A lot of media comment today on Phil’s speech to Grey Power in Palmerston North. Some of it does not bear much relation to the actual content. It is vital that we can have a mature debate about difficult and challenging issues, and the media have an important role to play in that. This does not mean agreeing with every word, just that it is reported fairly. Please do follow the link above, have a read for yourself and make up your own mind.
For an example have a look at Gordon Campbell’s take on the speech. He does not agree with all of it, but he debates the substance. A sample
The one area where Goff’s speech did hit home cleanly was over the failure of the ETS deal to meet the environmental challenge. The rewards for big polluters, Maori and pakeha, are indefensible. So however is the response that calls Goff’s speech an instance of ‘playing the race card.’ Unlike Don Brash at Orewa, this speech dealt with specific and substantive issues – and if its faults are also substantive, they should be attacked on those terms.
After all, if the Maori Party are going to become the kingmakers in future New Zealand elections, they – and we- are going to have to learn how to debate their shortcomings without being called racists for doing so. The fact racists will undoubtedly prey on such criticism is not a reason for remaining silent, or for giving the Maori Party a free pass.
How come all the web MSM stories start with the National party pushback on the speech, getting ‘their’ talking points across, and yet some of the quotes from Phil are towards the end.
Yet the reverse is true when national makes an announcement Labours talking points, if covered are at the end?
Even when Key is ‘relaxed’ about some issue , ie a non answer it seems to get quite a bit air.
GWW- That’s what you can expect from most MSM, espcially the NZ herald…. What’s great about Goff’s speech is it shows us how ignorant Key is. His defense for his backdoor deal with the Maori party is; “he’s just trying to get headlines”…. Someone needs to tell Key that if the truth starts grabbing headlines for the opposition, it’s not very good for him…. This is great political strategy… The best part about it is that Key doesn’t seem to fully understand what Goff has done by making this speech…. Essentially Goff has dug a hole for the National party, put them in it and said to everyone “look they’re being racist”. pre-empting the F&S is genius… This is going to show the wide gap between Goff and Key on the political scale….
[...] at The Standard calls it “stupid and wrong on so many levels”, MP Grant Robertson give his take, and DimPost calls it “essentially the same speech with the same title, updated for [...]
I thought Goff’s speech was good and I agree with it. There’s no race card here it’s just that the particular people being favoured in the ETS happen to be Maori, but it’s still a dirty deal done at the expense of the rest of the country. I agree with him that hate speech shouldn’t be allowed and most of his speech was really positive. Good for him!
Hi Grant,
I’ve supported Labour in the last 3 elections, but I daresay that speeches like Phil’s aren’t going to get my vote.
I agree that dialogue on the substance of the speech is important – indeed, this is what was lacking in Brash’s attacks – but the forum Phil used was inappropriate. The fact that he addressed Grey Power is incredibly loaded. I don’t mean to suggest that Grey Power members are racist, but they certainly are grumpy and nostalgic for a time when Maori weren’t so ‘uppity’.
If Phil were serious about engaging in a genuine dialogue on this issue he could have used a variety of other fora: op eds, speeches to Maori groups, general debates, and so on.
I don’t blame him for trying to win back the men who jumped to National in 05 and never came back, but I would suggest that he runs the same risk that Brash took in isolating the social liberals.
I’m sure you’ll recall that Brash would have taken power in 05 if he had kept the social liberals on board…
Grant – do you know why Goff gave his speech the same title as Brash’s Orewa speech?
“I’m sure you’ll recall that Brash would have taken power in 05 if he had kept the social liberals on board…” That was one scary election. I suppose he had to speak to grey power sometime. I’m sure he’ll be speaking to many different groups about various things. I’m a social liberal and I’m not offended by his speech, can’t speak for anyone else, but Harawira’s comments really bleeped me off!
Spud:
With regards to Harawira’s comments, I would suggest that this represents a missed opportunity for Labour.
Of course, Phil spoke out against Harawira’s behaviour, which is reasonable and an easy way to gain political traction.
However, the whole incident offered an opportunity to explore the situation of Maori in NZ vis-a-vie colonialism and begin a dialogue about how to fix the enormous disparities. I would call that social democracy.
Instead, Phil has decided to hype up nationalist rhetoric about special privileges based on race. I would call that social conservatism, at best.
The only difference between the Goff and Brash approach is that Brash was less subtle in his politicking. Phil’s got his nose in a nasty can of worms that Brash opened.
Short term gain? Maybe. But look at the strife if caused National. Not worth it, I’d suggest.
“begin a dialogue about how to fix the enormous disparities. I would call that social democracy.” Labour has spent the last nine years trying to fix disparities and I do believe that he wants as much for Maori people as he does for the rest of the country. He is actually arguing that our country’s future has been sold to benefit a Maori elite, while ordinary NZers, including Maori, will be left to foot the bill.
I hope all those offended by Hones description of “white” people made an official complaint to Mr De Bres??
A mature debate makes sense, but so do thoughtful politics. The combination of timing, substance and audience leave something to be desired in this case.
A mature debate makes sense, but so do thoughtful politics. The combination of timing, substance and audience leaves something to be desired in this case.
G- What enormous disparities are you talking about. If you read Goff’s speech closly he is infact saying that maori have been sold out by the maori party. Ofcourse he isn’t going to spell that out for greypower. This is hardly Nationalist rhetoric, he merely stated the truth. Brash was more of a “we need to make everybody equal” whereas Goff is saying that maori need to be represented fairly and that any outcome should be fair for everybody. The fact that full and final settlements are being re-examined is worrying.
Robert- how can you question the substance of his speech? and what’s wrong with the timing? pre-empting the F&S repeal was a good move, I belive. As far as the audience goes, I would have to agree with you but in saying that what did you wnat him to tell them?
Any reasonable person reading Goff’s speech can see that the accusations of “playing the race card” is absolute poppycock! They are coming from individuals who havn’t bothered to read the speech in full. With the passing of the ETS legislation, the Maori Party can now be seen for what it is… another Tory party. Therefore Labour is fully within it’s rights to criticise them in exactly the same way as they criticise the National Party.
Palmerston North..? Was Orewa booked..?
n0exit:
I was referring to broader socio-economic disparities.
I agree that the content of Goff’s speech is different to that of Brash’s, but I believe they’re both in the same tone.
Brash was – as you noted – in favour of ‘one standard of citizenship’. Iwi/Kiwi, etc.
Goff’s speech does note that there is diversity in New Zealand and that this should be celebrated. But he also argues that Maori shouldn’t be compensated for the ETS because no one else is.
That’s fine – I have no bones with that. But the underlying message is that everybody must be treated equally and that the government is treating Maori favourably.
That, to me, is no different to the Brash approach.
The speech clearly was not racist if you actually read it and I struggle to see how someone who has read the whole speech and not merely selected parts could mistake it for being so. Phil’s point appears not to distinguish on basis of race but on a selected few seeking benefits at the expense of the majority. Maori have been harmed by the deals National has done with the Maori party, a few Iwi benefited but the rest will suffer and while it is difficult to argue that line without straying into racism I think he did it.
I read the speech and I am of the Right (ACT to be clear). If I thought the speech was racist believe you me, I would say so.
It wasn’t.
[...] colleague Grant Robertson has called for a mature debate about these difficult and challenging issues, and the media have an important role to play in [...]
Pathetic desperate tactics from Goff. But even worse from Shane Jones. Even Winston Peters would dare stuff like this:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00424.htm
G- I think that Goff was opposed to giving compensation for the ETS because they were full and final settlements, not because he didn’t belive in Maori customary rights. Also in the speech he points out that all maori arn’t being treated equally and that the solutions offered by the Maori Party and National arn’t fair for anybody… That’s quite different from Brash…
G at 1.12
You draw a long bow when you characterise Grey Power as grumpy about Maori.
This ten year member of Grey Power, and still young at sixty, disputes that. At a recent meeting I heard Goff speak and I sat alongside a racist, whom I know. There are some, as in any grouping, I guess. Goff was not alongside him, in his views.
Try a Grey Power meeting. Listen to the quiet voices.
Goff, I am sure, speaks to many groups. Grey Power are interested to hear political views. I certainly don’t think they were chosen for their ‘redneckedness’ by Goff.
Gooner at 4.30.
Good on you.
The speech is a Tarzan call to the knuckle draggers.
BliP – given he was repeating points made by Shane Jones in Jones’s speech, do you characterise Jones’s speech in the same way?
John Armstrong makes some interesting comments about Phil’s speech in today’s NZ Herald.
See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10612104
[...] at RedAlert, Clare Curran and Grant Robertson shill for their leader and insist that we listen to what Goff had to say. Eddie at The Standard did [...]
[...] [...]