We can choose our future based on principle and with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart.
Or we can have a country where one New Zealander is turned against another, Maori against Pakeha, in a way that Labour strongly rejects.
I know which one I choose. And I believe that all New Zealanders feel the same way.
Have we got to the point where talking about a difficult subject such as the relationship between Maori and Pakeha becomes labelled as “playing the race card?”
I’ve always believed that talking about the hard issues is better than not talking about them. Which is why I am staggered and disheartened by some of the media’s response to Phil Goff’s speech yesterday.
My 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 that.
I want to believe that we can do that. I believe that one of the things that’s wrong in our society is that we don’t talk enough about the big issues, and the hard issues. Such as taxes and why we pay them; about death and also about race.
As Phil Goff said yesterday;
In times when our community is challenged, we look to our leaders to articulate our hurts and our hearts.
What we need right now is leadership and courage. Not dismissiveness, divisiveness and shallowness.
Let’s have some wisdom and reflection, and some honesty. We must never say that we shouldn’t talk about something because it’s too hard.
All that does is make it fester, build resentment and ultimately result in dissension and distrust.
That’s not the country I want to live in.
I ask our media, our commentators and our wise heads to think before they speak, not have kneejerk reactions and to reflect on the importance of this issue. Please read carefully what Phil Goff and others in our Labour caucus have said.
This is too important to trivialise and sensationalise. But we must talk about it.
Clare,
I had no issue with what Phil Goff said or the debate that he is trying to create.
What you are realising right now is what those such as Don Brash and us on the political “right” have known for years, be white/rich/both and talk about Maori and the “race card” is played. Usually ironically by the political left.
Maori (and with it the National Party) are creating a far greater divide in their recent dirty dealings. The gap between wealthy Maori and poor Maori just got much larger. Nothing wrong with that as it is their decision – but in the end everyone keeps paying and paying and paying.
Why did he choose this topic, choose to call his speech ‘nationhood’ just like Don Brash did and choose to deliver it to Grey Power?
Why the attempt to take a grab-bag of resentment against people and issues Maori and try to weave everything into that narrative?
Why the inexplicable backflip on the foreshore and seabed?
You’re a communications expert Clare. Surely you can understand why the reaction has been this way.
I’ve read Goff’s speech and I can’t understand why the media keep comparing it to Brash’s disgracefull speech of 5or 6 years ago.
An obvious contrast – after Brash’s speech Georgina TeHeuHeu was sacked from the front bench.
After Goff’s speech – Horomia and Jones come out in support.
Are people calling them racist????
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00453.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00447.htm
Tom – Goff was standing up for Maori and against the dodgy National- Maori Party deals that were against Maori.
Have you read Jones and Horomia’s statements or Jones’s speech on the ETS??? Here it is: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00424.htm
In fact the Greens made the same points.
Perhaps the reason Goff chose this topic is that it’s obvious the Labour caucus, Maori and Pakeha, are worried about the dodgy deals National and Maori PArty are doing against Maori.
I’ve read the speech. Doesn’t answer my questions.
Pointing out the Maori Party has Stockholm Syndrome is not race baiting.
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2009/11/pointing-out-maori-party-has-stockholm.html
Harry is absolutly right, This isn’t anything like don brash’s speech. It’s almost the opposite. Goff points out that all maori arn’t being treated equally and the the National-Maori party deal isn’t good for many Maori at all. The speech is more about being treated equally rather than not recognising Maori rights…. Don Brash wanted to ignore Maoridom alltogether. Goff on the other hand is saying that we need to be treating all Maori equally, not just big Iwi… and that all of NZ needs to be treated fairly. I do agree however, that calling the speech Nationhood was a silly move. The speech was a smart political move that put National in a hole…. Also what do you want him to tell greypower? How labour is going to make life better for average maori? That wouldn’t have gone down well… Oh, and changing his mind over the F&S was probably because National has lost a lot of political capital over the ETS so National changing the F&S is going to ruffel some feathers and labour wants to be there to pick up the pieces… It’s all part of the stratagy that Labour and Goff have come up with…
He he he Stockholm Syndrome
Tom – you say reading JOnes’s speech doesn’t answer your questions. Why not? I think it provides strong answers to your questions.
Good to see core Labour voters are supporting Phil:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Goff-smothered-in-kisses-at-strike/tabid/209/articleID/131632/cat/772/Default.aspx
Harry R, you are right , the answers to Toms questions can be found in Goffs speech. Except why to grey power.
Well he doesnt say but probably it was a suitable audience timing wise. You could hardly do it the Federated Farmers conference- which was another major speech on monetary policy. In 2 weeks there may be another major speech.
Im curious about the police report about Worth, released while Taito John Key is out of the country. Coincidence ?
ghostwhowalksnz – I did not say the answer is in Goff’s speech. The answer is in Jones’s speech, which I linked to.
Goff was reiterating points raised by Jones. Jones is leading this debate for Labour.
I don’t know Clare, saying the MSM are reacting in a suprising manner is a bit of misdirection…
The left blogosphere ain’t singing Labour praises right now either, just go to No Right Turn…
the media reporting of the speech has been a disgrace. It goes way beyond their usual sloppiness and laziness. They may think that if they can create a controversy it will sell papers or whatever, or they may have a political axe to grind. Either way it is a disservice to the democratic process.
@Jeremy Some (not all) MSM have reacted in a kneekerk fashion. But enough to build a perception. It’s about division. It’s shallow and lacking in maturity
Have we got to the point where talking about a difficult subject such as the relationship between Maori and Pakeha becomes labelled as “playing the race card?”
Race is an important issue and politicians do need to be able to discuss it without being accused of racism.
But we also have to admit that race is a sensitive issue, and that in the extremely recent past unethical politicians like Don Brash and Winston Peters have ‘played the race card’ to improve their position in the polls.
So which is Goff doing? On one hand, he makes some valid points in his speech about the Maori Party and their failure to show leadership on the ETS. On the other hand, he’s in trouble in the polls and instead of delivering this speech to a Maori audience he’s giving it to the same elderly white demographic Brash and Peters pitched their racist dog-whistles to. Goff has called his speech ‘Nationhood’, the exact same title as the speech Don Brash delivered in Orewa. Goff makes essentially the same point as Brash – the country is in trouble and various race issues are the cause of it all – using identical language. He employs the same trick of a dual narrative so he can pretend he’s speaking on behalf of Maori.
Like I said, Goff does make some real points in his speech: that’s because he’s trying to have it both ways; engage in a serious issues debate AND play to the redneck vote. I don’t think it works like that, I don’t think the ~70,000 Maori voters who gave Labour their party vote in 08 will either.
Danyl – not sure why you assume Maori who support Labour will oppose a speech by Goff, reiterating points made by Jones, that sticks up for Maori against the dodgy-deals done by National and Maori Party.
Have a read of Jones’s speech and the statement by him and Horomia backing up Goff
I’ve read Jones’s speech – it’s a good speech! If Goff had gone to, say, Ratana and given a similar speech then I think we could agree that he was acting in good faith; he didn’t though and no amount of magical thinking will change the facts that he’s playing to the Peter’s demographic or that he’s used Brash’s Orewa speech as a template.
So Danyl picks five paragraphs from Goffs speech ( there would be nearer 50 in total) and says that makes it a ‘template’. Really ?
Then he does a match of selected words to give him a ‘gotcha’ in the style of the oily cetacean.
So in this instance from Brash:..”dangerous drift towards racial separatism in New Zealand, and the development of the now entrenched Treaty grievance industry”
is supposed to be the same as this from Goff : “…If you can never settle Treaty grievances, there can never be healing, and you keep alive a grievance from one age into another.”
Hello. Brash is denying the case for any grievances . While Goff says the special deal for a few Iwi have destroyed the case for the previously final settlements. ( as well the deal was negotiated by a paid representative of the iwi themselves, no worries for Danyl)
But to top it off Danyl then invents some thing Goff didnt say.
Obviously Brash went furthur – he promised to abolish the Maori seats, Goff isn’t there yet..
Thats right Danyl hasnt found a match for ‘abolish Maori seats’ so he makes it up by using a trick of the future tense
This speech was a gift to the electorate, but who chose the awful wrapping paper? Its base values of protecting people from being fleeced by corporates (irrespective of the colour of their shareholders) is vintage Labour. But the setting was clearly intended to invoke all that other nasty stuff, surely no-one is really surprised by the MSM writing the easy story.
The subtext – asking if the Maori Party is really working for Maori – is absolutely a question Labour should be asking, but I’m not sure the answer will come from the good people at Grey Power Palmerston North.
Oh my god, if I were a grey power member I’d feel leaporized by these comments. So what if he delivered his speech to a bunch of chronologically advanced voters. That seems to be the main complaint, the audience. Ma and Pa O’Saurus are as diverse as any other group in their opinions.
I’m sure Mac1 would agree that it can’t be fun having your group being stereotyped.
The suggestion that Goff wants to abolish the Maori seats is just absurd!
Perhaps try googling “Goff” and “Maori Seats” and you’ll see that Phil Goff also criticised National and the Maori Party for not ensuring there were Maori seats on the SuperCity Council.
Ghost – if your reading skills are so remedial that you can’t see the similarity between the speeches then I can’t really help you any furthur. But you have to admit that:
1. The Orewa speech is the most notorious race-baiting speech in our recent history.
2. Goff’s speech has the same title, themes and is delivered to a similar audience, at similar times in the leaders’ careers and the electoral cycle.
Your alternate hypothesis seems to be that Goff and his advisors are so stupid they didn’t realise these similarities would provoke accusations that Goff was ‘playing the race card’. (After all, it would have been trivial to change the title of the speech or the audience.)
I’m not immune to the argument that Goff and his aides are so witless they blundered into this territory by mistake but so far I’m still inclined to think it was intentional.
Having now read the whole speech, its not as bad as I thought it would be, and the media made it out that it was like Brash.
I still worry that it is dodgy ground and as we have seen, the media turn it into a race hate issue and blow it into something it is likely not intended to be. This then – when the public get a shonky part of a much larger picture, causes trouble. ON the surface of it, it looks like he is trying to get the redneck vote, and when you look at the damage Brash did to the Nats with his Orewa speech, there is a concern that Goff will turn off the same voters who were disgusted by the Brash speech.
I thought, before reading it, that he should not go there, based on what I had read and heard in the media. IF I think that, and it worries me, I can bet there are a heck of a lot more that think the same.
What gets lost in situations like this are the real issues, because the media, and then the public, forget about the dogdy Maori/Nat party marriage, the way the Maori party have done a deal that screws over the people they claim to need to support, and the only ones who end up winning are the big Iwi corps – not the person who needs it most – because all that gets debated and all that riles people up are the race issue. And this is much bigger than that.
As for needing to debate the wider race relations issue in NZ – yes, thats long overdue, but how it is discussed is important, as is the context. Bringing Hone back into it, is imo, a mistake.
I get to converse with a very wide cross section of people – who range cultures, religions, socio economic stratus and political leanings – and something they have in common is that they still do not see Labour as a viable option (even Lab supporters) – and they are not sure who can take Goffs place. So, Labour can sugar coat the issue of leadership and keep on telling the public that Goff is the right man for the job – but I am predicting that unless there is some serious waking up from the Labour party, and they either do over Goff with some serious PR, he will not cut the mustard.
Labour need a leader that will claw back the middle voter – and I, who really want to see you guys back in with a vengence – am not convinced. I wonder when the Labour party are going to be ready to listen to the public when they say they are not keen on him – esp those who are getting pretty brassed off with the Nats – nows the time to get this sorted. I dont think his speech did it – and nice that he is – it takes more than that.
How do you know Goff isn’t the right leader? Have you met the man?
Why are people panicking only one year out from the defeat? The best thing to help Goff is if people would stop perpetuating the myth that he isn’t up to the job / needs to be replaced. There are no grounds for saying this, he’s doing a fine job, and this is partially proved by the fact that the only thing that they could find wrong with the damn speech that it was delivered to grey power who aren’t a bunch of bigots!
I see Danyl is becoming more desperate in seeing the race card .
Its gone from being a template to being in the same stage of their both leadership.???
That explains everything then.
AS well hes inventing an audience. Orewa was a Rotary Club function which Grey Power is not.
Last week Goff was at federated Farmers, just the place for a speech about Nationhood, but instead he had a major change regarding economic policy.
Perhaps the events of the last 2 -3 weeks , when Hawawira made a outburst against Goff personally might have some thing to do with it, along with the ‘who knows what will happen next over the ETS’.
Then again cunning Goff , at this stage of his leadership, using a template, before a handpicked audience was able to play the race card – by calling his speech Nationhood.
I think somepeople should stick to their Bioinfomatics research, there should be plenty of patterns there to be found
Rotary Club…Greypower
Tomahto..Tomayto
I don’t know why anyone has problems with the way the media reported Phil Goff’s Iwi/Kiwi speech. It got him the headlines he was after.
I call it Phil Goff’s “Unity” speech! Somehow I don’t think those particular headlines were the ones he was after, afterall
they didn’t really convey the spirit of his speech.
[...] at RedAlert, Clare Curran and Grant Robertson shill for their leader and insist that we listen to what Goff had to say. Eddie [...]
Yeah, I saw his speech on youtube. Would encourage others to do the same.
Meanwhile back at the ‘Dumb-Post’, rather than say what he doesnt like in Goffs speech,he reinterprets the speech to say what Don Brash said’.
Now he calls labour Mps on a labour party blog ’shills’ for highlighting the same speech . ie the original version.
perhaps the Dumb Post, should look up what shill means
“shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer”. – Wikipedia
Pretends no association ? , Labour Mps on a labour party blog?.
I think someone should stick to the fanatasy politics and not mix that with genuine comment
The speech is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4QXsLbRO0
I don’t see the big deal… A pretty traditional Labour speech, investing in Education, the working class… He pointed out what he thought was wrong with the ETS deal and is putting pressure on National to announce it’s Foreshore and Seabed amendements…
@Spud here’s a drinking game for you, during the election campaign everytime Goff mentions, “subsidising polluters $110 billion”, skull..!
@Jeremy – Agree about the speech. As for your drinking game, challenge accepted!
Election night will also be a big drinking night. 
[...] [...]