Our colleague Shane Jones has a very thought provoking column in this morning’s Dominion Post regarding the choice of flag to fly over the Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day next year. It’s titled “Flags taking the place of blankets and beads”. I can’t find it online, but here are some excerpts:
“Maori have enjoyed flags since before the Treaty of Waitangi. In the midst of the Maori land wars, tribal leaders believed in the power of flags … The Crown regularly presented flags to tribes for their loyalty. Colonists did so as well. In 1864 a flag was presented to the tribes of Wanganui for protecting the Wanganui township from their upper river kin Moutoa.
“Prime Minister John Key is maintaining that historic tradition as he rewards the Maori Party for loyalty, and sanctions the Maori Affairs minister to fund gatherings to select a flag…Mr Key has done an impressive job in capturing the Maori Party. He is canny enough to know it is less threatening and more amusing to have hui about independence ensigns than confront Maori state dependency. Beads and blankets are no longer de rigueur – rather it is flags that are the new currency.”
“Mr Key knows that hoisting a flag above the harbour bridge will not alter one jot Maori economic status. The 500 Maori losing their jobs every week know that getting their whänau up the ladder is the true test of rangatiratanga…”
“Maori fortunes are inextricably bound up with those of society overall. Far more prosaic, less mesmerising topics such as productivity, numeracy, literacy, civic participation jobs and employment are responsibilities that the Maori Party is shirking.
I must admit I am struggling to see the point of all this attacking the Maori Party. Labour will need the MP’s support to form a government in 2011 so they shouldn’t be alientating the Maori Party and driving them further towards National.
Remember Labour consider the Maori party “The last cab off the rank”
It has surprised me since the formation of the party how poorly they have been treated by Labour.
Why change spots now just because you can see that there is little chance of Labour getting back in without their support?
I agree with the other posters here. It doesn’t take a political genius to point out that Labour can’t govern without the Maori Party in the near future. Going nuclear on them by basically calling them “uncle Toms”, as Mr Jones is doing, would seem to undermine Labour’s long term efforts.
Thanks for pointing it out though, Mr Hipkins. It is a very interesting article, but I suspect what it highlights is something you didn’t intend. With the Greens now having a cooperation agreement with National and having more influence on government policy than they had with Labour, and with former Jim Anderton staffer John Pagani tipped as a labour party general secretary signalling the end of the Progressive Party, it seems Labour really will struggle to find any friends by 2011.
You can prattle on about the political hypotheticals and what might or might not happen next time round, but the issue everyone is concerned about now is jobs and job security.
I don’t see anyone here defending the Maori ministers non-efforts to restrict Maori unemployment (which seem extremely low key or non-existent). As ministers of THIS government they need to be accountable.
Why should Labour back off on this because they may need to suck up to them later?
That last paragraph starting “Maori fortunes… ” should end with “that Maori are shirking. ” If we are going to be honest.
I saw the article and laughed. If Shane (double dipper) Jones is trying to raise his profile, for some reason, this is a pretty dumb way to go about it.
That’s a fair enough question TopCat, I just think Labour need to be strategic about their approach to the Maori Party. The MP is a natural ally for Labour (just look at the party vote share in the Maori seats) and Labour should be looking to foster that relationship not destroy it even further.
If gaining the (possible) future support of the Maori Party means signing up to a bunch of right-wing policies that hurt all New Zealanders on lower incomes, including Maori, then I’d rather not. It will be interesting to see how the Maori Party justify at the next election their vote to take tax cuts away from the majority of Maori so that they could be given to higher income earners. Ditto voting to cut Adult and Community Education funding. Ditto increasing funding for private schools. There are plenty of other examples where the Maori Party have voted against the interests of the majority of Maori. The last time Maori MPs did that (1996-1999) they all lost their seats.
It sounds like you’re hoping Maori will abandon voting for the Maori Party and return to Labour Chris.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
If you want a history lesson, Mr Hipkins, you might reflect on how Labour shunned and ridiculed Jim Anderton in 1990 and then spent nine years in opposition before winning him back into the fold so that Labour could build a coalition in 1999.
Compare and contrast that with John Key, who embraced the Act Party and then went further afield to bring in Mr Dunne and the Maori Party, and now include the Greens for support on Green Party issues. The Labour Party couldn’t even form a coalition with the Greens in nine years in power.
So just how many Maori are you expecting to switch from voting Maori party to Labour in order to make up the 22% gap?
Why can’t the Maori Party have flags, and left wing policies, Mr Hipkins and Mr Jones?
The Labour Government refused to let a Maori flag hang on the bridge (while those of various organisations were allowed), among many other decisions which were rightly seen as a poke in the eye to the idea of Maori as partners in NZ. The Labour Party still doesn’t get it – it’s like you’re living in the 1980s.
Tim Ellis’ comment above is also a salient one. By attacking those parties which aren’t necessarily your enemies (and I see no major reasons why you and the MP are), you’re giving power to those parties who are. Still, this is the Labour Party that was willing to destroy the Alliance in order to invade Afghanistan and prefered the scumball Winston Peters and right-wing Peter Dunne to the Greens and Maori Party for 6 years, so at least you’re consistent.
Perhaps the best way of describing this is to quote Clare Curran – “Stupid, short-sighted and small-minded”.
Annoying. The fatal flaw is allowing the continuation of understanding that the Maori party represent Maori, they don’t, they represent a significant chunk of voters who vote on the Maori roll, and some who aren’t… But “Maori” is not a singular.
If I were advising John Key on this, I would have said nice choice, it will take “Maori” months if not years to choose a flag and the Maori Party will become preoccupied with such minute matters because that is the way of a narrow minded, self-interested party. And… I doubt Maori like me will be asked what we think.
The Maori Party attacked Labour, not the other way around. Tariana Turia sought for a long time for a reason to jump ship and steer her own waka, that is something Labour got a lesson in, bringing “stars” on board is not the best tactic, but we are doomed to repeat it if we don’t whole heartedly accept the mandate for renewal at all levels.
Flag waving is as it always was, a distraction to the main event.
The striking thing for me about this post is not just that Shane Jones is on a personal crusade to ensure that Labour doesn’t form a constructive relationship with the Maori Party, but that other MPs, including Mr Hipkins, are enabling and encouraging him.
Mr Hipkins, why would the Maori Party ever entertain the thought of working with Labour when you behave so appallingly towards them?
The Maori Party are working with the only major party in Parliament that is able to form a government. It might not be in the Labour Party’s interests, but I certainly don’t see how it’s in the interests of Maori for the Maori Party to refuse to deal with the Government.
Kaine, as I said to Chris above, does Labour really hope to scare Maori away from supporting the Maori Party? If so then I think they’re dreaming.
Therefore, I don’t think it’s sensible for Labour to adopt a full “attack mode” when dealing with the Maori Party. They will NEED these guys to help form a government in 2011 and to stop the Nats adopting a much more extreme right-wing agenda. Maybe Labour has to “swallow a few dead rats” to get the Maori Party onside, but as we have learned, dead-rat swallowing has its benefits.
So Chris, if National is offering such pittances and getting support- what plans does Labour have to re-engage with the Maori Party and make real progress with them together?
One of the things I got terribly tired of with National in opposition was that they would never offer alternatives with their criticisms. Frankly I expect more than that from Labour.
Kaine T said:
The fatal flaw in your argument Kaine T is that Mr Sharples is Minister of Maori Affairs. In this capacity he is consulting with all Maori, which he is entitled to do.
You have been asked, and you’re welcome to go along and express your view at one of the hui that Mr Sharples is organising.
Perhaps you are reading a different history book. The Labour Party expelled Tariana Turia and stripped her of her ministerial portfolios. Ms Clark then humiliated and ridiculed Mrs Turia repeatedly, and referred to the Maori Party as the “last cab off the rank” in coalition negotiations. She referred to members of Mrs Turia’s party, at the foreshore and seabed hikoi, as “haters and wreckers”.
Mr Jones was brought into the Labour Party as a List-only MP with a very high ranking, too. If there is one “star” in Labour’s caucus now, it is Mr Jones.
Mrs Turia served the Labour Party as an MP for seven years before the foreshore and seabed legislation, including four years as a Minister. If she was just looking for an opportunity to jump waka, then the Labour Party was stupid not to have spotted it over the seven years before she started expressing dissatisfaction with Labour Party policy.
Crikey Tim it pains me to agree with you, but on this issue I must.
Labour certainly will be engaging with Maori over the term of the current parliament, and we’d like their support in 2011. A vote for the Maori Party is a vote for a National-led government.
@ Chris “A vote for the Maori Party is a vote for a National-led government.”
Considering they were originally more of a natural partner for Labour – it just shows how badly they were treated by your party.
Mr Hipkins, I see you have resorted to one line slogans rather than debate. You will need more than luck to win back public confidence in 2011.
Translation. Labour will continue to attack the MP for the next three years.
In 2004 Helen Clark said that she would rather spend time with a wooly sheep than with Maori. You still haven’t learned a thing.
I’m sorry Chris but I really do think that’s a short-sighted approach. Ugh… I do not look forward to a National government from 2011 onwards.
Tim -
I think part of what you’re saying is right. But I hold firm, the Maori Party, does not, nor will it ever, represent wider Maori interests. Dr Sharples is indeed Maori Affairs Minister, but a Minister prepared to abandon the rights and responsibilities that comes with such a posting. Consider his avoidance of the issue of his views being in conflict with his responsibility as a Minister, I note Winston Peters had this problem too. My point really is Tim to express my frustration that the Maori Party continues to promote its policy on behalf of Maori… where are they now with nearly 500 Maori a week losing their jobs, where are their creative ideas for the creation of the best kind of welfare, a job! They’re preoccupied.
I think in terms of being asked… you and I both know this is a falsehood. Consultation has a broad meaning.
I take your view about Mr Jones. Mr Jones however, has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of few with a voice to do so that says Maori need to stop owning their past and get on with their future and start correcting now in order that their children my have greater opportunity, than for some who perpetuate the failures of the past. That is what I want. He doesn’t speak for a singular, he speaks for the vast array of voices that are Maori, just like Europeans, Asians, Pacifika, women, don’t have a singular voice.
I’m not arguing with you Tim, I just don’t have time to write a lot more and I would if I could… I accept some of what you’re saying, it just doesn’t hold true for me.
Chris is right, Labour would of course engage with all parties in this term of Government, but voting for the Maori-Party, was a vote for National… it’s voters didn’t believe that, nor did they want that, that is something the Maori Party will have to justify to its potential voters in 2011.
Labour has proven an ability to work with many other parties, not just in coalition but in arrangements that work. Other parties have to get past themselves in the process of formation too… Peter Dunne has enjoyed the benefits of both red and blue, the greens likewise and New Zealand First the same. The formation of working relationships is about an ability to work with compromise, this is both the upside and downside of MMP.
There is and there will be a very real electoral contest between Labour and the Maori Party in the Maori seats. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming. The experience in 1999 was that Maori who had seen to sell out to the National Party – ie the group led by Tau Henare later to be rewarded with a high list spot – lost their seats.
The question in 2011 will be whether a flag to be used officially once a year and a wee bit or two of foreshore or seabed over which a hapu holds mana but no rights to farm fish, is more important than the family members who have lost their jobs.
If the Maori Party survives then their new generation leadership will decide whether it is the interests of their support base to work with Labour or National. Tariana won’t be there then.
Interesting point, Mr Mallard. One could paraphrase, with a degree of mischief, that the question in 2011 will equally be whether a National-lite approach with much higher debt to pay for a few pet projects like the Waterview Tunnel, and paying the dole to wealthy New Zealanders, is more important than a sound fiscal approach under a National Government.
Again, if the Labour Party survives then their new generation leadership will be able to decide whether it is in the interests of their support base to work with the Greens and the Maori Party. Phil won’t be there then.
Tim Ellis :- Dream on.
I think my agreement with you has ended Tim, which I am VERY happy about.
I think ultimately this is just a very interesting issue – how should Labour approach the Maori Party. A couple of things are obvious:
1) People who voted for the Maori Party with their electorate vote usually voted Labour with their party vote.
2) The general perception is that Maori are reasonably OK with the Maori Party being part of a National government.
Whether John Key can keep that relationship going will be interesting – to balance the redneck element of his support base with the need to keep the Maori Party on side will be tough work. But it certainly seems to have worked so far. I think we can expect a couple of Maori seats on the Auckland Council to placate that issue, although it will be interesting to see where the Seabed & Foreshore issue goes.
I just hope Labour have a plan B that involves working constructively with the Maori Party if they’re unable (which I suspect) to kill them off.
Well, Mr Mallard, I did say I was being mischievous!
Trevor, why should Maori have to choose?
Your dismissive tone towards Tariana Turia shows that you still don’t give her any respect. She (and Pita and the others) represents a lot of people, many of whom voted Labour. You don’t seem to understand that when you treat her as person without respect, you treat those people as people without respect. You’re burning bridges Trevor.
Trevor, it’s telling the way that Labour seems to be dismissing the Maori Party as having made the wrong choice rather than actually trying to sell a Labour Government to them (and such a coalition to your own voters) for the next term. I would’ve thought you knew that wasn’t how bridges are built.
I’d certainly be excited to see what the two of you could come up with together.