Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘M?ori’

Watch This Space!

Posted by Nanaia Mahuta on April 14th, 2012

A very interesting development on the political landscape emerged last week.

The Government had made some critical decisions to ‘reassign’ Family Start contracts for a small number of providers. On the surface one might have been tempted to go for the jugular and criticize the Government for cutting services to assist the most vulnerable families in our communities.

When you consider some of the providers involved it appeared that the Government was set to buy a fight with players like; Te Whanau o Waipareira, Turuki Health services and Papakura Marae who service vulnerable communities. A closer look at this decision leads to more questions.

Was it really about not meeting auditing requirements? Or was it a case of putting the whanau ora cart before the family start horse?

Perhaps neither but Te Whanau o Waipareira was blindsided at a time when they were also establishing themselves to deliver the Governments much promoted charter school model. This same organisation has been a staunch advocate of the Governments ‘whanau ora’ policy and leads a significant National Urban Maori cluster which has secured ‘whanau ora’ funding.

Whatever the case may be, certain ‘dots’ have not been connected by the Government. If there is a serious ambition to lift the educational opportunities for more Maori and Pacific learners then what happens outside of the school gate is just as important as what happens in the classroom.

In order for more Maori children to succeed in life the basics must be taken care of; a warm and loving home, kai on the table and a stable job for the parents.
Family Start is an initiative that works with vulnerable whanau to assist them to model a lifestyle where they all thrive, parents and children. There is a lot of baggage to get through and several challenges that cannot be ignored.

‘Reassigning’ these contracts to other providers was a big call and the new providers will have to deliver. It just seems odd that there will now be a separation between Family Start providers and some Whanau Ora providers when there is a natural fit for both initiatives to work in conjunction with one-another.

This move echos National’s ‘hat-trick’ of promoting competition in the marketplace of social service providers.

No one will really benefit least of all vulnerable whanau.


No Room for Dithering on Treaty of Waitangi

Posted by Nanaia Mahuta on February 6th, 2012

Happy Waitangi Day! Throughout the country people will be celebrating a day that reminds us who we are, and how our country was founded – at least I would like to think that is the case. At Waitangi there will be celebration, but only after the intial flexing of ‘treaty right’ muscle most notable from those who feel offended by the lack of progress.

Perspective is a great moderator of opinion and even though our nation can still be consider a young 172 years in the making – the way forward remains very clear.

Our path as a nation predicates itself on the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document which in its time has been the focal point of debate that has shaped our sense of nationhood. Maori as tangata whenua, continue to assert a prerogative for doing things differently. Perspectives regarding environmental stewardship are most keenly asserted by tangata whenua who want to preserve our natural resource inheritance for future generations. This year we might expect evidence of this in debates regarding increased mineral use, oil exploration and growing angst in the reliance of our economy on fossil fuels and thermal power generation. On this front the great majority of Maori opinion would see itself at the centre of a renewable energy programme of action and potentially helping to lead the low carbon economic agenda. Now the Crown might do well to see how Treaty claimants and post-settlement iwi might partner investment in this area rather than looking offshore. Even in the research and development space, some iwi should be approached by the Governments CRIs to partner ‘cutting edge’ projects as a real opportunity to do things differently.

A strong driver of opinion on s. 9 of the SoE Act will be the potential impact of the National Governments agenda on natural resources. A case in point from my own electorate is the process Genesis is currently embarking on to renew its 35year consents to take water. Waikato-Tainui may do well to consider their position on consents against a backdrop of any proposed sale of energy companies. Shorter consents may prove no certainty for private interests. But, if the National Government in selling SoEs presume they have the absolute right to divest 49% of their shareholding on behalf of Maori – think carefully. Tainui tested s.9 in the CoalCorp case which was a predecessor to the 1995 Waikato Raupatu Settlement. When the National Government undertook to separate ECNZ into 3 energy companies Tainui sought an undertaking from the Minister via the High Court that by doing so, the tribes interests in the Waikato river would not be prejudicially affected. The 2008 Waikato River Settlement contains a clause that gives Tainui first right of refusal over the Huntly Power station. No position on water rights was reached by the then Labour Government or the National government. This remains a live issue for many competing water users – but there are many roads to Rome and it could well be time to revisit water allocation and consent rights.

I would be very interested to see an opinion from Crown Law on the ability of the Crown to sell a 49% shareholding in Crown Assets without the full resolution of Treaty Settlement claims. At a political level one can only deduce that National has a high level of comfort in selling energy companies first because of the perceived interest from iwi like Ngai Tahu and Tainui. But as tribal members will confirm, no solid proposal or business case has been revealed. Neither iwi nor ‘mum and dad investors’ should be scapegoats for an over-zealous ideology.

These are interesting times and as we also enter the Year of the Dragon – the lack of political leadership on the Treaty of Waitangi may unleash a Taniwha….just saying.


Who is Selling out Now?

Posted by Nanaia Mahuta on January 31st, 2012

As we head towards Waitangi Day a core issue for the Government is about to be tested. Pitching the Sale of State Owned Energy Companies will be fraught with subtle yet powerful undertones that will test Nationals mettle and it’s real desire to forge a long lasting relationship with Maori.

The easy route would be to complete the round of consultation hui and satisfy the Governments ‘obligation’ to consult. But, I suspect iwi and Maori are well past the box-ticking mentality.

Perhaps even some concessions that would see c.9 of the SoE Act being substituted for something ‘more meaningful’ to the current political landscape, the PM may even a propose to iwi a shareholding interest in SoEs (albeit too small to be effective).

But the Real Issue confronting all New Zealanders – Maori and Paakeha alike is that we have a vested interest in these SoEs not because of some romantic view that the State knows best, but that we must take leadership and derive the benefits from more efficient and high performing companies that deliver to us as citizens. Privatisation in itself will be a shortsighted gain with very few people benefiting – the risk being greater disparity between ‘haves and have nots’.

Waitangi Day is a time to see who walks their talk, a debate on retaining a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the SoE Act must not detract from the central issue of keeping kiwi assets in kiwi hands. Now is a time to have Maori on your side!


Sir Michael Marmot- Health Equity

Posted by Grant Robertson on July 13th, 2011

Today I am attending a symposium organised by the NZMA on health inequities to coincide with the visit of Sir Michael Marmot from the UK. I have blogged before about the influence of Sir Michael on the excellent NZMA statement on health equity.

Its occasions like this that highlight just how ridiculous are the assertions of Maori privilege made by Don Brash. Just a couple of examples have been highlighted by Tony Blakely from Otago University and Don Simmers and Norman Sharpe from the NZMA.

- despite improvements in the first decade of this century Maori life expectancy is 7-8 years short of non-Maori.
- mortaility rates for Maori in middle age are 2-3 tomes higher than non-Maori including all causes such as heart disease.
- Maori babies are 5 times more likely to die of sudden infant death syndrome than non-Maori
- diabetes rates, suicide rates and infectious disease rates and mortality are all higher for Maori than non-Maori

Health inequities are certainly relate to economic depravation,and it was a good achievement that income inequality in New Zealand did reduce slightly in the 2000s under Labour, but there is much more to do. It is also clear that there is an ethnic component above and beyond that. Addressing this is not privileging a group, it is in fact correcting a systemic disadvantage. Doing so, with early intervention, will benefit us all in promoting social inclusion and reducing the cost of expensive health interventions at a later stage.


Oil extraction from the Northland Basin

Posted by Kelvin Davis on July 11th, 2010

Lying under 100,000 square kilometres of seabed off the west coast of Northland is an estimated one trillion barrels of oil equivalent.

This is the seabed that shortly no one will own because under the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act it will become “public domain”.

Bids are being sought for “petroleum exploration permits.” (Closing date 18 August)

Maori should have been involved in the process to determine who wins these permits. They haven’t.

This means the Crown alone gets to decide which third party over the next five years, can poke around on the Seabed, looking for oil.

1. The Treaty of Waitangi was a partnership between the Crown and Maori. Maori should be sitting at the table with the Crown participating in the process of making decisions in regards to anything to do with this resource.

They aren’t. The Treaty is still being dishonoured.

2. Under the repeal the F&S no one owns the seabed but the Crown still reserves the right to decide who does what to the Seabed, when its done and where its done.

Sounds like ownership to me.

The Crown will still have the final say therefore the repeal is a joke. 

3. Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People says:
“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

Free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained.

The United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights has been treated with contempt by the Government who endorsed it on the world stage just a couple of months back.

This is a perfect example of why Maori appear to be in a constant state of grievance.

The Treaty has again been dishonoured. The Foreshore and Seabed repeal is a farce . The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is being treated with contempt.

A contemporary case of Maori being shafted.

Solution?

Involve Maori in the process of allocating oil exploration bids.

Simple.

My guess is that Maori are only too willing to make sure all New Zealanders benefit from the extraction of this resource.


Who has final say on F&S developments?

Posted by Kelvin Davis on June 15th, 2010

If no one owns the Foreshore and Seabed, then the question that needs to be asked is ‘Who now has final say over what happens on the Foreshore and Seabed?’

If it isn’t to be Maori, then in effect the Foreshore and Seabed is still ‘owned’ by the Crown.

The true test of whether the ‘repeal’ is real will be if, for example, the tidal turbines proposed for the Kaipara harbour which local iwi Te Uri o Hau don’t want, still go ahead.

If the two hundred tidal turbines each the size of a small apartment building are plonked on the Kaipara harbour seabed, then in effect Crest Energy will be granted a property right around the footprint of those turbines.

Why should they be allowed a property right to parts of the Foreshore and Seabed, while local Maori miss out?


Does the government have the stomach to make the Declaration binding?

Posted by Kelvin Davis on April 22nd, 2010

“The Treaty is a fraud,” is a mantra I grew up with in the seventies and eighties. A heap of Maori were upset that in 1840 the Crown signed a document they had no intention of honouring. “The Treaty is a Fraud,” became “Honour the Treaty”, and we still feel the repercussions a hundred and seventy years later after that original deceit.

How ironic that some of those upset Maori of the seventies and eighties are now part of the Crown that has signed another document that the Crown has no intention of honouring.

Because the Maori Party is part of this hoax, it now seems acceptable.

It is indicative of how far race relations have come that the Crown can sign a document for Maori, look us in the eye, smile, and tell us they have no intention of honouring their signatures – and we don’t get upset.

Unless of course, what Judge Eddie Durie and public law expert Mai Chen say is correct. Then there may be potential over time for Maori to claim back territory and resources Maori traditionally owned as well as the right to veto legislation.

When the Declaration was adopted in September 2007, Rosemary Banks our permanent representative in the United Nations noted there were four provisions that were fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements.

No legislation has been introduced since then that aligns the Declaration with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements and yet Crown Law advice to John Key differed substantially to that given to Helen Clark. He should explain this difference.

It will be interesting to see whether this government has the stomach to make this a binding Declaration.

I hope our children, grand children and great grandchildren are not going to spend the next one hundred and seventy years protesting, marching and getting arrested in order to have this Declaration honoured.

I hope that in one hundred and seventy years a government doesn’t have to establish a Declaration of Indigenous Rights Tribunal to sort out the grievances that have arisen because the Declaration wasn’t honoured.

I hope in one hundred and seventy years Ngapuhi aren’t preparing for a hearing to sort out our claims against the Declaration of Indigenous Rights.

I hope we haven’t condemned ourselves to repeating history.

As one chapter of grievance nears a conclusion, I hope we haven’t just opened another.


Iwi leaders haven’t thought the prison thing through

Posted by Kelvin Davis on April 19th, 2010

Besides prisons being the least inspirational, least aspirational, least innovative, least ambitious, most destructive institution Maori could ever hope to be involved with, here’s further food for thought as to why it’s just a plain dumb idea that iwi own prisons.

Iwi should instead be focused on preventing Maori getting to prison in the first place by identifying at risk Maori students in schools now and mentoring them through to university.

Trouble is, there’s less money and too much work involved in anything so proactive, progressive and preventative.

A 2003 report prepared for the Ministery of Education by John Church of the University of Canterbury named, “The Definition, Diagnosis and Treatment of Children and Youth with Severe Behaviour Difficulties: A Review of Research”, made a rough assessment of the costs of intervening with antisocial children at ages five, ten and fifteen years. It says:

The cost of normalising the development of one antisocial child at age five is $4000, with a success rate of 80%. The cost for a child of ten years is $8000 with a success rate of 50% and the cost for a child of fifteen years is $12,000 with a success rate of 20%.

Extrapolating those figures, this must mean ‘normalising’ or rehabilitating a person aged twenty will cost about $16,000 with an expected success rate of just 10%. The cost of rehabilitation of a twenty-five year old will be $20,000 with an expected success rate of just 5%.

The cost of housing a prisoner for just one year is on average about $70k.

So let’s do the sums – Iwi take their 10% profit – Willie Jackson asked on Marae yesterday morning – What’s wrong with Maori making a profit? So they need their cut. This leaves $63k in the kitty. Then a twenty-five year old turns up in prison for a year. It costs at least $20k to rehabilitate him (more if we expect better than a 5% success rate) – $43k left in the kitty.

That doesn’t leave a heck of a lot for running the show does it? Looking at this research, if iwi run prisons expect to have rehabilitation success rates of say 70- 80% they are going to have to spend anywhere from $30-50k per prisoner, possible more.

Where will savings be made? Employing under qualified guards who will work for less. Employing foreign guards who will work for less, but can’t relate to Maori. Cutting guard numbers. Double bunking. Reduction in rehabilitation programmes.

This is going to make life very dangerous for both guards and prisoners.

These iwi leaders haven’t thought this through.


The pinnacle of Maori aspiration – own a prison

Posted by Kelvin Davis on April 15th, 2010

So a private prison is going to be built at Wiri.

I see some iwi are rubbing their hands together in glee at the prospect of being able to get rich by locking their own up.

It goes to show how high the aspirations of some of our Maori leaders are. We now aspire to bung the bros in the hinaki and watch the dollars roll in. The longer and more often we can put them away, the sooner we will be able to afford to expand the prison and lock even more away.

With the soaring crime rate and high Maori unemployment everything is coming together nicely for iwi to become extremely wealthy. The last thing these iwi will want is for the country to emerge from the recession or for our kids to do well at school. Every Maori child born is a potential source of income – not as a leader, businessman or entrepreneur but as a Beagle Boy.

What the heck, if profits start to dip or costs need to be cut, these iwi can just pay the other rellies who guard the bros a little less, or sack a couple of them – purely in the best interests of the iwi of course. Better still they could just buy a couple of hundred bucks worth of piss, give it to some of the younger bros and when they get locked up for drink driving, smacking the missus over or putting a knife into someone we can rest assured in the knowledge the iwi will utimately benefit.

Making money by locking the bros up is culturally abhorrent and if this is one of the Treaty rights that we’re after, they can stick it. I’d rather have my integrity.

By all means infuse kaupapa Maori throughout the prison system – surely Pita Sharples can wield his considerable influence as Associate Minister of Corrections to make this happen? Just don’t ever pretend it is okay for iwi to lock the whanau up and make money from it.

Personally I’d prefer iwi put their energies into supporting their local schools and building universities, but maybe I’m just old fashioned. That would take a bit of effort and why would iwi bother going down that old path when there’s a quick buck to be made by locking the bros up? Besides, preventing Maori from getting to prison in the first place will cut into profits.


Reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 Consultation Document

Posted by Kelvin Davis on April 4th, 2010

Here’s my take on the Foreshore and Seabed Consultation Document that was released last week.

There are four Options on offer.

Option 1 – Crown Notional Title – this option is pretty close to what the hikoi was demanding. Customary title would be restored, but when customary interests are investigated and found not to amount to customary title, the Crown’s notional title becomes absolute title. Maori get to have our customary interests tested, as we demanded during the hikoi, but if they find against Maori, we lose everything.

Option 2 – Crown Absolute Title – which is what the present situation is. If Maori are honest, the world hasn’t caved in, and Ngati Porou directly negotiated a deal that pretty much works for them. Other iwi can do the same.

Option 3 – Maori Absolute Title – what many Maori want now, which is more than what we wanted at the time of the hikoi. If all New Zealanders are honest, the world wouldn’t cave in. There would be a process for determining who holds ownership in any given area, access to the beach for all New Zealanders would be guaranteed and it wouldn’t be able to be sold on.

Option 4 – “Public Domain/ takiwa iwi whanui” – what the government want. If the government are honest it offers Clayton’s ownership – The ownership Maori have when we won’t really be owners. No one get to own the Foreshore and Seabed. Maori could go to court to test for territorial interests, which are property interests in land generally akin to ownership rights, but not actual ownership rights.

Personally any of the options would be okay by me. As long as hapu and iwi get to have a say over what happens on their own areas of the Foreshore and Seabed and their interests aren’t overridden by local government, central government or big business, then I’m happy.

I’ll still be able to head out to Ninety Mile Beach to go floundering, get some tuatua or put my long line out regardless of which option is implemented.

My concern is that when it’s all settled, the real issues that are weighing Maori down – unemployment, poverty, under achievement, poor health outcomes, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, incarceration rates and lower life expectancy will still prevail for Maori.

So let’s settle this once and for all, and then get on to dealing with the issues that will improve outcomes for all Maori.


Is cradle to the grave education under further threat?

Posted by Kelvin Davis on January 15th, 2010

Universities are going to boot under-performing students out of university to free up places for able students.  Universities  can’t afford to ‘carry’ the under-performing students.

I’m concerned about the effect this will have for Maori in particular. We struggle to get Maori into university as it is, but now for those who do get there it’s going to be easier to get booted out.

I remember my mate from the coast who spent (at least) nine years getting his law degree. Now I bump in to him at the airport occasionally as he flies around from one high powered meeting to the next.

I’m blowed if I know why he took so long, but he hung in there and now he’s doing really well.

If he’d been booted out because he failed courses then he’d probably be pumping gas in Nowhereville and Maori wouldn’t be benefiting from his services.

He subscribed to the theory if at first you don’t succeed then try and try again.

What are the solutions? I don’t want capable and deserving people to miss out on places at university, but I don’t want people like my mate getting the boot.

The other concern is the threat to automatic entry to people over twenty years of age. This really affects Maori. Many Maori have bad experiences at school and drop out of education. Many often come back later in life, enter university and get qualifications that take them in a new direction.

Is cradle to the grave education under threat?


Pakeha have tino rangatiratanga sussed

Posted by Kelvin Davis on January 13th, 2010

I think maybe pakeha practice tino rangatiratanga better than Maori?

Maori are where we are because of a heap of things that have gone down over the decades. But don’t we have that warrior gene?

That gene, which is supposed to make us so tough, should mean we can be successful despite everything the system and history has dumped on us.

Even with history against us, every Maori has the potential to live tino rangatiratanga right now – without a law to say we can, without needing a flag to inspire us to do it, without a dollar in the back pocket. All it needs is the desire and mental toughness our warrior gene gives us.

If self determination is an indicator of tino rangatiratanga then a greater percentage of pakeha than Maori have got this self determination thing sussed, and as a result they enjoy all the benefits tino rangatiratanga brings.

At its most basic level tino rangatiratanga is about making decisions for oneself – That means making decisions about, what I eat, drink, smoke, watch on TV, how well I perform at work or school, how fit I’ll be, what qualifications I’ll seek, what career I’ll have, what my belief system is, who my friends are, whether I’ll do right or wrong, be positive or negative, turn left or right, go up the stairs or take the elevator.

I’m all for Maori tino rangatiratanga? I’ve seen all the benefits that pakeha have got from it, and I want our people to be just as successful and influential, on our own terms.

When we make the right decisions for ourselves and our whanau, good things come to us, despite history. Simple really.


F&S repeal – will it really help?

Posted by Kelvin Davis on January 12th, 2010

There’s been a bit of talk about rape and pillage recently.

Our Maori Party parliamentary colleague says it’s been our land, foreshore and seabed that have been raped and pillaged.

I see community leader and Black Power life member Dennis O’Reilly believes the real battle today is the fight against the drug P.

Others will say that something else is the issue for Maori. None will be wrong.

The fact is bad stuff has happened to Maori over the last couple of hundred years which has led to Maori being at the bottom of the heap. We are generally dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant than any other group of people in New Zealand. We know the problem, but what’s the solution?

Well let’s repeal the Foreshore and Seabed and put the F&S into Maori title. We can be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant at the beach. That’ll make all the difference. At least we’ll be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant on our own turf and surf.

Let’s get rid of P. That crap is a scourge and along with alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana is killing our people. But it’s still only a symptom of what the real issues are.

The real issue for Maori is ourselves.

We generally live with this big chip on our shoulders.

I’m Maori, so I have every right to be a victim. Personally, I can’t be bothered.

We can accuse all and sundry of raping and pillaging our land, foreshore ad seabed – but we as Maori have done a helluva a lot to ourselves too. We would do well to hold a mirror up to our own faces, but it’s a helluva lot easier to blame those bloody pakehas.

We have a really simple solution to all our woes. It goes like this – every Maori child born from the start of this new decade (and earlier) be loved, fed and educated so that he or she may go on to become a successful leader, and become extremely wealthy and/ or influential. Then when he or she see an injustice against our people, use that wealth and influence to correct the situation.

That’s what pakeha do. We could learn from them.

Didn’t Sir Apirana Ngata say something along these lines a few years back? If we’d listened then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

By 2040, the 200th year after the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi we could have thousands of wealthy and influential 30 year old Maoris. Imagine that – a generation of Maori capable of leading the world.

By all means keep up the fight to correct injustices – but can we honestly say we’ve put an equal effort into sorting our own crap out?

Feeding, loving and educating our kids is a good start.

Our apprenticeships into the world of wealth and influence need not be by way of drugs, violence, alcohol and court appearances.

Of course we could carry on like we are – and be even dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant,.

But at least we’ll have our Foreshore and Seabed.


Polytechs under attack

Posted by Maryan Street on November 20th, 2009

Now I can talk about it – the Education and Science Select Committee today released its report on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. What a crock. It was bad before and it’s even worse now. What are those Nats on?

The original bill cut Polytech Councils down from their current 14-20 membership (most have 14-15) to 8, with 4 appointed by the Minister, 1 student rep elected by the student body, the CEO, an academic rep and 1 poor sod community rep. Big control for the Minister.

NOW – they have come back with 4 appointed by the Minister and the remaining 4 appointed by the Polytechs’ own statutes – ie: anybody they like. So now we don’t even have a guaranteed student rep. Imagine how the Students’ Associations are feeling about that!!

Nobody – but  NOBODY – amongst all the submitters asked for that!  They all asked for more places to get more community reps, especially where the polytech covers quite differing regions such as UColl (covering Palmerston North, Whanganui with an h, and the Wairarapa). And they wanted Maori representation.

Sure, their own statutes can require Maori representation but if there are Polys which don’t feel like doing it (or the 4 Ministerial appointments don’t feel like doing it), that’s it. This is a dumb educational position.  Look at the people who take up second chance opportunities at polytechs, including trades training, nursing studies – all the things we will go on needing in spades into the future.  It is dumb preparation for the skills needs of the labour force in the future who are increasingly going to be  Maori and Pasifika. And it is dumb politics. This is Auckland SuperCity slap-in-the-face stuff. Tolley has no idea what she will unleash, just like the night class cuts. Somebody tell her, if you want this government to survive. On second thoughts……..


More irrational cuts to education – What was Tolley thinking… or was she thinking?

Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on November 10th, 2009

The Manukau Family Literacy Programme (known to many as the COMET Programme) have been pursuing an answer regarding funding for quite some time and have recently found out – they won’t be getting the $350,000 that they need to operate next year.

The ridiculous thing is that this programme has been praised by all sides of parliament i.e. Tolley praised it at its September AGM and Rodney Hide said it ‘rocked his socks’ – in a speech he gave earlier this year.

The programme basically focuses on parents of usually new entrant children. It approaches literacy through the provision of a certificate in early childhood education (so the parents are engaged with the school their kids are at and improving literacy whilst learning techniques for teaching etc, and some go on to train as early childhood teachers).

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that adults engaged in this programme are likely to increase their income by about about $200 a week. The majority of people who participate on this programme are Maori and Pacific. The benefits to society (as outlined by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report) far out weigh the amount of money spent on the programme.

I’ve heard that part of Tolley’s rationale was that they are investing in another literacy programme in South Auckland which Sharples launched (the Manurewa litearcy project) and although investing in childrens literacy programnmes is important – it ignores the fact that a big strategy for engaging the children in learning – is engaging their parents/ family.

This is one of the programmes that has fallen between the gaps with regards to changes in funding categories (it falls between Social Development and Tertiary Education). I’m looking in to how far Paula Bennetts advocacy for the programme extended – but from what I can tell, there was absolutely no advocacy from her whatsoever.

The other important point with regards to this programme and ACE cuts – is that Maori and PI are more likely to engage/ enrol in education/ courses as mature students and therefore – these decisions have a disproportionate affect on Maori and Pacific.

How incredibly frustrating. Having been a child of parents who had limited educations and low level literacy skills, I know the challenges that this creates for children (infact I wrote about about this in a Spasifik Magazine article recently). This is another example of Tolley not understanding her portfolio area – resulting in very very bad decisions that will have huge repercussions down the track.


Just a thought on the range of language options provided at NZ ATM machines

Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on November 5th, 2009

So you go to an ATM machine to take out money and you are provided with a range of options with regards to languages – great….but why is it limited to Mandarin and Japenese (that’s all I’ve noticed – but let me know  if there are more).

The 2006 census shows that following English Maori is the next most commonly spoken language in New Zealand, folllowed by Samoan.  Infact – in Auckland, Samoan is the 2nd most commonly spoken language (with English of course being the number 1 language).

Wouldn’t it be great if a bank actually valued the business from their Maori and Samoan customers enough to provide these two language options at their ATM machines?  Is there research to show that Maori and Samoans use ATM machines less than any other ethnic group?  Or is due to the fact that perhaps Maori and Pacific don’t have the same sums of money sitting in their coffers?  This is just one of those little day to day things that gets me wondering…


Standing room only for Maori

Posted by Shane Jones on August 26th, 2009

The Maori Party have been handed a lesson in real-politick. I refer here to Prime Minister John Key’s announcement that there will be no specific Maori seats on the Auckland Super City Council. The slogan “kiwis not iwis” is back in vogue.

A gross miscalculation was made by the Maori Party when they rubbished the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance’s recommendations for Maori representation. Dr Sharples dismissed their report as too weak. He evidently felt that his leverage over the government was such that he could deliver a better result than the Royal Commission.

The recommendations were not weak. They were based on many submissions, meetings and lengthy deliberations. They proposed three Maori representatives, one of them to be appointed by the local tribes. The ballast of this report would have given weight to Dr Sharples’ arguments, but he overestimated the value of the Maori Party in the eyes of the ruling class that controls National. Without the clout of the Royal Commission he was marooned.

Recently I described the exercise of choosing a Maori flag to fly over the Harbour Bridge as an episode of diversionary politics. Dr Sharples will probably get permission from the Prime Minister to fly the flag from the Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day. However iwi will have to content themselves with a flag blowing in the wind whilst having no presence at the top table of the Auckland Super City.

The tribes around Auckland have historical and ongoing interests in the region. The Labour Party was prepared to include Maori representation as a part of the new structure for the Auckland Super City. We would not have tolerated the irritation of Rodney Hide and his “one percent party”.

Hikoi means “walk” or “march”. This episode shows that Rodney Hide has stolen a march and John Key has just walked over the Maori Party.


No Maori seats

Posted by Kelvin Davis on August 24th, 2009

No Maori seats for Auckland. An opportunity missed for National to show that their support for Maori is genuine. They didn’t let the Matariki Bill pass either, so they are being consistent.


Kia ora

Posted by Kelvin Davis on July 21st, 2009

Tena koutou katoa

Better late than never, here’s my first blog.

I’m in parliament to raise Maori educational achievement.

The good news is that with the correct approach we should see significant lifts in Maori educational achievement in a relatively short period of time – say 5-7 years. We don’t need to wait another generation to see the results.

The bad news is the correct approach isn’t being taken by the present government. 

While we fixate on superfluous, peripheral and ideological issues instead of focusing on the ’specific acts of teaching’ that make kids learn, we will continue to see a ‘tail of underachievement’ that is mainly comprised of Maori kids.

Our solutions need to be based around what is proven to make kids learn as fast as possible and to as high a standard as possible.

The secrets to raising achievement are no longer secret. Over time I’ll spell them out.


The people are speaking

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 8th, 2009

Aucklanders are communicating loud and clear with the select committee on the super city which is now into its third day of hearings. Assuming these three days are somewhat representative of opinion across the city, and bear in mind the committee has been sitting in central Auckland and is yet to move around the cities and districts, a number of themes are emerging:

1. People are grumpy about the rushed process.

2. Rodney Hide’s toothless local boards are getting the big thumbs down. People want community councils with the powers and resources to carry out local tasks. Many have argued for the principle of subsidiarity, that is that unless there is a sound reason for putting a task at the top level then it should be done at the second tier. There is quite a range of opinion on the question of how many community councils there should be.

3. Of the individual submitters a strong majority are in favour of all councillors being elected from wards, as opposed to at-large councillors.

4. Most submitters in favour of special Maori representation. (A sub-committee is spending several days hearing submissions on marae but Maori submitters can also choose to address the full committee.)

5. Many submitters in favour of STV as the voting system especially for the mayor but many arguing for it across the board.

6. Particularly from individual submitters, a lot of scepticism about the proposed package of mayoral powers and the ’strong mayor’ model.

7. And although not everyone keen on my member’s bill requiring a referendum before any assets are sold, a strong common view in favour of keeping local government assets in public ownership.

There is plenty of argument and opposing views as you’d imagine. But I have to say it is heartening listening to so many thoughtful and heartfelt submissions by people who care passionately about our democracy. The powerful current coming through from individual submitters today is people wanting a strong local voice, and wanting their politicians to be accountable (not elected at-large, fewer powers for the mayor). Good democratic impulses I’d say.

The Nats are signalling they are ready to move towards empowered community councils. It will be interesting to see how they handle the pressure on Maori representation and at large v.ward-based councillors.