage of tangata whenua.

    • Polish Pride 2.8
      27 August 2012 at 10:40 am

      No Adelle the reason we have the Maori Party is because of the need to ‘Own’ in the current system. In particular the beach. For years the beach was everyones to use and enjoy. If their was one area that hadn’t been touched by the concept of ownership it was the beaches and that was fantastic. Unfortunately Maori, in fighting for their rights under the treaty, in a European system of ownership have now all but fully embraced this very flawed way of thinking. This in my personal opinion has been to the deteriment of one of the most beautiful and harminious parts of the Maori culture.. That Maori did not consider themselves owners of anything. More that they belonged to Rangi and Papa and were custodians of them.
      We have treaty settlements which are in effect (as put to me perfectly by an elderly Maori gentleman) where the pakeha has stolen your car and come back to say “hey look, we are sorry about that, here’s your spare tyre and thanks for being so good about it.
      But in my view it is more about giving significant sums of cash so that Maori are then locked into the system of ownership. They then use the money to consume and own and perpetuate the system. Under any system like this you will have the ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have nots’ and this can be seen in tribes that have received payouts. You have those that manage the funds on six figure salaries and you have many in the tribe living below the poverty line that have no say in what is done with the money and have seen no benefit at all.

      But the important thing is that Maori have bought into and are locked into the system. The Maori Party is a shining example of this.
      Is it right – not in my opinion.
      Are there better ways – yes
      I only hope Maori do not forget what was originally taught in place of ownership in their culture as I believe a time is coming where this way of thinking will trump ownership and be more important than ever.

    • weka 2.9
      27 August 2012 at 12:13 pm

      “Everyone knows Turia wants her comfy limo seat more than anything else”
       

      I’m also sick of seeing this line. Personally, despite being very disappointed in Turia, I still believe that she has the interests of her people at heart. Just because her actions don’t suit the left, doesn’t mean she is not genuinely trying to do what she thinks is best. I find the idea that she would trade her people for limo perks ludicrous.
       
      I also think the comfy limo trope is sloppy, lazy thinking. It doesn’t advance anything useful in terms of understanding Maori nor the relationship between Maori and non-Maori. Note that the trope gets used almost exclusively in reference to Maori MPs.

  3. Adele 3
    27 August 2012 at 8:01 am

    The Māori Party is only answerable to its constituency – and as far as I am aware the constituency has continued to say ‘stay.’

    Historically, Māori interests have been progressed more under National led governments than under Labour even though, up to recent times, Māori have always strongly supported Labour.

    • felix 3.1
      27 August 2012 at 8:34 am

      “The Māori Party is only answerable to its constituency – and as far as I am aware the constituency has continued to say ‘stay.’ “

      lolz whatevs, in 2011 they said it a lot more quietly and in far fewer numbers than in 2008. Ipredict that in 2014 they’ll be saying fuck right off, if not sooner.

      • just saying 3.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 8:40 am

        …they’ll be saying fuck right off, if not sooner….

        Speaking of which, has ipredict started a book on the Key calling a snap election in the next 12 months? Cos I’d take a bit of that action….

        • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 10:19 am

          They’ve had stocks on this for a while now:
          – Next election in 2012
          – Next election in 2013
          – Next election in 2014
          – Next election in 2015 or later

          Also a bundle of stocks for picking the quarter of 2014.

      • Anne 3.1.2
        27 August 2012 at 2:54 pm

        in 2011 they said it a lot more quietly and in far fewer numbers than in 2008. Ipredict that in 2014 they’ll be saying fuck right off, if not sooner.

        +1

    • North 3.2
      27 August 2012 at 8:39 am

      Yeah, they were huge hui back in 2008 when Maori were consulted about going with National. How many people were consulted, several dozen, a few hundred ?

      The Maori Party can’t lay claim to representation of Maori generally. Five seats 2008, three seats 2011. 77,000 electorate candidate votes 2008, 34,000 in 2011.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.3
      27 August 2012 at 9:23 am

      “Māori interests have been progressed more under National led governments…”

      Like the unemployment rate, for example? Perhaps your observation is true for Māori business interests.

      • Carol 3.3.1
        27 August 2012 at 9:28 am

        It’s my understanding that the Labour Party have often supported improvement of things for Maori and influenced the dominant discourse in a positive direction.

        The National Party have tended to pick up on this once general attitudes have become more positive. The Nats have then incorporated some relevant changes in law, in a moderate way that is acceptable to the majority of Pakeha, while falling short of the original aims of the tangata whenua. Often this is done in a way that maintains the underlying dominance of the Pakeha elites.

        • marty mars 3.3.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 9:52 am

          Often this is done in a way that maintains the underlying dominance of the Pakeha elites.

          sadly carol both those parties do this, barely any difference whatsoever.

          When was the treaty signed?
          When did equality for the treaty partners occur?
          Oh dear – when will it occur?
          Oh dear again – will it occur?

          • Carol 3.3.1.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 10:03 am

            sadly carol both those parties do this,

            Agreed, marty mars. I would say while they are similar, Labour does do slightly more for the less well-off and marginalised from all ethnic backgrounds, than does National.

            Anyone who is critical of Labour on these grounds should also be a bit more critical of National, not say they do more for Maori.

            I was disappointed when the Clark government backed off from the “closing the gaps” policy, and stopped voting for the Labour Party altogether with their handling of the foreshore and seabed issue.

      • Adele 3.3.2
        27 August 2012 at 10:16 am

        Kotahi

        The unemployment rate arrived with the notion of employment. When Māori were ripped from their economic base (the land) they then had to find ’employment’ aka to become slaves to an economic system that would always keep them enslaved.

        170 years of working for the man for what exactly? So that the likes of you can pontificate on how Labour has fought for the rights of Māori to clean its toilets, to mop its floors, to mend its roads to redemption.

        Of course you may argue that its the fault of Māori for being so ‘unskilled.’ Yet when we get jobs as business leaders, academics, doctors, lawyers, engineers etc we transmorph into this other native creature ‘the brown elite.’

        If successive Labour and National governments had just honoured the Treaty than Māori wouldn’t have had to depend on working for others, benefits, or Australia.

        • Lanthanide 3.3.2.1
          27 August 2012 at 10:27 am

          “If successive Labour and National governments had just honoured the Treaty than Māori wouldn’t have had to depend on working for others, benefits, or Australia.”

          In essence this sounds to me like you’re saying Maori shouldn’t have to pay taxes. If they didn’t have to pay taxes, they wouldn’t “need” to work – that’s ultimately the reason anyone “needs” money. One could then presume that the Maori that chose not to work would go back to living off the land like they used to and voluntarily give up all modern advances brought to this country (like health care and ready access to food and shelter).

          Ultimately that seems like a situation that would devolve into more “us and them” than it has now.

          • Adele 3.3.2.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 11:02 am

            Lanthanide

            In essence it means that if the Treaty had been honoured to its fullest extent – than Māori would have equal status in this country economically,socially, politically and morally. The situation today wouldn’t be so overwhelmingly lopsided in favour of the coloniser.

            And in terms of your dogwhistle to imperialism. We had our own systems of health and were pretty okay with the food and shelter thing too. Our race is as old as yours and was doing quite nicely without colonising interventions. In fact our greatest loss of life was through introduced diseases and weaponry.

            If you could guarantee the return of all the lands that were misappropriated, stolen, and confiscated, I am fairly sure a majority of Māori would give up their teevees, motokas and takeaways for the privilege of standing once again on their whenua.

            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.3.2.1.1.1
              27 August 2012 at 11:07 am

              Who knows what they would do? If Māori had more power of self-determination I don’t think it would be anyone else’s business, and that has to be “a good thing.”

            • Lanthanide 3.3.2.1.1.2
              27 August 2012 at 11:21 am

              “And in terms of your dogwhistle to imperialism.”

              No, just trying to sort out what you’re actually saying.

              “If you could guarantee the return of all the lands that were misappropriated, stolen, and confiscated, I am fairly sure a majority of Māori would give up their teevees, motokas and takeaways for the privilege of standing once again on their whenua.”

              I guess we’ll never really know if this would be the case or not.

            • Polish Pride 3.3.2.1.1.3
              27 August 2012 at 1:16 pm

              Adelle – out of curiosity, which of the following would be your preference using an abstract example.
              1. All land etc taken returned to and ‘OWNED’ by Maori.
              2. All land etc not owned by anyone but all land under custodianship of Maori.
              3. All land etc not owned by anyone but all land under the custodianship of all New Zealanders based on Maori principles bf caring for and looking.
              4……?

        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.3.2.2
          27 August 2012 at 11:10 am

          “Pontificate”? “The likes of you”? Yeah that’s right, attack the messenger, that always works.

          • Adele 3.3.2.2.1
            27 August 2012 at 11:35 am

            Kotahi

            My apologies I have read your subsequent posts sorry mate.

            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.3.2.2.1.1
              27 August 2012 at 8:29 pm

              Thank you, and thank you for your other comments too.

              What I would like to see is more universal understanding of what a “Treaty Partnership” is. Perhaps that might have some negative consequences – in the “us and them” mentality, but I hope it would also get more people to grasp the fact that this isn’t ever going to be “resolved” – it’s a relationship, not a dispute.

        • Polish Pride 3.3.2.3
          27 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

          So then woulden’t a better solution for all be to shift to an alternate system that aims to free people rather than keep them enslaved….?

          • Adele 3.3.2.3.1
            27 August 2012 at 11:33 pm

            Kiaora Polish Pride

            Enslavement takes many forms. On the one hand people might feel enslaved by their culture whereas others might find culture a liberating force. Some may feel enslaved by consumerism whereas others may enjoy the freedom to shop. What is afflicting humankind is the inability to accept diversity – not the lack of homogeneity.

    • Bored 3.4
      27 August 2012 at 11:46 am

      I have been reading your posts Adele, and I am finding some of your points hard to disagree with (which I find rather disturbing: proof I suppose that no one possesses the total truth).

      Reading Gordon McLauchlans Passionless People Revisited he comments that the Maori Renaissance was NOT led in the first instance by iwi / hapu, or traditional tribal groups BUT by urban Maori. His contention (if I read him correctly) is that the whole movement was carefully guided by the institutions of state etc into being a narrowly based property issue as opposed to a broad based social movement of the disadvantaged. Hence the “ownership” issues being made specific and settlements made in financial terms (to specific iwi). Meanwhile urban Maori got nothing and got sidelined (hence Harawira’s appeal).

      Property as can be well illustrated tends to then move into a narrower and narrower sets of hands, and tends to become closely associated to the other vested interests who own things for their advantage (over the less advantaged). Whether this applies to the iwi / hapu based Maori party I could not possibly comment: I am however deeply suspicious.

      • fnjckg 3.4.1
        27 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

        nothing works like a little hegemonic worldview dissemination
        or a lot

        • Bored 3.4.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 1:26 pm

          Maybe I was a little long winded, nice economic words like hegemonic and dissemination played together can be a little challenging for me….(smiley thing, how do you do them)?

      • Adele 3.4.2
        27 August 2012 at 11:13 pm

        Tēnā koe Bored

        The Māori Renaissance is still occuring. I think the assessment made by the hegemonic (thank you fnjckg) is off mark and doesn’t capture the richness and complexity of the Māori response to ongoing injustice and assimilatory practises at the time.

        The Renaissance was well underway when the Urban Māori movement gained significant landmarks on the Māori horizon. UMA created an alternate terrain never before considered by traditionalists of Iwi/hapū structures. But in saying that the Iwi/hapū structures eventually accommodated this new way of being for Māori. Nowadays the understandings are very clear and there is no conflict between UMA and traditional Iwi/hapū.

        Māori have had to work within the system and while it might appear that we are being led by the nose, the reality is that we are still here, we can still claim uniqueness, our culture is still apparent and visible, and we continue to make gains – however small. Occasionally we are even prepared to go backwards to achieve long term benefits.

        There is a huge flaxroots movement that is adamantly opposed to the notion of ‘ownership’ being the overriding relationship to have with the natural world. They resent deeply how the natural world has been depersonalised, skinned and flayed into parcels, lots and productive capacity.

        Our leadership needs to be mindful of this growing sense of unease. Our leadership should be harnessing this strength of purpose.

  4. Adele 4
    27 August 2012 at 8:54 am

    North

    The Māori Party have never claimed to represent the interests of all Māori. They continue to represent their constituency – those that belong to the party and voted for them. They don’t represent my interests but then neither does National, Labour or Mana for that matter.

    However, if push came to shove I would rather support the Māori Party than Labour – who remain in the minds of Māori the largest confiscator of Māori interests in the modern era.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1
      27 August 2012 at 9:07 am

      So the foreshore and seabed is back in native title is it ? Could have fooled me !

      • Tracey 4.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 10:58 am

        Can’t be, not with National policy being that the legislation didn’t go far enough…

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 4.2
      27 August 2012 at 9:25 am

      Just as the Labour Party is representative of those Māori who vote Labour, ditto the Greens and ACT.

    • Lightly 4.3
      27 August 2012 at 9:29 am

      The Maori Party styles itself as the Treaty partner with the Crown and it is the first Maori party to have the gall to call itself the Maori Party. It does claim to represent all Maori. It doesn’t’ represent all Maori, not even close, but it claims to.

      • Adele 4.3.1
        27 August 2012 at 9:39 am

        Lightly

        The Māori Party is not the Treaty party with the Crown and can never be the Treaty party with the Crown because it is part of the Crown. The Treaty partners are hapū and Iwi.

        Furthermore, no one body can represent the sum total of Māori interests. The Māori Council does not, the Kingitanga does not, the Iwi Leaders Forum, definitely not, and neither does the Māori Party represent interests that are as diverse as hapū in existence.

        • felix 4.3.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 10:09 am

          No, but it presents and positions itself as if that were the case.

          • Adele 4.3.1.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 10:22 am

            Felix

            Who does the Māori Party present and position itself to as representing the interests of all Māori? The assumption you make is that Māori take onboard such a positioning. I suggest you go talk to the many hapū ‘out there’ for their opinions.

            I have never seen them take such a position or present themselve in such a fashion. And I come across them a fair bit in my travels throughout the motu.

            • felix 4.3.1.1.1.1
              27 August 2012 at 10:45 am

              I’ll thank you not to make unfounded assumptions about what I assume, thank you.

              • Adele …
                27 August 2012 at 11:05 am

                Felix

                Well don’t blow things out of your arse and call it an opinion, okay?

                • felix …
                  27 August 2012 at 11:16 am

                  Ok fucko, show me where I made such an assumption and I’ll apologise for calling you an arrogant dunce with a major comprehension problem.

                  • infused …
                    27 August 2012 at 11:29 am

                    Typical Felix style.

                    • felix …
                      27 August 2012 at 12:50 pm

                      Typical infused comment saying nothing. At least you don’t use up all your word doing it like Adele is doing today.

                  • Adele …
                    27 August 2012 at 11:29 am

                    Felix

                    You are making claims about the Māori Party that cannot be substantiated. Have you actually even spoken to any sizeable group of Māori and gained their opinions on the matter? Armchair fucking critics – blech.

                    • felix …
                      27 August 2012 at 12:47 pm

                      Hilarious that you accuse me of making assumptions (which you’ve again failed to identify) while making such enormous assumptions about me.

                      Like to try again or was that your best attempt? Show where I made such an assumption and I’ll show you why it isn’t.

                • Adele …
                  27 August 2012 at 10:15 pm

                  Felix

                  I hate the tit for tat nature of your debates and usually I won’t engage in endless tooing and froing. However, I am sick today and I cannot think of any better way to move sputum than by engaging with you.

                  You strongly imply that the Māori Party is positioning and presenting itself as the voice for Māori. This belief obviously comes with a base assumption – i.e. that it is positioning and presenting itself to an audience.

                  I assumed you were thinking a Māori audience simply because the alternative was a Pākehā audience and I now confess to making another assumption about you in that I didn’t think you would be that stupid.

                  What benefit would accrue to the Māori Party for it to position and present itself as the voice for Māori to a Pākehā audience? Will lots of Pākehā join the Māori Party and vote for it at the next election? Will Tariana’s Limo be upgraded to a McLaren MP4-12C, will Pita Sharples be given a free gastric bypass? Will Te Ururoa be able to save Kawerau Intermediate?

                  That you try to deflect the conversation down this dead beat path speaks volumes about your small-ness. The last ten thousand words are yours.

                  • felix …
                    27 August 2012 at 10:27 pm

                    Oh good, you’ve now jumped from attacking me for one assumption I never made or implied to attacking me for another assumption I never made or implied.

                    I don’t really give a fuck what you think anymore if you’re not smart enough to figure out the bleeding obvious.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    28 August 2012 at 10:55 am

                    “What benefit would accrue to the Māori Party for it to position and present itself as the voice for Māori to a Pākehā audience? Will lots of Pākehā join the Māori Party and vote for it at the next election?”

                    Most likely not. On the other hand if they took a step back and said what do the ‘people’ need and want, then used Maori cultural values as the basis for policy going forward, they may very well attract a good deal of pakeha votes. Realising that many of the goals that they want for Maori are the same for many New Zealanders can only serve to help the Maori party achieve many of their goals for maori that much faster.

                    The Maori culture is so beautiful if one is lucky enough to experience it as I have been. The problem I see is that Maori now take an exclusive ownership approach to it. e.g. The language belongs to Maori. Koru designs belong to Maori. The Haka belongs to Maori and so on. If it was given (with education) to and shared with all people of New Zealand and New Zealand could feel good about being part of it then I think the things that Maori are wanting would come much faster and receive much greater buy in from a much larger percentage of Kiwis.

                    I am concerned I am not explaining this well…. 🙁

                    A good example is when you go to the Islands (Fiji, Raro, Samoa etc) They want to share their culture with you. They want you to experience it. They want you to feel that you are part of it. I spent 10 days in Fiji and have said ‘Bula’ more times to more people than I have said Kia ora to living in New Zealand my entire life. That is very sad. But in Fiji They wanted me to be a part of it. I don’t get that feeling here with Maori Culture. The message from Maori is This is our culture you are not Maori. You have no business here. This needs to be changed, but the change needs to come from Maori.
                    Do this and you will have Pakeha wanting to look after Maori as their New Zealand brothers and sisters. Not as a group of New Zealand wanting priviledges over everyone else, as unfortunatelyfar too many kiwis now see things as.

        • Tracey 4.3.1.2
          27 August 2012 at 11:03 am

          Agreed. It would be like saying everyone who works is represented by labour, and that is patently not true.

          There is too much imposing of stereotypes and assumptions on people, both Maori and Pakeha, by both Maori and Pakeha. If the MP believe that aligning itself with National is the better path for those it serves, obviously it should walk that path. BUT people are allowed to hold the view that advancement of Maori may be better achieved through other political avenues.

          As an aside Can I just say that Maori TV has been a boon. I believe they do some of the best political analysis of issues of interest to its viewers than most journalists in NZ. I find myself enjoying their offerings more and more. There are many who said having such a channel was akin to apartheid. What tosh, but better still, just watch the channel from time to time and see what tosh it was to suggest this.

    • Tracey 4.4
      27 August 2012 at 10:55 am

      Good on you for being so passionate about who you vote for. I am interested in the specific ways National has broken new ground for Maori in NZ?

  5. Hilary 5
    27 August 2012 at 9:16 am

    Just as a point of history, Tariana got into parliament because of the Labour Party. Remember the flack Labour got when they put Tariana high on the list in the 1996 election (when Maryan Street was president)? In the 1999 election she had an even higher list placing.

    • Adele 5.1
      27 August 2012 at 9:47 am

      Hilary

      So you are saying that Tariana was a token Māori placed high on the list to appease white liberal guilt?

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 10:56 am

        Isn’t it also “proof” of the respect Labour held for her as a wahine? I recall with shivers the “respect” shown for Ms Te Heu Heu by National, I think Mr Brownlee became Shadow Minister of Maori Affairs under their structure.

      • prism 5.1.2
        27 August 2012 at 10:57 am

        Adele
        Do I detect a persistent skew in your comments against anyone white?

        • Tracey 5.1.2.1
          27 August 2012 at 11:04 am

          prism – that would be a very odd assumption given her support of the MP’s support of the National Party

          • Adele 5.1.2.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 11:22 am

            Tracey

            Thank you.

            Prism, no, not at all. I will ask you this in return. How do you know that your views of my views are not skewed by your position as part of the dominant culture?

            • prism 5.1.2.1.1.1
              27 August 2012 at 12:24 pm

              Adele
              Thanks for your kind help with my thinking.. Now I don’t know whether I’m being skewed or screwed.

          • prism 5.1.2.1.2
            27 August 2012 at 12:28 pm

            Tracey
            It’s hard to make assumptions about some people’s thinking. What is behind the thinking is sometimes obscure, and intractable.

  6. Hilary 6
    27 August 2012 at 9:54 am

    No, I am saying that those compiling the Labour list especially in 1996 (including president Maryan Street and Leader Helen Clark) believed in her and wanted her in parliament and that was at considerable risk to some of the ‘traditional’ Labour vote and media backlash. (Read the papers of the time, if you don’t believe me.) They were mates. So I can’t understand why Tariana still harbours such bitterness towards them, when she seems to get on so well with the Nats.

    • Anne 6.1
      27 August 2012 at 3:10 pm

      So I can’t understand why Tariana still harbours such bitterness towards them, when she seems to get on so well with the Nats.

      Well, it’s a sad thing to say Hilary, but I have to wonder if it was fundamentally due to the Labour prime minister being a woman. And what’s more, she was a prime minister who had a reputation for not putting up with… toys being thrown out of cots etc.

      • Anne 6.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 5:21 pm

        I have just recalled an incident that occurred after Tariana Turia’s final meeting with Helen Clark over the F& S legislation. It took place at Vogel House. The media pack were hanging around outside the main gate and Tariana didn’t want them to see her so Helen suggested she crouch down in the back of the limousine. Some alert cameraman suspected she was in the car as it drove through the gate so he ran up close and filmed her crouched down.

        Tariana decided Helen knew what was going to happen which is absurd. Helen might be a lot of things, but she isn’t so super-human that she knows what is going to happen before it actually happens. Ever since Tariana Turia has held a massive grudge against Helen Clark and, by default, the Labour Party.

        • felix 6.1.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 5:50 pm

          And Tariana is still carrying around the absurd mental image of Helen gesturing to the cameraman, pointing and mouthing the words “down here” behind Tari’s back.

          How sad. And all because she decided to be sneaky and deceptive and hide what was happening from the public.

  7. Tiger Mountain 7
    27 August 2012 at 11:27 am

    Post modernists, tory spinners and various other dare one say ‘wankers’, reckon you cannot now assume that an unemployed worker, or low paid migrant worker or Māori person will or should vote left. False consciousness (acting against your real world interests), blue skies aspiration, or last place aversion helps make this so for some.

    The neo liberal era and subsequent fallout has put people through the ideological blender to the extent of substantial societal disintegration and disengagement from active political participation. Large numbers do not vote at all. Minimum wage would now be $15 if a few thousand of this lot had got off their butts. But maybe we need text voting, imagine the security nightmare though.

    Despite the toadying and capitulation to National the Māori Party has done us one great service however–illustrating the defects of idenitity politics in a parliamentary electoral setting. “One ring to bind them” does not work, one ethnic size does not fit all situations. And it is the same for all cross class parties. Mana being the one chance to the contrary, as much of it’s activity is out in the community and it clearly does not claim to represent “all new zealanders”, just the majority of us.

    • Bored 7.1
      27 August 2012 at 11:58 am

      Tiger, check this from Cluborlov…its a satirical line on the silliness and cynical manipulation you describe…

      …….. go out and take part in the Reverse French Revolution that’s underway in the US. That’s where revolting peasants do all they can to elect an aristocrat who will swindle them out of their savings even faster and lock up even more of them in the Bastille. And what makes these peasants so revolting is that they are all fat—from eating cake instead of bread, just as Marie Antoinette had suggested.

  8. infused 8
    27 August 2012 at 11:28 am

    Good read from Adele.

  9. starlight 9
    27 August 2012 at 11:30 am

    The ‘national’ sea has washed up over the maori party who now only represent
    the elite maori people,the maori party have been guided by the national mantra
    that ‘they know best’ in doing so will follow the nats to the edge of the cliff if
    needed over asset sales and other vile policies that they have supported.
    If they ignore the wishes of their people it will spell the end of the maori
    party as their heartland will not put them back in government,the loosing of
    3 seats last election taught the maori party nothing.
    For all hone’s past faults he is the only one that stands out to represent
    maori interests,he has matured into a credible leader for maori.

    • Bored 9.1
      27 August 2012 at 11:54 am

      Thats how I see it: to quote Mark 4.25 (always fun for a life long agnostic)…. “For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.”

      Seems to sum up the way of the world into which the MP have fallen. Also sums up what has happened to our disadvantaged groups as a consequence, Hone’s people.

      • fnjckg 9.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 1:27 pm

        the way is wide,
        only the gate narrow

        though i did read this morning of “the agnostic veneer… that may be the old a theism writ large

        took moi some maturity to understand the Word/s you quote

  10. Roy 10
    27 August 2012 at 12:25 pm

    “Notice how no-one’s saying ‘will they walk if the Nats ignore the Tribunal and proceed to breach the Treaty?’”

    Do we know they won’t walk? I still think ignoring the Tribunal and breaching the Treaty would be going too far.

  11. tc 11
    27 August 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Some great stuff on this thread and one thing’s for sure, the hollowmen are loving this divide and rule effect while the Sideshow clown runs the diversions to create MSM fodder with euthanasia, another dance routine and the usual cavalcade of indifference and arrogance toward his duties as the PM.

  12. xtasy 12
    27 August 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Truth of the matter is: The Maori Party leadership and MPs will do all to get a compromise solution between the government, the Maori Council, affected iwi and hapu, to come to some negotiated terminology acknowledging not so much a “proprietary” right to water, but a justified “interest” in water, based on Maori understanding of the significance of water in legal and wider terms.

    Then they will possibly set up a panel of sorts, or alternatively combine this with all interested parties in the Land and Water Forum, in order to “fast track” working out how water interests can be addressed.

    If a cooperation with the Land and Water Forum may prove too uncertain to achieve, if that process may be viewed as taking too long, the government will probably have a panel or board set up to deal with only the specific cases of water use for Mighty River Power in the first instance, to hammer out a “deal” to satisfy somehow the involved Maori interest groups.

    In that case the MOB asset sale program will be saved, the Maori Party will have saved their face, or even be able to present this as a “first achievement” to get water interests and rights acknowledged and settled.

    Offering shares in the power companies, or offering regular fee income to iwi and hapu may be the result, so the future water companies, half privatised, will have to offer or pay that, and the consumers will foot the bill, which will not be astronomical, but of course additional charges.

    That is my bet on this one, and that is what Sharples, Turia and Flavell have such a great interest in.

    So they are not so much worried about the privatisation and sell-off of SOE turned MOM shares, as much as getting something worked out to show off for their benefit.

    • Tim G 12.1
      27 August 2012 at 11:57 pm

      Prescient stuff. Insightful and most probably correct.

      The same sort of “compromise” we saw with the FS&SB. Customary title with the ability to investigate greater claims. And no delay to the Mighty River sale.

  13. Tracey 13
    27 August 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Xtasy can you just clarify, are you suggesting this water right issue for the MP is about getting a block of shares or similar cash compensation for loss of right to those water rights currently being utilised by power companies to generate profit?

    Genuine question not sarcasm.

    If that is what you mean, would that mean the MP was fighting or taking a stance for the good of Maori or for the good/benefit of a particular iwi (which is asserting water rights in a particular area)? Again not saying that is good or bad, just examining the possibilities.

    • xtasy 13.1
      28 August 2012 at 5:38 am

      The present actions of the Maori Party do suggest that they are wanting to get the government to commit themselves to show in at least an example, how it will act to satisfy Maori expectations in regards to water rights. Some negotiations can perhaps achieve that. The government is feeling the pressure of losing face and track with the main part of their set of policies being frustrated so much, that they are close to having to abandon it. I see the Maori Party leaders trying to use the momentum for their sake (i.e. the government wanting some “deal” a.s.a.p. to save their asset sales).

      If the government would not give a damn about the Waitangi Tribunals intermediate recommendations, then they do not need to talk with Maori. Turia, Sharples and Flavell must sense though, the government wants to save face and will look at “a deal” of sorts.

      Now a Key led government will not let the Maori Party push it to abandon the privatisation and asset sale plans, it will rather make some deals with local iwi. Anything else would take far too long to work out. The Land and Water Forum has been meeting, discussing and negotiating for a long time, and they are not that close to draw up a plan for the whole of NZ yet.

      So that is not an option for National and Key.

      Hence I see the Maori Party MPs prepared to first work out some settlement for local iwi that have particular interests in water that is used for generation by Mighty River Power. The way to do it is to make it an “examplary” or good “model” settlement, which can be used to apply to other kinds of local, regional – or even to some degree national solutions – down the road.

      Of course it will not just be about shares, as the “spiritual” and other significance and value of water to Maori demands additional aspects of settlement, involving also environmental protection, primary use and access rights by local iwi and hapu – and the likes. But that can be done.

      Key will though as the typical, smart, pragmatic “pakeha” business boy see things his way, and that will likely mean, “pay em off” in some ways, which means pecuniary benefits.

      If the Maori Party really do not want to fall for that, and want a long term, proper, well worked out solution and draft policy for settlements NZ wide, then they should not even bother to talk with the government now, as that would require very lengthy assessments and negotiations. Indeed they would have to wait for the Waitangi Tribunal to present their final interpretation, position and recommendations, wich are still weeks away.

      So what would you read out of all that, but what I just concluded above?

    • Tracey 14.1
      27 August 2012 at 1:58 pm

      Thanks for the link, interesting read.

      Once iwi get their settlements it is over to them to decide how to use the proceeds. However, as they have often told us pakeha, our model is broken, which is why I questioned the trickle down effect of those settlements from the corporate iwi. Which is not to say that some do not have some good initiatives in place to assist their iwi, but by far and above the big focus is on assets, asset growth and return on assets in a very pakeha/corporate way. Perhaps the Pakeha way does work afterall, is that what some would now have us believe?

      • marty mars 14.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

        In terms of the focus on assets etc – The main reason for the focus IMO is the fear of losing it again, although the settlements were only a fraction of what was taken, and the dictates of collectivism which is all about protecting and building the putea for the children and their children. The balancing is to look after people from the past, present and future.

        • ak 14.1.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 3:23 pm

          Pono, Marty. But it’s not the size of assets that matters – and as you note they’re puny – it’s how they’re used. And it’s not the overall wellbeing that affects individual circs – it’s the relativity. The Gaps.

          National smashed Closing the Gaps with deliberate racist hatemongering: and since they got in the Gaps have widened.

          Tautoko the MP for grabbing serendipity, hobbling ACT, and raising aspirations, but the “balancing” question now remains: is a slghtly larger asset worth a gaping, painful gash?

          • marty mars 14.1.1.1.1
            27 August 2012 at 3:45 pm

            Kia ora ak

            Good points. I agree about the gaps increasing under national. I wish the MP leaders had retired gracefully because they are tainted by that, even though they got my votes before the Mana movement crystalised.

            This water question IMO will become an irresistible force against an immoveable object – I cannot see a solution that will be acceptable to any of the parties (not political). I have some fears that we have hit a line in the sand and as each position digs in we will see trench warfare. Muddy, bloody and a waste of time, resources and people. I really hope I’m wrong.

        • Tracey 14.1.1.2
          27 August 2012 at 4:28 pm

          Thanks Marty. What is your “take” on the idea that the MP “stands” for water rights, insofar as it acts as a middle man/wahine to assist a compensation for particular iwi… Doesn’t that get ideological messy and fraught for the MP? Am interested in your thoughts.

          I don’t expect “all” Maori to share a single view, anymore than I expect “all” pakeha to share one. So the idea of a division as pushed by the Herald this morning is disingenuous and mischievousness, imo.

          • marty mars 14.1.1.2.1
            27 August 2012 at 6:00 pm

            I don’t have confidence that the MP can advocate for iwi because they are too embedded in the gnats. In a perfect world perhaps a political party representing Māori could run interference for iwi but creating any pan-Māori groupings are fraught with difficulties. I don’t think the MP will survive long after the next election and my hopes for positive change for this country is the movement of Mana which via its ethos, structure and public positions offers the best chance because it is unequivically based upon the essential human right of equality.

            and I agree with you Tracey about the herald.

  15. gobsmacked 15
    27 August 2012 at 6:10 pm

    So, after Key’s post-Cabinet press conference, it seems pretty clear that Key won’t delay.

    He’ll wait a week, to give the Maori Party a “consultation” facade, and probably to do some internal polling and strategising.

    Next Monday he’ll announce that the Mighty River Power sale will go ahead, as planned.

    Does he know “when to fold ’em”? Yes. It’s when you fear your opponents’ hand – or their skill at bluffing. He doesn’t have any reason to fear either the Maori Party or the Labour Party. His only concern now is the market.

    It’s quite ironic, that we’re now relying on the self-interest of naked capitalism to save our assets.

    • Tracey 15.1
      28 August 2012 at 10:14 am

      I agree he wont delay but I think he needs a week to spin the deal he is going to offer to iwi via the MP. MP will be seen to have negotiated on behalf of iwi, iwi will get some “compensation” and Key can placate his electorate by saying ” I am pragmatic, if we don’t do a deal now, our whole “vision” goes down the toilet ad taxpayer money is wasted int he courts. We are not about wasting money but about saving and paying for infrashtrusha, and we believe Maori have legitimate rights as announced by the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s time to move on I don’t intend re-litigating this matter. Anyone going to NZ Baseball “do”? I am speaking there.”

  16. jack 16
    28 August 2012 at 12:54 pm

    I have to agree.. Key is a Wall Street Derivative Trader. He knew no shame when he was head of derivatives for Merrily Lynch in Europe during the 90’s. We saw the results of that in 2007. He will do his best to make a very attractive deal for the Maori Party. I can see Peter Sharples walking out of the meeting calling Key “Happy Boy”. Of course it will be at all our expense and be prepared to pay more for electricity because of this deal. Makes me sick. This is when I have to listen to Hone. He makes a good argument against the Maori party selling out.