He starts with a criticism of Hone, he attacks the Maori Party, he promotes unjust treaty settlements and he defends the discriminatory foreshore legislation. And all delivered to a predominately Pakeha audience. How could whanau and iwi and those on the progressive left respond in any other way but with severe criticism? What exactly was the message here, who was he really talking to and about what?

I personally struggle as to what it is I am most disappointed about in his speech.

Lets take the foreshore. Goff said, in defending legislation considered by many whanau, hapu and Pakeha to be indefensible:

But for all the criticism I have heard, most people accept that the current foreshore and seabed rules aren’t broken and they’re a good foundation for moving forward. They believe it’s good legislation for all New Zealanders….It’s hard to see why the country should be put through all the grief just to put a new brand on law that’s working…. If the foreshore and seabed issue is left for the courts to resolve, we could be tied up in knots for years. The government has a choice between sticking with the status quo, which guarantees access but allows for agreements around customary rights, and the alternative of never ending court battles….National wants to reopen the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Labour asks: What isn’t working? Will reopening court action help or would it see wounds fester?

Labour has never understood the impact of their utter rejection of Maori over the Foreshore. They have never understood the seriousness of slamming the door in the face of whanau and hapü over the issue. Because that was who really paid the price – the small coastal iwi and hapü who would never have the resources to fight or to lobby or negotiate.

Goff claims in his speech that the legislation is working because Ngati Porou did a deal with Labour under it, but what about Aitanga a Hauiti, who lost their treaty rights to their coastal rohe? Labour’s foreshore legislation picked the “large Maori corporates” as the winners and shut out the smaller iwi. Coincidentally, Goff also levelled this same criticism at National and the Maori Party in his speech:

Instead, it’s just done a deal to advantage some large Maori corporates, which other forestry companies do not get from the government, which will give the Maori corporates an estimated $1.75 billion. Let’s be clear. This deal will not benefit Maori as a whole.

I agree that the ETS deal won’t benefit whanau, but it’s completely inconsistent to then say the foreshore legislation was good because big iwi like Ngati Porou could benefit. Pot calling the kettle black.

The disloyalty by Labour to these smaller iwi was severe. It takes real leadership to say you got it wrong. Cullen’s, somewhat conditional back track on the foreshore issue in April this year certainly did not go that far, but it opened the door just a crack, showing they at least recognised a failure of judgement even as they tried to justify it.

Cullen’s position gave Labour some wiggle room over future foreshore changes. It is highly unlikely that much of the Labour scheme will change even if the Nats repeal the existing law. Labour could claim both some success of their scheme with the voters they wooed with the original act, and win some Maori support through a dignified acknowledgement that change was necessary.

At best, I could say that maybe Goff was trying to do that with this speech on the foreshore as there is some recognition of the Cullen position in it:

Back in 2004, Labour’s process on dealing with the issue, in a different environment, could have been better…

But when read alongside the other criticisms it still just comes across as anti whanau, intended or not.

Labour will be frustrated that National will get credit for foreshore reform despite their racist and despicable 2005 anti Maori campaign. But that’s one of the costs of losing an election, hell, we’re all pissed at that.

But this frustration mustn’t distort the bigger picture here: the progressive left must rebuild links with the diverse communities who are suffering under this government and that includes whanau and hapu. Goff, for all his possible intentions to build a sense of ‘nationhood’ simply delivered to National a great wedge with which to divide us.

My question today directly concerning Maori and their loss of rights under the RMA reforms was transferred by the government from the Maori Affairs Minister to the Environment Minister. When I took a point of order on it, Nick Smith responded but the Maori Affairs Minister stayed silent. And of course, before my question was the long debacle of Gerry Brownlee stopping the Maori Affairs minister from answering Labour’s questions about the foreshore review.

I agree that Labour have no cred on the foreshore issue. But the Minister should still answer questions within his ministerial portfolio even from Cullen. There is nothing that suggests that he will make any blunders like other National MPs have. So why is he gagged?

Pita Sharples did defend his reputation today but he should defend the right of Maori to hear from thier Minister. Why is he not standing up to his Cabinet colleagues and demanding that he answer questions about Maori issues? Otherwise Maori could rightly think that the National government is gagging the Maori Affairs spokesperson in an effort to lock Maori out of the public discourse, on Maori issues. That was the old bad Pakeha dominance of last century, why is a Maori Party MP allowing this to happen to them in the 21st century?

Well, its difficult to give a question to a Conservation Minister who has been MIA now for weeks and weeks. And I guess they wouldn’t want to give it to the new Associate Minister who has only been appointed because the other guy isn’t in the country. Why bother having such a Ministerial position if there is no-one competent to fill it or to answer questions about it?

Maybe that is the heart of it. National’s RMA bill currently at select committee will remove the Conservation Minister’s power as effective ‘landowner’ to stop any developments in the coastal marine space. That power will rest with regional councils instead. In effect, as the Environmental Defence Society has said, the power to “permanently alienate” the coast will be in the hands of regional councils – many of whom are demonstrably weak in keeping environmental resources from the hands of developers out for a buck

The Government clearly has not bothered to consider impact on Maori, local communities or to the environment itself. The Conservation Minister has a statutory obligation to advocate for the environment. If the Minister doesn’t even have the normal rights that other landowners have to say “No” the coastal environment is left in the hands of councilors and private enterprise.

I heard the Maori Party clearly state that they wanted the bill to be repealed and their hope, expectation even, that the review would result in that. I heard John Key leave the door open but not make any promises. There was also reference to Tariana’s repeal bill and mention of her having resigned her ministerial position and leaving Labour over it.

I couldn’t help but wonder why no-one asked the question: “If National does not repeal the Act, will you relinquish your ministerial posts as you did before?” It is a tough question but needed to be asked.

The Maori Party is an exceptional political advocate for kaupapa Maori. But the Act is the Maori Party’s raison d’être. Anything less than a repeal (with a sop to public access) will give them serious credibility headaches. Could Pita and Tariana really stay on as Ministers with anything less than repeal and still be the principled MPs that they are?

The National Party will also be feeling the pressure. What if they were to lose the Maori Party from their government? They don’t need the Maori Party for votes, but they do for credibility.

The Nats are promoting themselves as able to work across the political spectrum, trying to woo Maori. They are purposefully looking quite different from the “last cab of the rank”, the much more defensive previous Labour Government. The Maori Party is critical to this image.

I hope that the Maori Party is seriously considering abandoning its ministerial posts if the outcome is a white wash and I hope they have said as much to National.

I can understand that they could not secure a promise to repeal the Act when they signed up to Government. They didn’t have the clout then.

But as more time passes, National is investing more and more of their future political credibility in the apparent stability and management of diverse political interests. They will not want to have the happy lovefest ruined only a year into Government. The Maori Party is at its strongest over this period of the review, if they remain willing to talk and willing to walk away. We could see the back of this legislation if they flex that muscle. I sincerely hope they do.