Comments on: Te Ururoa takes up part time job as translator for NZ media….ummm…

By: Ng?kau Rangatahi

Ng?kau Rangatahi — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:04:11 +0000

E k?, e k?

Carmel if any of you had any sort of a clue about interpreting whai k?rero you would realise that only a very select few people are capable of doing it, and that even fewer are willing to do so with the nations media listening to their every word – Te Ururoa obliged, not for his benefit, but for that of the media and the hau k?inga. He has also interpreted for Steve Chadwick on occasion in Rotorua as well as on Marae for the better part of a decade.

As a rookie MP you haven’t yet had the pleasure of working closely with Te Ururoa, if you had, you would know that he is a man of the utmost integrity and that he would never risk his reputation in M?oridom by trying to trick reporters for cheap political gain.

What a rediculous post.

By: Pedrovsky

Pedrovsky — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:41:45 +0000

DEBACLE is right. But as a public servant I have seen numerous occasions when Maori are called on to translate and there can be what at first glance seems a conflict of interest. Of more concern to me is the double dipping that this usually entails…but I am gagged lest I seem insensitive.

By: Carmel Sepuloni

Carmel Sepuloni — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:26:46 +0000

Anton – I’m not going to go down the defensive road especially given that you have been fair with respect to our dialogue over the translation debarcle but (always a but) – I do think its incredibly unfair to say that labour doesn’t genuinely care about Maori.

In my view what we are seeing is that Maori have higher expectations of Labour than what they do of National. Labour has traditionally demonstrated a higher level of responsiveness to Maori and the treaty – that has always been premised on respect, love and duty of care for Maori (I wouldn’t be a member of the Labour Party and a Labour MP if I didn’t think this was true). National on the other hand have never made Maori a priority, so the moment that they do one thing for Maori, they are praised unreservedly (and undeservedly) by some Maori (not all).

EXAMPLE: If we were in Government there is absolutely no way that we would have denied Maori, representation on the Super City Council – and if we had we would have been condemmed (and rightly so). Yet National have walked away from this unscathed…whilst receiving praise for agreeing to fly a flag on the Harbour bridge…

As a former teacher my comparison is this:
Everyone is horrified when the good child makes a mistake or acts out of character and what generally follows is a display of complete and utter disappointment. In contrast people are often unperturbed when the naughty child misbehaves and all to often the weariness of dealing with that child takes its toll and the tendancy is to ignore them. However, when that naughty child does something good, everyone offers up praise out of complete an utter joy that this child is now behaving himself or herself and also in an attempt to encourage further behaviour of this kind.

Could we have done some things differently? Probably. Do we need to nurture our relationship with Maori – Definitely. Any relationship has its ups and downs and needs to be worked at – the relationship between Labour and Maori is no different.

I have gone on for far to long now…

By: Anton Craig

Anton Craig — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:55:15 +0000

Okay Carmel, thanks. If that’s what happened then I’ve jumped the gun. I still stand by comments though about how Labour needs to regain Maori support in a fundamental sort of way, and reclaim the relationship, including with the Maori Party, whose although brittle connection with Key/English might be difficult to break, won’t be as hard to expose as regaining trust will be. Labour could at least start by showing genuine care.

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:25:42 +0000

@ Nicola
Just seen your reply. Thanks. It explains a lot. My comment re-last years’s report was tongue in cheek of course but maybe she did refer to it out of pique?

By: Carmel Sepuloni

Carmel Sepuloni — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:17:41 +0000

Anton – I checked this and have been told that there was one person put in charge by the Ratana people to deal with the media and that he had informed the media that there were two people that they could go to if they needed to get anything translated. Neither of those two people were named as Te Ururoa Flavell (or any other Maori Party MP). Therefore chances are that it was not Maori choosing a Maori Party MP to translate but the media asking him to do this.

By: Anton Craig

Anton Craig — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:13:50 +0000

Second attempt at sending this:

For ghostwhowalksnz, the percentage of the vote at the previous election doesn’t determine policy support and passing of laws. The number of Maori Party seats has the potential (depending on support levels of other parties) to give the Maori Party the “casting vote”. There are numerous examples of Maori Party flip-flops in crucial policy areas that’ve happened because of the acceptance of insignificant lollies thrown from national, like the flag debacle. As far as Ratana Church’s choice to use a Maori Party MP to translate goes, yes, I agree we’re not in Peru, which strengthens the point that the choice stemmed directly from Labour’s arrogance in the past towards Maori, and that Labour needs to get its act together on issues affecting Maori.

And to Tiger Mountain, yes we have three official languages, but its government that’s required to follow rules around their use, not anyone else. This goes back to my point about how Ratana obviously chose someone from the Maori Party to translate, which was their prerogative, but more importantly, I think was done to send the message that Labour is losing Ratana support, at least because of Labour’s arrogance towards Maori in recent years. Of course on a personal level Labour MPs are going to feel welcome at the ceremony and will report this as their experience, but this is simply part and parcel of the dignitiy and respect Ratana members show to anyone regardless of position. Points made by Matthew Hooten may have a modicum of truth to them, but there’s no reason why the Maori Party cannot work more closely with Labour in ways that’ve underscored the relationship between Labour and Ratana since 1938. John Key is able to woo the Maori Party way too easily, and while some of this comes from naivity on the part of the Maori Party, much of it is because Labour has left Maori with no alternative. The warning signs the Ratana Church are giving Labour are for the same reasons.

So to Tiger Mountain, it’s all well and truly related, so clearly on the topic. Please do some reading, followed by some thinking.

Anton: Not sure why your comment was in moderation, but sometimes we aren’t near computers for a while. That’s the breaks when you’re dealing with MPs. Have approved as soon as I saw it. Clare

By: Anton Craig

Anton Craig — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:10:21 +0000

Carmel, you are probably right, but your party needs to look at the reasons why a Maori Party MP was asked to translate. I suspect this is too painful for Labour to do, but until this happens Labour will for Maori continue increasingly to remain in the political desert, which is a shame.

By: Carmel Sepuloni

Carmel Sepuloni — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:46:24 +0000

Monty – Actually I did ask Shane Jones if he’s ever been asked to translate for the media in the same way that Te Ururoa was at Ratana. He said no and that he’d never seen that happen before. The equivilent to this would have been if the media had got the Hon. Mita Ririnui to translate the dialogue that occured between the Maori Party and Ratana or the National Party and Ratana…which although present and all powhirie he was not asked to do, nor did he offer to do it(and quite frankly – we would have still find it strange if the shoe was on our foot).

The issue here is that the person asked to translate clearly has a huge conflict of interest. It is impossible for us or anyone else (other than Te Ururoa) to gauge whether or not his interpretation was entirely accurate, which in turn creates a giant question mark over the accuracy of the reporting and jeopardises the integrity of our media.

By: Anton Craig

Anton Craig — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:09:02 +0000

So to Tiger Mountain, it’s all well and truly related, so clearly on the topic. Please do some reading, followed by some thinking.