I just came from the Civic Opening for the Pasifika Festival. Prior to the concert beginning, there were formalities in the VIP tent. Unfortunately the turn out was poor – probably because the Auckland City Council only made the decision to run this at the end of last week. Our Pasifika leaders were there along with members of the City Council and of course that soon to be GONE (thank goodness) Auckland City Mayor was in attendance.
Pasifika people are very good with the protocol and demonstrate the respect that should be afforded to our Tangata Whenua – Maori. Unfortunately it was the Auckland City Council staff and the Mayor that undertook the formal proceedings that unfolded in the VIP tent. None of those that spoke acknowledged Ngati Whatua or the Chairperson of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board (who was there) – Grant Hawke. The only person that John Banks acknowledged was the one National MP in the room – Nikki Kaye (over and over again…to the discomfort of our Pacific community present). The only other thing that I recall John Banks rambling on about was the Mayoral race (as if anyone in that tent will be voting for him!). John Banks couldn’t even bring himself to say a simple ‘Talofa Lava’…I guess any language other than those stemming from European countries would be too much to ask of him.
They then closed those formal proceedings and then attempted to return to mix and mingling with their glasses of merlot. The music had started up but unexpectedly Grant Hawke took to the podium. He was as respectful as always but obviously disturbed by what had just unfolded. He pointed out very clearly the special relationship between Maori and Pacific and the support that Ngati Whatua have always demonstrated for Pacific and the Pasifika festival. He also pointed out very emotively the disappointment he felt from Tangata Whenua having been completely overlooked and ignored during these proceedings – and rightly so. As an onlooker I was almost reduced to tears out of embarrassment for what had unfolded. Following the speech from Grant Hawke – one of our Pacific leaders took to the podium and provided a formal apology for the complete disregard for Ngati Whatua that was demonstrated by the council – it was a genuine gesture and I’m sure it was accepted by Grant Hawke, but everyone in that room was still left feeling incredibly uncomfortable and embarrassed.
Tracey – two comments before I follow your example and move on.
First – in the UK it is now acknowledged that the most underprivileged and underperfoming group in schools is poor white males. The belief is that several decades of sectional discrimination in favour of females over males, and blacks and asians over whites, to address inequalities in society has missed the target entirely. They’ve spent resources assisting middle class women who were already more privileged than working class men. Ditto for middle class blacks and asians.
We have the makings of this issue in NZ also.
Surely if we address injustice regardless of race, ethnicity, colour or gender then those who are disadvantaged because they’re maori, or women, will be catered for. But so too will be the hidden problem. Those who happen to be white but poor.
Second – the non-specific way in which ‘maori’ is defined makes talk of maori health a nonesense. Presumably we’re looking to address health problems that result either from genetic make up or lifestyle. Yet we include in the definition of ‘maori’ those who have almost no maori in their genes and live an entirely non-maori life. How on earth can meaningful research come out of this?
Unless heath researchers use a more meaningful definition which they’re not allowed to talk about because it doesn’t suit early 21st century mores?
I don’t disagree on those points George. Definitions are important. I have been interested to see how quickly we (NZ) jumped to address the boy girl disparity, refreshingly faster than we addressed it when it was in reverse
Tracey @ 8:02 –
The two where you bemoan haste are a cobbling together of multiple sub-councils in a small city (by international standards), and the extension of days an employer can have a probation period for new employees. I am not sure how they are major constitutional issues, but I am sure Martin will find a heartwrenching angle
In fact in my view, the Auckland city council merge is hardly being done in haste at all. Helen Clark ordered the Royal Commission review back in 2006 (I think), and the councils themselves had a stab shortly before that. And how many years before that has it been talked about? From what I can see the government is simply getting on with the job following on from the Royal Commission report. And about bloody time too.
Now the EFA was a major constitutional issue.
Tracey @ 8:18 –
Actually when I said _most_ of those matters were election promises, the SuperCity issue was the one I was thinking that wasn’t. As I mentioned just above, the current government is just carrying on the work of the previous.
Sean – have you examined the role and powers of the CCO’s? The majority on the Boards are not elected they are Ministerial appointments, there is nothing to suggest they have any accountability to the Council. That’s quite a constitutional change I am sure you will agree.
…following on from selected parts of the Royal Commission report.
Tracey – no I haven’t really looked into it but it does seem you are getting quite specific now. I guess cabinet appointed means the democracy is less direct.
Yes, I never implied they implemented the Royal Commission report in full (I just said “following on from”). Do you think they should have? As I understood it, it was changed after further consultations, not that everybodys submission was included in the final law of course!
The thing is Sean, IF voting for National gave them a mandate (say the SuperCity was an election promise)it only gives them a mandate to the extent they shared the detail, yes?
I have no problem with changes to Auckland Councils, I have no problem with the corporatisation (in parts) of activities.
IF the Royal Commission Report is what the promise was based on then that is what is implemented under the mandate, not selected parts?
The detail is very important. The CCO’s are the heart of the changes interms of the way things will be done, accountability, appointments and so on. They are crucial to the plan. Ministers make appointments all the time. Noproblem with that BUT here they are making appointments which would otherwise have come via an accountable elective process. THAT is a major change.
Consultation is all well and good except when the driver and others say at the outset “we wont be changing X or Y” regardless of the outcomeof the consultation.
Aucklander or no, I urge anyone on this issue to go and read about the CCO’s, their powers etc… It’s important and it could be coming to a town or city near you.
The media is only recently focusing on them but fo rme, they are the crux.
@George. I’ll just re-iterate what I said earlier. Maori have a right, not a privilege, to have a voice at the table. The only people who should get rid of that right are Maori, simple.
I’m sure that when you lived in Britain and someone would have taken your rights away you wouldn’t have liked it. So ditto.
I don’t see how just having Maori seats creates a culture of divisiveness. As Tracey said, the stats for non-Maori are better than they are for Maori. So you’re in the group that’s better off aren’t you?
That said I’m opposed to Maori-only things in general institutions, this is where I think problems could lie. Just like I’m opposed to Maori owning the foreshore and seabed, because I’m for assets being owned by the State. ACT and part of National don’t agree with this.
It’s when it’s Maori institutions (and the Maori roll) that Maori have rights. Because if there weren’t Maori institutions, the culture would be wiped out. You’re not going to have non-Maori advancing the issues of Maori, simple as that. So surely it’s better to have Maori things which are accountable to Maori.
I believe the way to deal with Maori and Pasifika issues isn’t through treating everyone the same (on the general system) but through Whanau Ora. Take a look at what I said on the other blog.
Tracey – like I said already, the SuperCity point you made earlier was the one I didn’t think was a specific election promise. Seems previous govt were heading down that path as well. Therefore I can’t play this hypothetical game with you.
The introduction of all laws is a complex process. The SuperCity one is particularly complex because there are so many stakeholders, so many different paths to go down, and so many people with a view on how it should be done. Obviously it’s impossible for the government to make all parties happy on this one. Like you, I might not be a fan of some of the finer aspects, but this is to be expected. Overall it is a major step in the right direction, and any bumps can be ironed out down the track as they become known.
Martin – I think we’re always going to disagree on this one. My only expectations when living in the UK were to be treated as a citizen equal under the law with all others.
I do feel that before any meaningful discourse can be held on the position and status of maori within NZ in the 21st century we need a sensible definition of what ‘maori’ means. We certainly don’t at the moment.
George, I’m not naive. I know that the majority of NZers agree with you and Sean. I have family that have the same idea. I used to aswell. And in principle you are right.
It’s just that the Treaty was signed, and as long as the government recognises it (ie it’s legal) than that is what we have. It is enshrined in our legislation, Sir Geoffrey Palmer sorted that out as Attorney-General. The problem was that he didn’t define what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are!!
The thing that concerns me George, is when you have people that cry wolf everytime something that is Maori occurs. This is the thing that really frightens me in New Zealand. It’s as though they’ve got nothing better to do than to kick Maori metaphorically in the guts. And when you have a non-Maori majority that have the same attitude, the prospects don’t look good, regardless of the one person, one equal vote.
Just remember, as I said about the 28th Battalion fighting for NZ’s freedoms, as the King was the HOS of your country as well as ours, they fought for YOURS. I regard sacrifice as one of the highest forms of honour and entitlement, considerably more so than a man in a yellow jacket throwing his toys out of the cot because he disagreed with the Royal Commission.
Martin – my father fought alongside the ANZACs in North Africa and Italy. He was at Tobruk and El Alamein and Monte Cassino. The freedom they were all fighting for wasn’t only for the benefit of ‘Mother England’. The Japanese were well on the way to New Zealand, and with a population of fewer than two million at the time without outside help New Zealand could have ended up as Japan’s farm.
George. I apologise if you took my last post the wrong way. I wasn’t trying to kick veterans in the guts. I have a lot of respect for veterans. I’m an ex-TF soldier myself, not a veteran though.
As Field Marshall Montgomery once said, when politicians no longer do the job, they send in soldiers.
That’s why I’m concerned with the government sending our SAS to Afghanistan…
Can anyone give an example where Banks has worked to imporove the lot of Asian immigrants in AKL?
jhon banks disapoints us all a rich useless man is he
and most of the buggers in auckland councl too.