Property rights crisis

27/07/2019

Yesterday morning Labour Maori caucus co-chair Willie Jackson said government would find itself in serious trouble if it started disregarding iwi mandates when it came to Māori land:

Mr Jackson said he sympathised with those on the frontline, but the government had to respect the settlement. . . 

Mr Jackson said he understood that some felt ripped off, but warned that siding with anyone other than those with the mandate was a dangerous path.

“The day we walk away from mana whenua is the day we might find ourselves in real trouble. Right now we’re committed to supporting to what they’ve signed up for – as hard as that might be,” he said. . . 

Mr Jackson said there were people on the frontline who felt a strong sense of injustice but when those who have rights over land make a decision – like the deal done with Fletcher – the government had to support that.

“We understand the hurt but sometimes people, particularly our mana whenua, have got the right to make these decisions and we’re not going to say you’re wrong and get out of there. I know others are doing that but we wouldn’t be so bold or so arrogant,” he said. . .

Just a few hours later the Prime Minister was, by that definition being bold and arrogant:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has vowed that no building will take place at Ihumātao while the government and other parties try to broker a solution. . . 

“We have heard, here, the strong voice of young people,” Ms Ardern said.

“At the same time we hear the perspective of mana whenua.

She said the government had to address that there had been an escalation and that’s why the call was made to hold off on building work.

“That activity cannot take place while there is such a large gathering there. . .

Not only is this putting the angst of protesters ahead of what mana whenua have agreed with Fletchers,  it’s a u-turn on her previous position:

Earlier this week, Ms Ardern said the government would not intervene in the issue.

“Ultimately we are falling on the side of the local iwi [who support the housing development] and their position. They are not the ones leading the protest here and so if we come in over the top, it really would be undermining the local iwi in this case,” she said on Wednesday.

By last night the show of force by protesters appears to have persuaded her to not only undermine the local iwi, but to trample all over Fletcher’s property rights.

It is also poking its nose into what is essentially a family dispute.

This was a point made by former Labour MP and  former Minister of Māori Affairs Samuel Dovers Dover Samuels who called Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket with a stark message to politicians and media regarding Ihumātao: Stay out.

He told Sean that this is an internal matter for the family to figure out for themselves. Interference form the media and politicians has fanned the flames of this dispute, he says, “I just can’t see the involvement of any politician as being helpful.”

(Click the link above if you want to listen to the full interview).

RNZ explains the history and why Ihumātao is being occupied by protestors.

It is complex but:

. . .Earlier this year, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust, who support the housing development, put out a statement saying:

“This piece of land within the development area will be the first time since the land confiscations of 1863 that land will be returned to mana whenua. The agreement to have this land returned to mana whenua was negotiated between Fletchers, Makaurau Marae Māori Trust and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority. Auckland City Council was consulted during this process.”

Fletcher’s have committed to returning 25 percent (eight hectares) of the land they own to the Kiingitanga.

“Returning the land is a first for a corporate like Fletcher Building,” said Fletcher Building Residential chief executive Steve Evans.

This isn’t a Māori versus Fletcher issue – on both sides are members of the same iwi, hapū and whānau. . . 

If the issue is complex, the underlying principle is not.  Everyone, not least the government, should be respecting property rights.

This point was made by Act leader David Seymour:

. . Jacinda Ardern has legitimised unlawful behaviour by capitulating to an illegal occupation as her opening move.”

“The PM has cultivated a brand of a kinder, more inclusive politics, but some things such as occupying private property are always wrong. She has just sent the message: ‘if you occupy private property, the Government will take your side instead of protecting property rights.'”

“It appears that the Prime Minister has prevented the legal owners of land from carrying out a consented development, and offered the protesters a seat at the table.  . .

Maori property rights were ignored when the land was originally taken. Redress for that was made under a Treaty settlement.

Fletcher Building has gone beyond what is legally required in returning  25 percent of its land to the iwi. It will be building nearly 400 much-needed houses on the rest, some of which will be sold to members of the iwi.

That some think this is not good enough is no justification for the government to interfere and, in doing so, undermine Fletcher’s property rights.

Private property has, for very good reasons, been exempt from Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

Government giving way to protestors like this sets a very, very dangerous precedent that is in danger of precipitating a property rights crisis.


Politics and payback before pupils

09/02/2018

Last year Kelvin Davis threatened to resign if two partnership schools in his electorate closed.

. . . The MP Kelvin Davis said Māori wanted a measure of autonomy over the education of their children.

“So if they were to close they would no longer exist, that would be a bottom line for me, so the fact is they can exist as special character schools, that’s the bottom line to me.” . . .

Last year Willie Jackson said Labour wouldn’t close his charter school.

. . . But should it win September’s election, Mr Jackson says Labour has no plans to close his school.

“Andrew Little, Chris Hipkins, they’re very supportive of our schools. They’ve been clear to me about that right from the start, otherwise I wouldn’t have joined,” he told The AM Show on Friday. . .

This year Education Minister Chris Hipkins is threatening the schools with closure:

Hipkins introduced the Education Amendment Bill today, which would formally end National Standards and charter schools.

“The Government’s strong view is that there is no place for them in the New Zealand education system,” Hipkins said. . . 

The bill would mean an end to future charter schools, and allow existing ones to continue while the Ministry of Education considers options – such as becoming a designated character school – on a case-by-case system.

Unlike charter schools, a character school is part of the public education system, is funded like other state schools, and must adhere to the national curriculum.

Five charter schools were scheduled to open in 2018 and will no longer open. Eleven existing charter schools have a combined roll of about 1300 students.

Hipkins wanted existing charter schools to wind up before the end of their contracts by mutual agreement.

“If, however, early termination is not agreed by both parties, I am reserving my right to issue a notice of ‘termination for convenience’, under charter schools’ existing contracts, by the middle of May 2018. This would take effect at the end of the school year.” . . 

The schools were part of an agreement between Act and National and National leader is an advocate for them.

English said closing the schools was “nasty and vindictive behaviour” and was ideological.

“And the victims of it will be young children who could have done better in a school that suited their needs.”

He said although Labour had dismissed concerns because the schools had only 1000 students in them, he said those students deserved the opportunities the schools gave them.

He said it was ‘shameful’ that had challenged Ardern to visit the schools in person to explain the decision to the children.

“I think it shows the PM is uncomfortable with the policy and certainly uncomfortable with facing the impact on the children. I’ve met these kids, I’ve met their parents.

They meet the needs of those kids. There might only be 1000 of them but they matter.”

He said a significant proportion of the students in the schools were Maori and Ardern had promised Maori up north to deliver to them. . .

 

Labour is putting politics, and paying back teacher unions before the needs of pupils.

All the schools, their staff and most importantly their pupils face uncertainty and the knowledge they could be axed at the whim of the minister.

He might give Davis and Jackson some wriggle room by renaming three schools to allow them to continue, but what about the other schools and more importantly the pupils who are succeeding after failing at conventional schools?

 

 

 


Can’t run party, can’t run country

02/05/2017

The release of a party list ought to be a well managed positive PR opportunity.

Labour’s was not.

The seeds of trouble were planted months ago with rumbling’s over leader Andrew Little’s promise of a winnable list position for Willie Jackson.

Another trouble sprouted a few days ago when sitting list MP Sue Maroney announced she would stand down at the election because she wouldn’t have a winnable list position.

This confirms my contention that Labour’s anti-employer sentiments are based on its own mishandling of its people.

On the heels of Maroney’s announcement, the release of the list was delayed because Jackson had a tantrum.

This raises more questions about Little’s judgement and leadership.

Ironically Jackson’s chances of winning will increase if Labour’s sitting MPs in Maori Electorates, who chose not to be on the list, lose their seats to the Maori or Mana Parties.

 Barry Soper sums it up:

 . . .The first public fallout from the current Labour list preparation was the paid parental leave campaigner, 12 year veteran MP Sue Moroney who was a Cunliffe supporter, who said she’d lost the support of the party’s ruling council who’d given her an unelectable position so she’s quitting.

One would have thought before Labour made public when it’d be announcing its list, it would have ironed out those who could have been disgruntled with it. Yet again they’re spilling their guts in public, being forced to delay their announcement until this morning to give them time to either placate Jackson or to send him up the political creek without his waka. . .

The list release debacle reflects poorly on Little and shows Labour still can’t run itself.

If it can’t be trusted to do that it can’t be trusted to run the county.


H is for . . .

15/06/2014

Rodney Hide reminds us that H is for Harawira, Harre and hypocrisy:

I used to think politics was all about achieving good government. That proved invariably disappointing. These days, politics is no longer my responsibility. I’m happy if it just proves interesting.

That’s why I am for the Internet-Mana Party. They’re the best entertainment in years. If they were a parody they would be too improbable to be believed.

Maori nationalist Hone Harawira calls Pakeha the rudest of names and the wrong colour to date his daughter. But he’s jumped into bed with whiter-than-white Kim Dotcom.

Harawira trumpets Mana and His People but that’s not stopping him using his electorate to coat-tail Dotcom’s party into Parliament. His price? $3 million.

It’s easy to accuse Harawira of hypocrisy but he has a ready reply: it’s a lot of money. At $3m his double standard is good and high.

That raises two questions – could he be bought for less and what would he do for more?

Laila Harre wasn’t elected leader of the Internet Party. She was hired. She’s been selected and paid for by Dotcom. The former coffee picker for the Sandinistas is New Zealand’s first corporate-hire political leader.

A mate rang after Harre’s appointment splitting his sides, “All they need now is Pam Corkery”. Corkery was appointed press secretary that day.

Willie Jackson considered standing but wanted $250,000. That’s his price for standing up for his principles. . .

That raises a question about principles that can be bought – if the buyer doesn’t like them, would the seller come up with others that might attract the right price?

And what will happen if the buyer isn’t satisfied with his purchase?

. . .  Dotcom set out to destroy Banks for not rushing to rescue him from Mt Eden Prison. He expected a minister to jump for a $50,000 political donation. That’s his character. Imagine what he expects for $3m.

And imagine how he will perform when he doesn’t get it. Pure entertainment.

Entertaining?

It would be if the potential consequences weren’t so serious.

The election outcome is on a knife-edge and the country will be left cut and bleeding if Dotcom and his hired hypocrites have any power.


Once were youngsters

02/06/2014

Among the many ironies of the Internet Mana Party is the aim to attract young voters when its candidates are middle-aged and older:

David Farrar said  Laila Harre leading the internet party because she uses the internet, would be like him leading the Greens because he sometimes eats them.

I think that’s the sort of logic these baby boomers are using – they can attract young voters because they once were young.

National, by contrast, has young MPs and candidates.

Among them is Cabinet Minister and Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye who is in her early 30s.

Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross was only 11 when Harre first entered parliament so was National’s Dunedin South candidate Hamish Walker.

The party’s Clutha Southland candidate Todd Barclay, was only just at school when she first became an MP.


Media merry-go-round

17/12/2013

Has TVNZ has decided Seven Sharp isn’t sharp enough?

The changes can’t have anything to do with the Broadcasting Standards Authority ordering TVNZ to apologise for “personal abuse masquerading as satire” about Conservative Party leader Colin Craig.

Jesse Mulligan who delivered the diatribe is staying on the show.

The programme got bad reviews before it started.

I warmed to it after it gave the title of the country’s Sharpest Town to Oamaru.

But the programme never fired and TV3’s Campbell Live became the default for anything resembling harder news stories.

The changes have prompted a bit of  a media merry-go-round.

Ali Mau is going to RadioLIVE.

Seven Sharp presenter Ali Mau is leaving TVNZ’s light current affairs evening show to host a RadioLIVE programme with Willie Jackson.

The pair will host a new early afternoon show. . .

Jackson previously hosted an afternoon RadioLIVE show with John Tamihere, but both were taken off air after an interview with an alleged friend of a Roast Busters victim.

Tamihere will not be returning to RadioLIVE next year.


Moral fervour

13/11/2013

Trans Tasman opines:

Moral fervour has its place, but it is something not to be totally trusted. Self righteousness should never be allowed to become mob rule. Society’s norms should be enforced with a degree of legal detachment, lest righteous condemnation be allowed to turn into lynch mob justice.

So it was possible to feel a smidgeon, just a smidgeon, of sympathy for talkback hosts John Tamihere and Willie Jackson this week. They found themselves on the receiving end of a nationwide, social media wide storm of condemnation for their on-air antics in the wake of the “Roastbusters” rape allegations.

But any sympathy should be minimal. The pair are not exactly strangers to these types of  on-air controversies.

Fellow babyboomer broadcaster Bill Ralston  described them, in a friendly way, as some of the last bastions of 1950s male attitudes, but this is hardly an excuse. One would expect the two to have noticed one or two changes since then. Implicit in the way the two questioned one of the rape victims on the air – and also in some commentary elsewhere – is the notion the girls in some way contributed to their predicament.

Now, contributory negligence is a useful concept in civil law, but hardly applies to criminal matters such as rape – unless it is assumed, from the outset, men have as little control as, say, an out of control machine. Tamihere has form in the misogyny area: he famously called women in the Labour Party “front bums.”

Well, now he and his partner are off the air, for acting like a pair of total back bums.

Quite.


What’s a sackable offence on radio?

08/11/2013

What’s a sackable offence on RadioLive?

Gross misogyny by Willie Jackson and John Tamihere doesn’t seem to have been.

Will losing advertising revenue change that?

Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have been criticised over the way they interviewed an 18-year-old girl who said she was friends of one of the gang’s victims on Tuesday.

They were forced to apologise yesterday but that wasn’t enough for some, and today’s show saw a guest panelist storm out after a heated on air row.

Now it has emerged that a number of advertisers have withdrawn their support of the show and RadioLive while the pair remains on air.

ANZ, Yellow and Freeview have confirmed they are cancelling their ads on the show, and AA Insurance has indicated the same.

It came after blogger Giovanni Tiso contacted around 30 companies which advertised on the Willie and JT Show yesterday, asking them if they would reconsider their support of the programme. . .

The station also lost a guest:

Matthew Hooton walked out of the RadioLive interview today after becoming embroiled in an argument with one of the show’s hosts and being told to “shut your mouth”.

The writer was a guest on Jackson and Tamihere’s RadioLive show discussing the Roast Busters and the fall-out from the scandal, but it quickly descended into an argument when Mr Hooton confronted them about their attitude towards a young woman they interviewed on Tuesday.

The row culminated in Mr Hooton being told to “shut your mouth” or leave the studio. He walked out to shouts of “get out, get out of our studio”.

Listeners could hear fumbling as headphones and microphones were taken off before the station quickly cut to an ad break. . .

The attitude of the hosts in appearing to blame the victim in the interview is part of the problem and there are questions over whether some police have a similar attitude.

Police Minister Anne Tolley has taken the unprecedented step of referring the case to the Independent Police Complaints Authority:

Police Minister Anne Tolley says she has written to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, asking it to investigate the “Roast Busters” case in Auckland, particularly the questioning of a thirteen year-old girl in 2011.

“Parents of young girls need to have confidence that complaints to Police about sexual assault are investigated thoroughly and appropriately,” says Mrs Tolley.

“As Minister, I can’t delve into the details of a Police investigation – politicians cannot interfere in Police inquiries.

“But the IPCA does have the power to carry out an independent assessment of the details surrounding these events, and I believe this is the right course of action to ensure the public has confidence in the Police on this matter.

“This morning the Commissioner has again assured me that this inquiry has been thorough, and that there was a comprehensive investigation into the victim’s complaint.

“However, I have made it clear to the Commissioner that I am disappointed that the full facts have not been available to me or to him.

“I don’t expect to be told finer details of Police operations. Police must remain independent of politicians. But I do expect Police to be talking to each other.

“I would again urge any young women who have been affected to come forward and talk to Police as a first step in gathering evidence which can be used to bring people to justice.”

This referral is the right action when there are so many questions about the way the case has been handled.

Police at first said they hadn’t taken any action because there had been no formal complaints. But four girls complained to police.

. . . She was one of four girls who went to police over incidents involving Roast Busters. She went through the process of making her complaint with police formal via an evidential video interview.

The other girls were all aged between 13 and 15.

She has now said she will lay a second complaint with police because her alleged attackers were “sick boys that were twisted in the head”. . .

It takes a lot of courage to make a complaint of this nature, even more so if an earlier complaint wasn’t handled sensitively.


No-one asks to be raped

07/11/2013

My laptop was stolen at an airport.

I’d put it down with my suitcase to pay for parking, paid, picked up the case but not the computer.

I realised my mistake minutes later, ran back but the computer was gone.

Thanks to some very good police work it was recovered a few weeks later.

Was I careless?

Yes.

Did I ask for the computer to be stolen?

No.

Did my carelessness make it any less a theft?

No.

Had it been an honest man who found the computer, he’d have called me back, phoned the number inside the case or handed it in to someone in the airport.

He wouldn’t have taken it, found a way round the password, loaded his contacts onto it and used it until the police caught up with him.

My inattention provided an opportunity for the crime but it’s one an honest person wouldn’t have taken.

So it is with rape.

Some discussion on the Roast Busters has turned to what the victims were wearing and that they were drinking .

There’s been suggestions this somehow excuses the behaviour of the young men who plied them with alcohol, raped them and boasted of their exploits on Facebook.

It doesn’t.

There is no excuse for rape.

Regardless of what the young women might have been wearing and doing, and whether or not they should have been where they were and drinking, they were not asking to be raped.

Asking to be raped is an oxymoron.

Rape is unconsensual sex and someone who is comatose cannot give consent.

Among those who seem ready to excuse the perpetrators and blame the victims are Radio Live hosts John Tamihere and WIllie Jackson.

I didn’t hear the programme but have heard enough of the reaction to it to be disgusted by what they said, the apology for an apology and apparent inability to understand why they “caused offence”.

The best response to it comes in an open lettter from Dr Leonie Pihama and Marama Davidson of the Te Wharepora Hou Maori Women’s Group:

Tena korua John and Willie

Yesterday we were sent the link to your radio programme of your discussion with ‘Amy’. Listening to your programme is a rare event in both of our whare. Why? Because the views you espouse are on the whole conservative, often ignorant and nearly always sexist. So we are not surprised with the misogynistic undertones of how you spoke to ‘Amy’.

What is saddening is the fact that you seem to have absolutely no awareness or experience of the impact of rape on the lives of it’s victims and survivors.

What is disturbing is that you show no empathy for the pain and ongoing distress caused by sexual violence on entire whanau.

What is alarming is that with all the involvement you have in providing programmes within urban Maori communities that you remain ignorant of the destruction caused by rape culture.

What is disconcerting is that you have no sense of understanding for how difficult it is to talk to others about being raped, about sexual violence, about family violence let alone what it means to be 14, 15 or 16 years old.

What is disgusting is that you seem to revel in the deep-seated ignorance on these issues.

Rape, whether it be of a woman abducted, or of a mother catching a bus home after work, or of a young woman out for drinks with her friends, or of any woman in her own home by someone she knows – is rape.

Rape, John and Willie, is rape.

Rape, John, is not about “how free and easy are you kids out there these days”.

Rape, Willie, is not about how you are too young to have a drink out with friends.

Rape has nothing to do with if they are good looking. ‘Good looking’ men rape too Willie.

Rape – John and Willie – is rape. . .

More questions over police handling of the issue were raised yesterday when they released a statement saying a complaint against the group had been made two years ago:

Police investigating allegations involving the “Roast Busters” group can confirm a complaint was received in December 2011. An investigation was launched and the complaint was thoroughly investigated.

Whilst this was a distressing situation for the girl and her family, Police determined that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.

Out of respect for the victim and her family Police are unable to discuss the specific details of this particular situation any further, however the victim’s complaint is still part of the continuing investigation and should new supporting evidence come to light as part of the ongoing enquiry , the decision in this case not to prosecute will be reviewed.

Police discussed this matter again with the victim’s family this morning and re-stated their absolute commitment to doing their best by their daughter.

Inappropriate and offensive comments that are alleged to have been made to the victim in this case by Police are under investigation.

I can understand that finding enough evidence to make an arrest would be difficult.
But I can’t understand why police were unable to have the website shut down and to warn people about the abhorrent activity of the group far, far sooner.

Whale on air?

11/10/2013

RadioLive might be looking for a new afternoon host to replace John Tamihere who is working towards a political comeback.

Rachel Glucina’s picks for his replacement to work with Willie Jackson are:

1. Cameron Slater – He’s polarising and partisan, but can cross-pollinate via his widely viewed website.

2. Linda Clark – Her school ma’am whip-cracking is TV gold, but she’s unlikely to forgo Chapman Tripp responsibilities.

3. Paul Henry – If he actually liked talkback he’d be a welcome return. He’s in the MediaWorks stable and his TV show is yet to have a start date, so maybe he can be persuaded.

4. Mark Sainsbury – He wants a job in media and is already a contributor to the station.

5. Grant Dalton – Does he have a job? He’s certainly got plenty of opinions, mostly sporting, unfortunately.

6. Anna Guy – She’s desperate to be a media star, but with a fifth kid on the way and limited views beyond motherhood and Feilding farming she’s an unlikely contender.

7. Rachel Hunter – She’s a bona fide media star with a big TV following. But can she make the transition to radio?

A bit of tension and strong differences of opinion between hosts can be good on radio.

You’d certainly get that with Jackson and Slater who are just about polar opposites on the political spectrum.


Jackson doesn’t want Labour back in Maori seats

15/09/2011

Willie Jackson won’t stand in Tāmaki Makaurau because he thinks it would result in a Labour win.

“One of the main reasons why I’m not standing is that I’m very clear that my vote will come from Dr. Pita Sharples. If I stand, Dr. Pita Sharples stands and Shane Jones stands, then I am pretty sure that Shane Jones will be delivered to Parliament,” he said at the start of his RadioLIVE programme.

“I don’t want Labour back in the Māori seats.”

He is less than complimentary about Jones, one of Labour’s leadership contenders. At 2:47 he says:

I think Pita Sharples on a bad day is better than Shane Jones on a good day.

A strong candidate for Mana in any of the seats will take votes from the Maori Party and that split could well return them to Labour.


%d bloggers like this: