Te Kahui Mana Ririki spokesperson Anton Blank has made no romantic claims that pre European tangata whenua culture was always peaceful, but he is promoting some aspects of the history which might be helpful to Maori parents looking for a positive and uniquely Maori view of child rising.

Paul Moon today dismissed this initiative on the grounds that infanticide had occurred under some circumstances.  Te Kahui Mana Ririki is championing a recall of a gentle and loving tradition in whanau towards children which was impacted by the history of the last 170 years.

I would love Paul Moon to discuss the European child raising tradition we come from and to acknowledge that many Pakeha children of my generation remember the strap and the slap, in school and at home. Our tradition was once focused around “spare the rod and spoil the child” and it was extraordinary to see the abuse including death threats Sue Bradford received when championing legal changes that would protect children from legal beatings.

The Professor might like to do a study of the violent tradition in boys schools from the Victorian era until the 1970’s and the role of the graduates of those schools in empire building and colonisation.

The place of the child in our culture remains marginal with resources being focused on privileged children and the children of beneficiaries experiencing deprivation.

Violence towards all children is abhorrent and there is a great need to invest in parental education which is culturally effective.

The Green party applauds the initiative for reaching out to Maori parents.

Academics might like to consider who benefits from their knee jerk critiques when a child protection groups are being innovative in their outreach to parents in interests of children.

Massey did this as it was fearful of exceeding Government-imposed enrolment caps. Now Massey is to drastically reduce student numbers by 15 per cent over the next three years directly as a result of the Government’s Tertiary Education Strategy (TES) [PDF]. That’s approximately 2,500 people who will be denied a tertiary education.

So this week, student leaders wrote an op-ed in the NZ Herald outlining the unfairness of the Tertiary Education Strategy.

The Government wants more efficiency in the tertiary sector – that means completing a degree in three to four years. The focus of its TES is on enrolments of full time students who have just left school. Its targeted group of learners are those under 25, preferably Maori and Pacific Islanders.

The trouble is that thousands of tertiary students study part time and can’t complete degrees in six years, let alone three. Many study extramurally at Massey. In fact 16,000 students, mainly women over the age of 25, study extramurally at Massey. A lot of them are Maori who work, and look after children at home. Many are taking a couple of papers to upskill as part of work – which their employer is paying for. Not many are taking out loans for living costs; they don’t take enough papers to qualify for the student allowance, so are hardly a drain on the taxpayer.

But the Government views these students as inefficient because they don’t complete degrees in three years. Tertiary education minster Steven Joyce studied at Massey, and took 21 years to complete his zoology degree. Nearly all extramural students complete their degrees faster, but because most don’t complete them as fast as Joyce would like them to, they are regarded as a non-completion statistic by the Tertiary Education Commission. Consequently universities like Massey will have their funding cut if they don’t reduce extramural student numbers.

Naturally Massey wants to avoid a funding cut even though its older extramural students are performing almost as effectively (and with some academic support and training) even more effectively than their younger counterparts straight from school.

Currently, demand for extramural tertiary education among older people is at its peak due to the recession and the inability for the Government to create jobs. I doubt if reducing access to higher education will lead to efficiencies.

The government’s TES is completely contrary to our tertiary policy particularly with regard to funding. Minister Steven Joyce should rethink his Tertiary Education Strategy and open up access so that capable people do not miss out on the chance to learn.

We have heard a concern among some people that setting a work expectation for parents when their youngest child reaches three years or six years may create an incentive for a small minority of parents to have additional children to avoid this work expectation. Should this eventuate, this would likely contribute to worse outcomes for the parents, their existing children and the family as a whole, and make it even harder for parents to regain their independence from the welfare system. The Working Group considers that one component of addressing this incentive is to provide support for people on welfare to manage their fertility, including through contraception and information about expectations.

There can be no other interpretation except that if a woman gets pregnant while on a benefit, she must accept state enforced contraception if she wishes to continue to receive her $194 per week social support. Despite dog whistling to misogynists everywhere, most New Zealanders would consider it abhorrent that the state would force women into contraception. This is an extreme form of state violence against women. The state has no right to control a woman’s fertility, under any circumstances.

Note that the report talks about “long acting reversible” contraception. To fit that description it is most likely referring to Depo Provera (the “injection”) or the Intrauterine Device (IUD).

Both are highly invasive. Both are linked to serious health problems.

Depo provera is especially problematic.

First, for health reasons. In 2004 The USA Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Black Box warning about long-term use of the long-acting, injectable contraceptive drug, Depo-Provera stating [that] recent research suggests prolonged use of the drug may result in the loss of bone density.

Women report anaphylactic shock, severe and prolonged menstrual bleeding, or the reverse lack of menstrual bleeding, sudden partial loss of vision, unexpected dizziness or fatigue, sudden signs of allergy – among other symptoms when using the drug… women’s health groups also highlighted potential future risks to women’s health such as increased risk of breast, uterine and cervical cancers, and the potential for osteoporosis to develop in Depo-Provera users.

And second, because in New Zealand it has a history of being used as a form of social control over Maori and Pasifika women.

During the 1980s in New Zealand there were regular reports that obstetric hospitals with a largely non-Pakeha population administered Depo-Provera injections to women before discharging them, and to women being discharged from or on leave from prisons and girls’ homes. There were also occasional reports of Depo-Provera being a condition for women obtaining an abortion. In the NZ Contraception & Health Study 1986, 60% of Depo-Provera users enrolled in the study were Maori and 66% were Pacific Island women. A study of contraceptive use in Hamilton in 1983 had previously shown striking variations between races. Only 6% of single Pakeha women were using Depo-Provera, compared to 31% of Maori women.

I can personally attest to the insistence and impatience with which pro-Depo health professionals dealt with Maori women in the 1980s, as does Dr Rawiri Taonui. The pressure was powerful then. Imagine what it will be like if the threat is to take the benefit away from you and your children.

Women on the benefit are among the most vulnerable, are in invariably in need because of circumstances beyond their control. The state must not be allowed to use threats of destitution to physically victimise volunerable women, Maori women, young women, Pasifika women.

This recommendation from the Welfare Working Group shows so clearly what an extremist group it is. The report must be dumped – for the sake of your sisters, your mothers and your daughters.

Apparently the Auckland Transition Agency estimated a budget of $400,000 for the Board’s operation, which has in fact been set at a little over $2 million for the balance of this financial year and $3.4 million for the 2011 – 2012 year.

I’m pleased to see the Council doing its best to ensure that this Board has the money and resources it will need to fulfil its mandate under the Act.  There have been too many instances of similar entities being starved of adequate funds, and then criticised for ’failing’ in their assigned roles.

The Greens shared the view of the Royal Commission on Auckland governance, and the overwhelming majority of submitters to the Select Committee, that Māori representation should be ensured by dedicated seats on the Council.  Rodney Hide threatened to resign as Local Government Minister if that happened, but sadly his bluff was not called.

The functions assigned to the Board by the legislation oblige it to identify and prioritise issues of significance to mana whenua and mataawaka (Māori who live in Auckland but are not mana whenua); to advice the Council on matters affecting Māori; and to work with Council on designing and implementing policies and processes to fulfil the Council’s responsibilities to mana whenua and matawaaka groups.

That’s a broad and deep role, and not one that could be achieved in any meaningful way on a shoestring.  People who are unhappy about the cost should talk to Rodney Hide and question his motives and actions in denying the preferred alternative of dedicated Māori seats, rather than criticising the Council for trying to get a good outcome despite the deeply flawed structure they have to work with.

At the government level we must provide the right support services for families and make sure that the macro level policy settings do not encourage the conditions that exacerbate abuse.

And that is where Paula Bennett’s comments to the Iwi Leadership Group crash and burn.

Paula justifies laying responsibility for Maori child abuse at the feet of Iwi leaders because of the numbers of Maori children who suffer. There is nothing wrong with a collaborative approach and government must work closely with iwi and the community sector on the ground.

But the abuse stats for all ethnicities are appalling. So why are Iwi leaders treated differently than religious leaders, Pacific leaders, Pakeha leaders for the unacceptably high levels of abuse in their communities. Paula asks Iwi to stump up money to pay for services – where is the same request of others in leadership roles?

If Iwi leaders are responsible for abuse of all Maori children, why are Pakeha leaders not responsible for abuse of all Pakeha children, or religious leaders for all the children abused by religious adherents?

Then Paula tells the Iwi leaders that government doesn’t have the money to help with basic services like finding whanau to care for kids at risk so “will you put your hands in your pockets… Because the Government doesn’t have all the money for it right now quite frankly.”

Excuse me? Her government will increase GST that costs the poorest families the most. Her government is increasing borrowings to pay for tax cuts for wealthy families: billions of dollars a year. Her government will spend $500milllion on a few kilometres of highway. Yet, while choosing to spend money on those projects her government can’t find the money to help iwi identify safe families for at risk kids?

That is a grotesque request to make of iwi who at long last have some reparation to help undo the effects of systemic abuse and theft by government over generations that has impoverished whanau and lead to massive dislocation and impoverishment.

And so what of the conditions that increase child risk, like poverty?

Poverty clearly increases the conditions of risk to child welfare. A 2002 report on the impacts of work testing of DPBers in the 1990s raised child welfare issues. Sole parents were concerned about leaving their older children unsupervised. They reported extreme concern at having to leave their younger children with their older children or leaving under 14 year old children on their own at home. They reported huge stress from inadequate or expensive childcare and the fragility of complicated family arrangements required for appropriate care for their kids. And the authors of the report said that more research was needed to understand the full extent of these risks.

Yet Paula just two days before her speech to Iwi Leaders put through legislation that requires work testing of sole parents on threat of losing their benefit. No assessment of the risks to child welfare was done. No follow up to the 2002 report was done.

In the last few years, there have been 2 child deaths and 2 serious abuse cases reported in the papers where the child was left in the care of unsafe adults while the mother went to work. And that’s only the high profile cases that get in the news.

So where is Paula’s responsibility for NOT creating the conditions that increase the risk to children? She knows that her policy will increase risk, yet who holds her to account for that?

Institutional racism is where organisational structures promote or exacerbate inequality based on ethnicity. Paula Bennett’s treatment of the Iwi leadership, her punitive welfare policies and the government’s economic priorities do exactly that: exacerbates the poverty and discrimination that Maori whanau disproportionately suffer. As a result, those policies exacerbate the conditions that increase risk to Maori children. But why do what is necessary when it is so much easier for Paula just to point the finger at the very community that suffers the most and ask them for a handout.

Radio New Zealand’s report noted that that according to the study, even Maori in high income brackets have a shorter life expectancy than non-Maori in the same income bracket.

Alarming, but sadly unsurprising, and entirely consistent with research that shows that a big gap between rich and poor is bad for people in all income brackets. Some of this is evidenced in the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group report showing that more than half of all private renters need the accommodation supplement to pay their rents. And the concerning lack of commitment to address the gap shown by the Welfare Working Group.

I wrote a blog post on inequality and life expectancy back in April when I was writing my ‘Inequality in Aotearoa’ series – and it seems timely to revive that series given this research, and some upcoming Government releases on hardship and inequality indicators that I know are coming up.

So stay tuned! I note also the Bryce at Liberation has started an inequality series on his blog, which is great. Sadly he seems to think no political parties in NZ are active on this issue – Bryce, check out Mind the Gap!

Have a great weekend everyone.

Professor James Anaya is from several New Mexico tribes including Apache and is the first Special Rapporteur to actually be indigenous. That was refreshing. He was very involved in the work to pass the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples  and relieved that our Government finally agreed to support it.

Professor Anaya emphasised that the Declaration is a human rights instrument which recognises the collective human rights of indigenous people and that includes some very particular issues. He spoke about the importance of cultural rights as well as the social and economic rights and the need for affirmative programmes.

He also spoke of his work in relation to extractive industries and their impact of indigenous peoples across the worlds from Bolivia and Belize to Panama and Aotearoa. He said that companies are also responsible for improving their impact on indigenous peoples and I wanted to ask him how the UN can hold those companies to account but there was little time. However, I am sure Hone Harawira will ask him that question.

This issue is so pertinent to Aotearoa . Ocean oil and gas exploration is advancing without the consent of the customary owners outside the 12 mile limit and exploration for minerals is being proposed for Te Tai Tokerau and all along the West Coast. The time is now for us all to to stand up for indigenous peoples rights under the Declaration

Professor Anaya was asked how he worked with indigenous people to ensure he was talking with the most marginalised rather than the most colonised. There is no simple answer to this highly sensitive question and he said that what he tried to do was talk with the people closest to the ground, the most local indigenous communities.

 He is visiting a number of rohe this week and I am sure the people on the ground will have quite a bit to say about the need for change and for their collective rights. The Greens look forward to his “country report” so we can support positive implementation of the key principles of the Declaration.

The issue most covered was the Committee’s recommendation that our government ‘should consider relinquishing the use of Tasers’ because of the ‘severe pain’ and injuries they cause. I was quoted in the media as saying that we ‘should take heed of this esteemed international body’ but Police Minister Judith Collins simply joined in the Police Association’s bashing of the UN Committee. It was good to see the Maori Party back the UN Committee on Tasers in Parliament yesterday. Half of the Kiwis tasered have been Maori.

Prime TV picked up another Committee recommendation and interviewed me on the Committee’s criticism of the weak status of our Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), and the way laws pass through our Parliament even when the Attorney-General says they are not consistent with the Act. Just this month Paula Bennett’s Social Assistance bill received a negative Bill of Rights audit from the Attorney-General for its discrimination against certain categories of beneficiaries, like those on the DPB. But the Bill has just gone through Parliament in urgency, with its discriminatory provisions unaddressed.

If you want a fuller picture of the UN Committee’s critique of our human rights record you can go directly to the report.

The Green Party welcomes the Committee’s suggestions to improve the lot of asylum seekers – namely that they should not be detained with convicted prisoners, or sent to supposedly ‘safe third countries’ from where they could be returned to their persecutors. The UN Committee is helping redress the balance in favour of asylum seekers, who are often treated as political football in this country.

“The Terrorism Suppression Act has rightly come in for a bit of stick, because it lacks a provision to challenge terrorist designations. The committee is also on the mark in asking if rights were violated in the October 2007 ‘anti-terrorism’ raids and why there has been such a huge delay in any resulting trial.

“The Committee also makes pertinent comments on the need to address low participation of women in high-level business positions, and ‘the over-representation of Maori, in particular Maori women, in prisons’.

All in all, it is a good morale boost for the Green Party on some key issues we’ve been challenging National and Labour governments for some years.

From Cabinet papers released today, we learn that the Minister for Maori Affairs believes (quite rightly I think) that Maori need a stronger mechanism for participation in local government in Auckland because provisions in the RMA and the Local Govt Act are not delivering active Maori / iwi involvement.

What we really need, and what thousands of Maori and non-Maori marched for, and wrote submissions in support of, are dedicated seats on the new ‘supercity’ council.  Sadly, this suits Rodney’s agenda not at all, and Pita Sharples for all his good intentions and effort has clearly been over-ruled.

What we are offered in lieu of real participation, or genuine acknowledgement of the Treaty relationship, is a ‘statutory board’ made up of seven mana whenua and two taura here (representatives of iwi not having historic connections with the region).  This board will be invited to ‘promote’ Maori issues and to ‘assist’ the council in its decision making. here

The Maori board will have absolutely no power, no resources, no authority, beyond the dubious ‘right’ to be consulted with; offer advice to; and be taken account of, by the council.  Another case of D.I.Y. participation, with Maori obliged to come to the table as supplicants and advocates, rather than as partners or decision makers.

Maybe a change to an STV system would be a mechanism to enable Maori (and minority groups) to gain some influence?  Except that Rodney has covered that base, with a provision in the bill that insists Auckland must use FPP in 2013 as well as 2010.

I will be at a hui tomorrow at Te Noho Kotahitanga marae, where the issue of Maori aspirations in regard to local government will be on the agenda.  Today’s announcements should offer plenty of grist for that mill!

I will not forget the conversations I had with people from Ruatoki about short term and long term trauma for their tamariki, and with the people who became afraid to leave their homes and afraid to stay at home. It was also very disturbing to hear stories from young families of armed police bursting through their doors and rummaging through their baby’s clothing drawers.

Tuhoe bore the worst and let us not forget that Tuhoe remain an unconquered people who paid the price of their independence.

This week the Green Party supports the cultural events commemorating the human rights outrages and the spirit of solidarity and activism.

So let all activists and community people working for change remember October 15th and lets support the cool art exhibition, workshops and art auction this Saturday. The name of the exhibition is “Explosive Expression.”

If you have never heard the words “Come out with your hands up” bellowed through your broken doorway at dawn, please don’t imagine it cannot happen.

The hui was designed to build activism to end child poverty in Aotearoa. Activism is clearly what is needed to bring about change, was the consensus of speakers and participants.

One of the overriding themes of the Na Ta Tatou Rouro: With our baskets the children will prosper conference was that the recession is far from over, the situation for poor people is worsening and that New Zealand has a shameful and enduring record on child poverty.

Many speakers mentioned The Spirit Level – Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richardson Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, a book that focuses on the consequences of economic inequality

Poor children are discriminated against by Government policies, such as the In Work Family Support tax credit that is not available to beneficiaries.

Everything seems stacked against poor children. Low incomes are bad for the health and for life prospects. Many die early from preventable diseases.

The haters and wreckers syndrome was illustrated by Finlayson Park School principal Shirley Maihi, who outlined the positive work happening at her school, including providing food to hungry pupils, and teaching parents as well as children. But Shirley said that after every newspaper article or TV clip, people ring up to blame the parents and tell her she shouldn’t be feeding the children. Godzone huh?

The disparity between the haves and the have nots is growing, with greater income inequality in New Zealand. The outlook seems increasingly bleak for our most vulnerable children.

But the spirit of those working on the coalface of poverty was more buoyant than bleak.

Conference speaker Sue Bradford – who gave a well-received presentation on New Roads for Activists and was commended for her dedication on helping protect children from violence – was rapt at the energy and the commitment of those present.

“I thought it was really great to see so many people still committed to the kaupapa of working to end child poverty,” said Sue.

“These issues have been big since the early 1980s. So lots of people have been working on it for a long time and have to keep their energy up.

“It was great to see that energy more than ever from people in the health, social services and schools. There were lots of people on the frontline in Maori and Pasifika communities as well as Pakeha communities. And there were academics and university staff as well as frontline workers.

“I think CPAG has done an amazing job over the years. They have really good heart and a commitment to do so.

“I really appreciate their focus on activism, building networks and alliances between people working on poverty issues.”

* The Green Party’s Children’s policy is available at:  http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/children

They are failing to embrace the opportunity the Declaration offers us of a deeper engagement over the relationship between the indigenous people of Aotearoa and the Crown. A fear based approach to the collective rights of Maori is sad given the patience, reasonableness and compromises that tangata whenua have already made in working on the Te Tiriti o Waitangi relationship with the Crown.

National appears to fear that the Declaration might mean Maori are actually entitled to the land they had before colonisation and for full compensation for the losses. We are already engaged in a long term process around these issues. It seems to me that whanau, hapu and iwi fully understand the limitations of the situation and are negotiating imperfect settlements as the best deal they feel they can get. They are continuing to express patience and willingness for co-management of resources when Te Tiriti o Waitangi let alone the UN Declaration actually recognises tino rangatiratanga.

In this context the Government needs to step up and support Maori Party call for Crown recognition of the Declaration. This country is one of the last three dragging the chain on the fundamental issue of collective indigenous rights.

Some of us are really embarrassed by the positions both Labour and National have taken. The Declaration is very significant because unlike other human rights statements it recognises the rights of peoples whose cultural, economic and spiritual expression is collective.

Despite the devastating history of colonisation across the planet indigenous peoples survive and uphold their collective identity and connection to the earth. Matariki is a time of reflection. A deeper reflection of the Declaration suggests it is an opportunity for our country to continue the profound and difficult journey towards Te Tiriti based justice using all tools available. The politics of “inclusion” are pretty meaningless if the Government cannot understand this.

400 indigenous representatives gathered in Alaska for the Summit, hosted by the Innuit Circumpolar Council. The ICC are an international non-governmental organization (NGO) that represents the interests of approximately 150,000 Inuit of the United States, Canada, Greenland and Chukotka. The purpose of the conference was to enable indigenous representatives to discuss the issues and share solutions, and to develop a common position for Copenhagen at the end of the year. And of course the issues were complex and difficult to negotiate.

There was real objection by some to the use of market mechanisms to manage emissions because of the commodification of essential natural resources. There was from the younger representatives a committment to taking the strongest possible action to reduce emissions. And there was considerable concern from those whose only economic resource is oil and who still want the option of developing it. The duress of poverty suffered by many indigenous communities must not be dismissed. As we know from the submissions on the ETS, the Treaty settlement forestry concerns held by Maori are serious for similar reasons.

Global warming has very different impacts on indigenous communitites and the solutions needed will be very different.

Here in Aotearoa we are very aware of sea level rise on the Pacific Islands. The Maldives have a fund for the purpose of purchasing land in order to relocate the entire island. Kiribati are following suit.

In the Arctic, indigenous Yup’ik are looking to relocate an entire village because of rising water levels caused by climate change.

The community of the tiny coastal village of Newtok voted to relocate its 340 residents to new homes 9 miles away, up the Ninglick River. The village, home to indigenous Yup’ik Eskimos, is the first of possibly scores of threatened Alaskan communities that could be abandoned.
Warming temperatures are melting coastal ice shelves and frozen sub-soils, which act as natural barriers to protect the village against summer deluges from ocean storm surges.
We are seeing the erosion, flooding and sinking of our village right now,” said Stanley Tom, a Yup’ik Eskimo and tribal administrator for the Newtok Traditional Council.

Meanwhile in other parts of the world water scarcity is the issue

In the African nation of Kenya, the Samburu tribe is on the verge of a food and economic crisis, the U.N. said, as lengthy droughts kill livestock that provides income and sustenance for the community. In Mexico, highland Mayan farmers are fighting to survive amid decreasing rainfall, unseasonal frost and unprecedented changes in daytime temperatures, the U.N. reported. These conditions are forcing the farmers to plant alternative crops and to search for other sources of irrigation.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change was an excellent start to developing an international indigenous position for Copenhagen. Solutions to climate change issues cannot avoid dealing with the self determination of indigenous people, that is the right to have control over thier own resources, economic development and cultural practice. Neither can the solutions take a one size fits all approach nor rely solely on market mechanisms to provide a just outcome. The long term economic inequities imposed on many indigenous communities must also be addressed

If indigenous people are not at the table from the beginning of the discussions the solutions will be neither effective nor fair. We have long experience of failure in this in Aotearoa. Lets hope that the rest of the world learns from our mistakes.

Labour has made a meal out of critiquing the Maori Party for their agreement with National, notwithstanding Labour’s own utter rejection of the Maori Party in 2005. Labour’s dismal failure to take heed of its own Maori MP’s over the foreshore and seabed issue came back to bite them in the proverbial and only has itself to blame for the emergence of the Maori Party as a political force in opposition to Labour.

Funnily enough, Labour has since the election a new found enthusiasm for defending Maori, noticeably absent for many years now. So, given Labour’s hue and cry over the effect of National’s policy on Maori, why werent they at this hui to support Maori representation on the Auckland council? What is their position? Its a bit of a mystery.

According the 2006 census, nearly 25% of the Maori population live in the Auckland region. John Key has made much of his hongi with iwi leaders, meanwhile the greatest population of Maori in the country with the least representation, most dispossessed and most impoverished get nothing but the finger.

There has only been one elected Maori councillor since 1989 – that is, in the last twenty years. And before that Sandra Lee was the sole Maori voice for a number of years. Its clear that it is extremely difficult for Maori to get access to the decision-making table. And I also understand that the Auckland City council has in the last 18 months twice refused to even entertain the idea of holding a referendum on whether there should be Maori seats. If the council won’t even allow the city to consider it, what chance do Maori have of ever having adequate representation on a super council?

Now the Royal Commission was not at all generous in suggesting 3 Maori seats, so the removal of them by the Iwi/Kiwi National Party is particularly mean – though not at all unexpected. The next question is how the Maori Party will deal with this given their agreement with National that:

The relationship between the Maori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises.
Both the National Party and the Maori Party will act in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi.

Despite the lauded political deals National might have done they nonetheless retain the 19th century arrogance of dispensing their largesse to Maori, tightly controlled and kept in their place.

The Prime Minister did a good imitation of saying nothing definite and implying that the Declaration was more or less just an aspirational text. He said they would watch to see what caveats’ the Aussies put on supporting the Declaration before they made a decision.

It may be that the Declaration is highly symbolic rather than an internal programme of action for Aotearoa/New Zealand, but the greatest symbolism is in who refuses to sign it.

It does raise the issue of why is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is being called aspirational!? Are the rights of women, people with disabilities, children etc merely aspirational or does this only apply to the Declaration on indigenous rights? If so why ??

As of this week only USA, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand are refusing to support the Declaration. 144 countries have signed on to it and 11 have abstained while Australia has decided to show some support. The Green Party wants to know what the new Government here intends to do on this issue. After today’s display of prevarication I am not holding my breath. The key issue is that the UN Declaration acknowledges the collective self determination of indigenous peoples, which seems to have scared the hell out of both Labour and National.

Normally we would never advocate following Australia on issues of cultural justice, their record speaks for itself in all its genocidal brutality, but at least the Rudd Government has made a positive move. The UN Declaration has flaws and weaknesses but it does take a stand for indigenous collectivive self determination across the earth. 

We will just keep on asking our Prime Minister to join the ethical majority at the United Nations on this issue. After all his Government is in a Confidence and Supply agreement with a tangata whenua political party, doesn’t he owe them the recognition of their human rights?

The GEO Group, Inc. is part of the The Wackenhut Corporation, the owner of 13 correctional facilities, 11 of which are operated by GEO. They have immigrant detention centres, youth facilities and adult prisons. GEO’s value now apparently exceeds a billion dollars. CorpWatch has reported that they:

• settled a case where they placed a woman in a cellblock with male inmates who raped and beat her, she later took her life;
• had 125 inmates removed from a prison by state authorities for inadequate staff training and inadequate health care;
• served rotten food;
• knowing made false and misleading statements to state officials;
• failed to complete criminal record checks on at least 100 guards;
• violated domestic and international laws on due process and humane treatment;

We don’t want these kinds of “very good results” thanks John.

Hone argued on radio this morning that Maori would do a better job of running prisons than the Corrections Department. Yes, the Department needs to do much much better. Yes, Maori organisations need to be much more involved in prison management. In fact, the Community sector as a whole has a crucial role in collaboration with Corrections to focus our prisons towards rehabilitation so that our communitites are safer when prisoners are released.

But NO-ONE neither Maori nor Corporations should make a profit from the core social contract function of the state of imprisoning our people.

BTW the Standard has linked GEO to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, who have bitten back.

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?

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.

We now have two government department analyses condemning the bill. If they get a third lets just throw it in the can where it belongs.

There is no doubt that those convicted of violent offenses should attract sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime. Imprisonment will be the consequence. But to strip from the Courts the power to make the most appropriate sentencing decision for the circumstances of that particular crime is to significantly undermine the role of an independent and credible judiciary. It also undermines the confidence that the public hold in the judiciary if they are not allowed to exercise their judgment, but to impose sentences that are grossly disproportionate. It will certainly shake the already fragile confidence which Maori and other marginalised groups hold in the judiciary.

The rate of imprisonment for Māori is already 5-8 times higher than for Pakeha. A 2007 report, “Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system confirms that: “Analysis of data from apprehension through prosecution to conviction and finally sentencing confirms that Māori are more likely to be apprehended and more severely punished than non-Māori. As stated above, much of this difference is explicable for reasons that relate to disadvantage rather than ethnicity – but at key stages there is evidence of a degree of over-representation that relates to ethnicity.” (pg 39). If it is ACT’s intention to increase the rate of Maori male imprisonment, this policy will do it.

The select committee process on the Three strikes Bill will be a great place for ACT to grandstand on a costly, ineffective and discriminatory policy. I’d like to think that they would be at least a little embarrassed by their association with such a waste of taxpayers money but alas, that wont be the case.