Critiquing Harawira's stance on issues

Harawira has made statements on the TVNZ show 'Marae Investigates' which aired in NZ this morning (13th February, 2011) in which he apologises for his past misbehaviour and inappropriate comments and manner. His TV interview today sees Harawira break into tears, asking people not to judge him on his behaviour but on the issues that he stands for, arguing that no-one has pulled him up on his stance on issues. So let's take a look at a few of the issues Harawira outlines on his own website (7th February, 2011) which from what I can read into them, he believes that the Maori Party has sold out on or lacked conviction in calling for action on the following;

• We should not only be saying we want GST to be taken off food in the next budget, we should also tell the PM publicly that we did not support the last GST increase, and that any further increase in GST will be a coalition-breaker.

How often has GST increased in NZ? GST was introduced in NZ on October 1, 1986 at 10%. It later increased to 12.5% on July 1, 1989 and was further increased to 15% on October 1, 2010 (i.e. at least 10 year gaps between increases). I doubt the coalition between the National and Maori Parties will be in existence if and when the next increase in GST takes place, so his threat to demand the coalition be broken should further increases in GST take place is a no-brainer, non-issue really. Next issue...

• When Tariana Turia’s voters say that the most important issue for them is the Maori language, then we should be calling for Maori to be compulsory in all primary schools.

Reallistically and logistically how?? At the moment the government is struggling to meet the demands for Te Reo in the education system as is without having the extra onus of making it compulsory for all NZers to learn in primary schools. The idea is a admirable one but practically untenable at the stage of development our nation is in. I would love all NZers to be able to converse in Te Reo, for all of us to be able to go to the shop and speak Te Reo but overturning the whole primary school system in one sweep by making Maori compulsory is exactly the same tactic that was used against Maori having to learn English and being punished for speaking Maori in the past. There were a number of people calling for Maori TV to only be in Te Reo before it was made live to air which gratefully fell upon the deaf ears of a sensible majority who saw that it would alienate more Maori rather than emancipate. Admirable idea but bereft of any thoughtful practicalities. Next issue...

• When government says that 60,000 children started school last week, 12,000 of them will leave without being able to read and write, and that most of them will be Maori, we should be demanding that government cancel any further bailouts for big business, and instead spend the money on ensuring that all Maori kids can read well, write well, count well and speak well by the time they’re 10, and that we will achieve that by 2014.

Again, another laudable idea but to do this in three years?? Is he sure of his figures too? 20% unable to read and write??? Surely this is alarmist in tone. The whole world would be up in arms if we had an 80% literacy rate! Next please...

• We should oppose the government’s Marine and Coastal Areas Bill because it does not give us the title that our people marched for, and because most of our people do not support it. We should instead ask that the 2004 Bill be repealed and a moratorium be put on the FSSB for a couple of years to see if we can come up with a deal acceptable to Maori, while accommodating the wishes of other New Zealanders. This bill does not do that and we should not feel embarrassed about opposing it.

From my reading of the issues and commentaries by various lawyers and political journalists there are aspects to the legislation that deem it to not be too different from the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Carwyn Jones of Ngati Kahungunu, a lecturer of law at Victoria University, gives a good insight into the issue of the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill when he states,

'...recent proposals indicate that there has been no change in the Government’s attitude to Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed since the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.  Neither does this Bill indicate any such change.  Unfortunately, the Bill maintains many of the discriminatory aspects of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.  It still, explicitly, treats Maori interests as a lesser form of title than freehold title.  Until the Government’s attitude to Maori customary interests changes, it is going to be difficult to achieve a durable resolution of these issues and impossible to achieve one that is just.'

Jones also argues that he is underwhelmed by how 'mana tuku iho' is recognised in the bill but suggests that such a statement may open up a more productive discussion of Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed than in the previous bill. He states,

'I am also pretty under-whelmed by the way that mana tuku iho has been recognised.  The explanatory note states that “the mana tuku iho of iwi and hapū is explicitly recognised in the Bill”, though the only reference to mana tuku iho in the Bill is contained in Clause 4, which sets out the purpose of the legislation.  This may be symbolically important, which is not to say that this inclusion in the purpose provision has no teeth whatsoever.  In any case, as I have previously suggested, even primarily symbolic changes may help to open up a more productive discussion of Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed, However, the fact that this reference is not supported by more specific provisions, laying out some of the practical effects of the recognition of mana tuku iho suggests that the Government is not yet ready to engage in that more productive discussion.'

Yes, there are issues with the new bill and yes there are problems with the practicalities of how provisions for Maori might be fully recognised by the new act, but rather than bolster through and demand, demand, demand until it gives Maori the title that they marched for in 2004, I believe the current leaders of the Maori Party are being more intelligent in their approach to change-making for good in Aotearoa.

Harawira, based on his actions has shown himself unable to compromise and dialogue. He claims to be for Maori interests but I believe his approach will hurt more than mend, ruffle rather than repair and cause more division rather than the reciprocity and understanding that is needed in New Zealand.