It wasn’t too difficult to spot Te Ururoa standing on the stage at Ratana, giving the media ‘his’ interpretation of what was being discussed on the paepae. He was very obviously acting as a translator for them – how completely inappropriate is that. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that he could have been telling them anything and/ or just deliberately skipping over any details that might put labour in good light.
New Zealanders expect a fair and balanced media – but how can you get this when basic levels of common sense are lacking?
I agree with You Carmel and quite frankly for an MP who is a member of the Maori party to be the ‘Translater’ for any media is not only inappropriate but it is also a sign of the downright favourtism of the Media towards the Government and a large degree of animosity towards any Opposition.
Its utterly foul and rediculous for the Media to be taking any sides but unfortunately this the reality of the situation and the nature of the beast that is the Media.
Being a little green eyed here? I am sure it it was one of your own doign the Translating you would not be so concerned?
From whay I understand of Te Ururoa he is a completely honourable man. Do you know it there was a bias or are you just happy to accuse him of being bias?
I imagine that if he were translating incorrectly, that one of those he was translating for would have protested! I mean, its not like like none of them speak English at all is it?!!!
Media should spring for their own translation, this morning Radio NZ reported “Labour gets warm reception” from Ratana, and the NZ Herald- “Labour gets icy reception from Ratana” so which was it?
I suspect it was a mixture, which the RNZ contextualised as one would expect better than the Herald, which admitted/claimed later in its piece that Phil Goff personally was well received.
I have just read the reports in the Herald – in Particular this line:
Labour leader Phil Goff had to endure a speech praising Prime Minister John Key for being “a brilliant speaker” and “a person who should be admired”.
To Goff’s credit the Herald did report
“A seat in Parliament on the list is something that comes from merit and working and gaining the respect of your peers. It is not appointed by the leader or the president and that’s the way it should be.” to demands for 4 x Ratana seats high on Labours list.” (I absolutely agree with Goff’s statement here)
Is this what you are complaining about – and has the Herald translation got it wrong?
Today’s Herald headline: “Labour gets icy welcome at Ratana”.
That is a complete contrast to what we saw on TV1 and TV3 last night. Did Audrey Young get her information from Te
Ururoa?
Correct Anne – that is a complete contrast to what was being portrayed by tv last night – so who got it wrong? Looks like the Herald have an axe to grind with Lab – or is it more appropriate to think that the Herald want to keep their nest feathered?
from someone who was there I can assure you that it was far from an icy welcome. The speeches were the usual mix of welcome and challenge. The people I spoke to were friendly and well aware of the long history of our relationship. It will have its ups and downs, but there is a commitment to listening to each other, and developing it for the future.
and so the PR spin for the PM goes on…one does wonder whats in if for them? Exclusive reporting?
Does Audrey Young have it in for Phil Goff?
Rose petals for John Key and icy stares for Phil Goff . Its getting to be a theme. I hope she was actually there >
no need to wonder “what’s in it for them” – the media are owned and operated by rich people who will benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy etc etc. Do you think TV reporters are on minimum wage, or have any idea what life is like for those who are?
@ ghostwhowalksnz.
Good point. Was she actually there? Or was she late for the deadline so she submitted last years’ report instead?
@Anne she was there, scowling as everyone else there agreed with Parekua Horomia as he attacked the integrity of the press in NZ.
You guys (Labour) can get as nasty as you like, but you brought all of this on yourselves. While there’s a lot the Maori Party need to get their heads around, like making sure Key and English don’t walk all over them (which is a different issue) did you really think Maori would just sit by and let Labour continue on its merry way doing everything you’d expect from a Tory government and do nothing? They’ve got a long way to go before we can say the Maori Party is properly cutting it in politics, but I say good on them, and that the NZ political scene is all the better for its arrival. So instead of moaning about how its not a Labour Maori MP translating at Ratana (which I’m sure you wouldn’t be complaining about if it were) I think you need to sit back and reflect on your past behaviour that’s left you in this sorry state.
This country has 3 official languages, English, Maori and signing, so resources including neutral translators should ideally be available to facilitate understanding at significant events such as this.
@Anton Craig: try and stick to the topic please, this is not kiwi blog or trade me.
Have a look at The Standard for the contrasting views of how the day went for Labour.
Fascinating stuff.
Anton, party that gets 2.39% of the total vote is going to walked over in parliament whoever is in power.
I bet Labours share of the Maori vote ( Maori & general roll) was 6-8% on the same basis.
As for the Media, once they had their own reporters that knew Te reo and tikanga.
Its not as though the meeting is in Peru or something and had to grab whoever was available
Just had a read of Eddie’s post, Darien: “I look forward to the day your party starts living up to them, Pita. Maybe once Turia goes the Maori Party can rejoin the Left.” I agree that when Tariana leaves the Maori Party there’ll be some Maori Party views that’ll shift towards the Left, but what we need is someone becoming the Left, because at the moment there isn’t anyone to “rejoin”. Going by something vaguely resembling the often cited sentiment of “you can tell a political party’s colours by the way it treats the most vulnerable”: Labour is not Left. Go have a look, Darien, at all the damage Labour did to the foundations of our social security system, starting with the Social Security Amendment Act 1997, going back through all the changes made from 1999. Labour’s not only handed the nats the mandate to continue down this track, but it’s also helped to pave the way for the inevitable decimation to ACC as well. Like I said earlier, you need to take a serious stock-take of what you’ve done and what you’ve stood for over the last 10 years, not just in social welfare but in all sorts of areas. If, and only if, you see the truth, you might want to begin to think about how Labour can “rejoin” the Left.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@ 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?
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.
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…
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.
E kī, e kī
Carmel if any of you had any sort of a clue about interpreting whai kōrero 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 kāinga. 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 Māoridom by trying to trick reporters for cheap political gain.
What a rediculous post.