ALL CONTEMPT AND NO RESPONSIBILITY

Now here’s an interesting article;

Māori have 'gone back like a beaten wife to the abuser',defiant Marama Fox says [Maori TV, www.stuff.co.nz]

Oops, and here’s another;

Te Ururoa Flavell won't be part of a Māori Party revival [ELTON RIKIHANA SMALLMAN, stuff.co.nz]

Well, the Maori Party has been booted out of the New Zealand parliament, in last weekend’s general election.  And wait . . . the leaders are ripping into their own voters!

For my international readers, let me set some context before I go any further.  We had a general election on Saturday.  New Zealand’s proportional representation system (MMP) gives us two votes (two ticks on the ballot paper); one for your preferred MP (Electorate Vote), and the other for your preferred party (Party Vote).  To complicate things further, the country has two, parallel electoral roles; 

• the general role, where the country is divided into 64 electorates for all New Zealand voters,
• the Maori role, where the country is divided into 7 Maori electorates for Maori voters or voters of Maori descent.

Voters can vote in either role, but must choose which role they wish to vote in by registering in one or the other before the election.  Traditionally, the Maori Party has contested only the seven Maori seats in the Maori role.  However, anyone can vote for the Maori Party in the general role by giving it their “Party Vote.”  The Party Vote is crucial, because for any party to sit in parliament, that party must secure 5% of the vote or win at least one electorate seat.  While Maori could win seven electorate seats, they could have “topped up” those seats with a higher percentage party vote.  However, the Maori Party reached none of the two thresholds, and is thus now consigned to the political wilderness for the next three years.  So, how did that happen?

Well, Maori Party Co-Leader, Marama Fox, is bemoaning the fact that Maori voters have sided with the mainstream Labour Party again, as they did before the Maori Party was formed.  Labour NZ contested and won all seven seats in the Maori role, thereby sending the Maori Party back to obscurity.  A bitter Fox likened the Maori shift back to Labour, “like a beaten wife [gone back] to the abuser.”  Maori Party Co-Leader, Te Ururoa Flavell, was equally resentful;

“[Flavell] said Māori may have shot themselves in the foot by going with Labour.  If it does turn bad for Māori voters, Flavell said don't call him for a shoulder to cry on.  ‘I hope they don't wake up tomorrow and start shaking their heads, saying, I feel sorry for you, because I don't want to hear it.’”

Call me old fashioned, but it’s incredibly bad form for politicians to slam into their support base – even if what they say is the truth.  Astute political leaders shrug off such political shifts by praising democracy then using words like, “We’ll have to do better next election.”  Kicking Maori, the way Fox and Flavell have done, shows remarkable immaturity, naivety and a distinct lack of political shrewdness.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for Fox and Flavell (pictured above); the Maori Party sold its soul for a few crumbs.  It was invited into government by the ruling National Party - when National had no need to do so.  I think it's fair to say that, the National Party is the party representing the New Zealand establishment; the wealthy, the business leaders, the civil servants and the corporations.  So the invite by National was a brilliant piece of counter-thrust politics; a stroke of John Key genius.  Maori were lulled into thinking they would secure more progress for the Maori people by being in government than in opposition.  In reality, the right-wing National government silenced the most radical party in parliament by wooing them with trinkets and false promises.

Well my friends, when you bed with the devil, there’s always a price.  I think voter shift back to Labour had nothing to do with the Jacinda Ardern effect.  I think Maori voters punished the Maori Party for cuddling up to the right-wing hacks.  Maori voters clearly perceived no value from the relationship with the monetarists.  All those years of spreading their cheeks for the National Party, and what was to show for it?  Maori are still over-represented in prisons, in obesity, in unemployment, in poverty and in domestic abuse figures. No sign of any change there soon.

On Duncan Garner's AM Show this morning, a whining Fox tried to explain what had been acheived by cuddling up to the establishment.  She bleated that every Law passed while Maori were part of Government had Treaty of Waitangi clauses in it. Well, big deal!  If I was a disenfranchised Maori voter, living on the breadline, I wouldn't see the value either!  I'd also stick two fingers up at the party which was supposed to represent me. I think that, sadly, the Maori Party in recent years has represented the Maori establishment - who really benefit from lucrative Treaty settlements - rather than the average Maori in the street.  No wonder Maori went back to Labour!

Fox and Flavell’s lack-of-contrition and contempt for their own people is bad enough.  However, their unwillingness to take responsibility for the party’s demise is nothing short of repugnant.  They've taken no responsibility for siding with the neoliberals, taken no responsibility for failing Maori, and taken no responsibility for the real reason Maori voters see a better deal in Labour.  Did the Maori leaders really believe their unholy alliance with the monetarists would have no consequences?!

Why am I also bitter about the Maori Party’s demise?  I'm bitter, because there aren’t enough radical parties in New Zealand’s parliament.  Before the Maori Party went into bed with the devil, I thought they were a party with some good, radical ideals which this country needed.  This country needs radicalism.  We’re not going to turn back 40 years of monetarism with faint hearts and lovely speeches about “values.”  Only radical politics and taxing the rich will put an end to the dreadful consumerism and inequality that has been the hallmark of monetarist economics.  But clearly, New Zealand voters don’t want to hear that.  It might be bad form for a politician to slam into their electorate, but I have no such remit or compunction.  New Zealand voted for a born-to-rule sheepshagger and an extra $20 a week.

Crumbs from the rich man’s table [Luke 16:21].

 Further Reading;

Mike Hosking says he 'confused' the Māori Party by sayingonly Māori could vote for them

 

Mike Hosking offers 'clarification' over his Maori Partyvoting comments on Seven Sharp

Māori Party founder Dame Tariana Turia plans return to helpsave the party

Winston Peters hints at backing down over Māori seats

SPINNING THE TPPA WHEEL

Now here’s an interesting video clip;

 "How does the TPP affect little old me at home?"

Well, the text for the TPPA agreement is out, and all the interested parties – those previously denied the text – are pouring over the 30,000 pages.  The debate will now rage as to how truthful the government and its corporate buddies have been; about what they’ve been telling us in the run up to the agreement.   I believe that we've been led up the garden path by a deliberate, sophisticated  campaign of duplicitous spin.  Mike Hosking’s cuddling up to John Key’s government is symptomatic of the campaign.    I think we need to revisit that . . . right before the text reveals the TPPA affects our democracy more than we thought.  Now, I don't watch TV1's "7 Sharp" (I simply can't stand  Mike Hosking) but I did watch this clip where Professor Jane Kelsey was interviewed by Hosking, referenced here, also.  It's actually quite funny:

 "Jane Kelsey Seven Sharp TPPA"

At about 4 minutes into the interview Hosking started talking about how trade disputes are ironed out at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Professor Kelsey corrected him, pointing out there is a great difference between State-to-State disputes and Investor-State disputes; Investor-State disputes are where corporations sue countries.

After the interview Hosking IGNORED what he had been told about 4 minutes previously and suggested again to viewers that there is nothing to worry about as the WTO will resolve it like they did the Apples importation issue into Australia.  And exactly HOW many apples have we actually sold into Australia since then?!

So, this is either sheer right-wing political bias on Hosking's part, willful blindness, or a failure to understand the difference between State-to-State disputes and Investor-State disputes.  Despite his political leanings, Bryan Bruce graciously suggests the latter.

Bryan Bruce explains; disputes between states are worked through by the WTO and there are no big fines because it is a country vs country issue (as in the now resolved issue of Australia refusing the importation of the NZ apples).  Disputes between corporations and states are completely different.

In some trade agreements - of which the TPPA will be one - foreign investors can actually sue Nation States in offshore tribunals (not courts) if they believe their shareholders are out of pocket because the country changed its laws and they lost profits as a result. (Nations, by the way, cannot sue Foreign Investors).  Tim Grosser, our Trade Minister negotiating on our behalf, says, it's "highly unlikely" we'll be sued.  In his comments, Grosser is trying to convince us that his negotiating skills outweigh those of all the powerful contributing US corporations and lobbyists.  Remember, these are the same corporations and lobbyists that have access to the deal terms - but we don't!  And John Key says, New Zealand has never been sued before under a trade agreement . . . so, of course, it won't happen (!)

Does it happen? Oh yes - and on our doorstep.  It's happening right now in Australia over plain packaging of cigarettes.  Tobacco giant, Philip Morris, was able to initiate legal proceedings under the Investor Dispute terms in Australia's "free trade" deal with China.   The Sydney Morning Herald revealed, in the article below, that Australia has already spent $50 MILLION on legal bills defending its cigarette plain packaging legislation before a tribunal in Singapore:

*   "Australia faces $50m legal bill in cigarette plain packaging fight with Philip Morris" [Sydney Morning Herald]
*  "Tobacco giant sues Australia" [Yahoo News]

And that's only for the initial hearings!  If the Singaporean tribunal decides there is a case for Australia to answer . . . watch that legal bill soar!

This is exactly the kind of scenario NZ could face under the TPPA Investor State Disputes provisions.  As taxpayers, we will foot that bill.

Back to the video.  So, Hosking finished the programme by remarking "the proof will be in the pudding." Well, if we don't like the pudding, we can't leave the restaurant.  The TPPA is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for future governments to withdraw from, as South American countries are finding with their current "free trade" deals with America.

Personally, I'd like to stick with a main course Trade deal - we'll sell you some beef and lamb and you sell us some cars and computers. However, that's not going to happen as long as corporates have access and lobbying to the TPPA terms, but we The People don't.

Oh .. and I'd like to see the menu before I order, if that's OK.  US corporate lobbyists are inserting terms into the TPPA, but we won't see the final terms until AFTER the TPPA is signed!!!  Call me old fashioned, but that's not democracy.  But then again, we don't really live in a democracy, do we?

[With thanks to Bryan Bruce]