Fabling Family responds to Don Brash's Anti-Maori advertisement

* *

*ACT Party anti-Maori propaganda advertisement July 9 2011*

Don Brash:

You and your political party colleagues are Maori-phobic. You and your political party colleagues each exhibit Maori-phobia. We respond to the ‘some of the ways National have done so’ Don Brash claims:

*ACT CLAIMS: Foisted on Aucklanders an unelected Maori statutory board that can hold balance of power on council committee: *

*FACTS: See http://www.laws179.co.nz/2011/04/appointees-and-local-democracy.html *

Brian Rudman again rails againstthe automatic appointment of members of the Maori Statutory Board onto Auckland Council committees: ‘*At the time I tried to think of any model of democracy that involved members of a committee of government appointees not elected by the people they purport to represent sharing voting rights on a city council with elected councillors. This system of Maori representation doesn't fit the ideal of any form of democracy that I know of this side of the old communist world.’*

* *

Rudman appears to have overlooked that local government legislation in New Zealand has for a long-time provided for exactly that.

Clause 31(3) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 allows a local authority to appoint people other than councillors to council committees as long as each committee continues to have at least one elected member:

*‘The members of a committee or subcommittee may but need not be elected members of the local authority and a local authority or committee may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member of the local authority or committee if in the opinion of the local authority that person has the skills attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.’*

* *

Such a practice was also authorised under earlier legislation. It reflects the idea that local democracy involves a blend of representation diversity and expertise. While non-councillors are entitled to sit on committees the democratic principle is pure for the governing body of the local authority - elected members remain ultimately responsible for decisions made by committees subcommittees or other people under delegations.

It's also worth noting that (certain quasi-decisions aside) the governing body can generally revoke or overturn a decision made by any of its committees. The Maori Independent Board has statutory authority and therefore the Auckland Council is bound by that statutory authority. As are the policy operations expenditure and decisions of the other ‘unelected’ women and men (who were ‘selected and appointed’ by Rodney Hide (and behind closed doors) as directors to Watercare and the other Auckland Council boards under statute.

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: National has broken their promise to scrap-the race-based Maori seats: *

*FACTS:* As citizens and as New Zealander’s we vote for our political representatives using MMP which as you aware will create opportunities for a majority party to form political alliances with smaller political parties such as the Maori Party UnitedFuture and the Act Party. Each came to the table with their wish-list. The National and the Maori Party came to an agreement where the existing Maori seats would remain until such time as the Maori citizens indicated their position on such a policy change. This is what happens in a democracy.

In addition the Royal Commission did not recommend dropping the threshold to 3% if the Maori seats were abolished. It recommended that ‘parties representing Maori interests’ should not have any threshold. It also suggested (but didn’t *recommend*) that this waiver might also be extended to other minority ethnicities if that was thought desirable. Why the Act Party has raised such a hoary old chestnut is beyond comprehension. As natural-born New Zealander’s we are very happy with the status quo.

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: Passed the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 to make it much easier for the Maori Party’s mates to claim ‘our’ coastal riches:*

*FACTS*: The Maori Party and the National Party repealed a disgracefully racist law from the statute books. The Act Party during that parliamentary process displayed an extraordinary level of negativity and ignorance and it continues to do so. The Act Party was responsible for blatant lies and communicating misleading propaganda and it failed in its attempts to retain that disgraceful racist law. It is interesting that the Act Party uses the word ‘our’ as though the ‘coastal riches belong to Act Party? What arrogance.

We have yet to read/see/witness any recognition by the Act Party of the forced confiscation of land from many Maori people and their communities last century; and further the Act Party is silent on the behaviour of colonial jurists and the courts which were deliberate in their decisions to break up the Maori estate; and by colonial governments and parliaments which passed discriminatory laws which kept the Maori people and its communities oppressed and landless.

*ACT CLAIMS: Ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that provides for separate development for Maori. (Even Helen Clark’s Labour Party wouldn’t go there).*

*FACTS: What is the real issue about this matter*? How have Maori people and their communities upset the status quo? Are Maori people and their communities not able to provide for their separate development? What is the issue here? Are Maori people to be kept on the dole and state care for future generations? Have you sat down and wondered why it is essential that Maori people and their communities want to develop their resources and the people? These basic needs may stem from the fact that successive governments and their respective policies have simply not provided that opportunity to Maori for Maori people to engage and to seek their own pathways? Being a voting number under any political party is of little consequence to Maori people and their communities which have been ignored for years – and Te Tai Tokerau is a classic example. As are Ngai Tuhoe which have been waiting for 140 years for their grievances to be settled: those fine people have been forced to wait for the right to develop their land on their terms and in the manner and form they desire.

If the UN Declaration can assist with the development of policy to enable a suppressed people like Ngai Tuhoe to extract themselves out of the brutal poverty and lack of social policy initiatives then we are supportive of the National and the Maori Party to ratify this agreement.

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: Forced on the people of Whanganui a spelling of their city’s name that they’d loudly rejected.*

*FACTS: The National Party did no such thing*. It provided the citizens – both Maori and Pakeha the availability to spell ‘Whanganui’ with or without an ‘H’. We agreed there was loud racist and brutal confrontational tactics and verbiage from a number of the ‘pakeha citizens’ of Whanganui. This is such petty behaviour.

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: Lumbered the Environmental Protection Authority with a Maori advisory committee. *

*FACTS: Te Hautu (a Maori perspective) within the EPA is committed to working closely with *tangata whenua. On its website Te Hautū explains how and why it seeks the input of tangata whenua how those relationships influence decision-making and how people and their communities can get involved.This is a positive and proactive decision and endorsed by the Minister and the chair of the EPA.

As a family we are pleased to read that the Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao advises the EPA Board on matters relating to policy process and decision-making. And that Kaupapa Kura Taiao facilitates the incorporation of tangata whenua perspectives in EPA decision-making through assessment communication and relationship management. And also a Māori National Network includes tangata whenua representatives interested in environmental management from around New Zealand. And a much needed Kāhui Kaumātua* *taumata provides cultural leadership to the Māori National Network.

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: kept the crippling RMA conditions that force many of us (who are?) to ‘bribe the tribe’ to develop our own land.*

*FACTS: We refer the Act Party to the Department of Conservation (which has received financial assistance from* state-owned enterprises. The private owned Contact Energy has also paid many thousands of dollars to both Maori and Pakeha land-owners in order to smooth the resource consent application process. And Act is inferring that Maori people and their communities are not affected by the RMA processes? And Act’s infers that somehow because they are Maori citizens they are not affected by this and other statutes?

Hilary Calvert continues to display her appalling ignorance of Maori people and their communities which she successfully portrayed in the Parliament and all without any one else’s assistance by this insulting ‘bribe the tribe’ remark:

* *

*“Hilary Calvert: the proven racist lawyer who owns a brothel in Dunedin and appropriately suffered public criticism where she was labelled 'racist' over foreshore remarks by TV3 and other national non-Maori media. *

* *

*During debate on the marine and coastal bill she called tikanga – or Maori customs – an “Alice in Wonderland word” which could be defined different ways. She also said Maori couldn’t prove customary title to the seabed. “No one historically crawled about on the seabed miles from shore. There was just no chance of anybody holding their breath from 1840 until now on the seabed – that’s not going to happen. Ms Calvert avoided the *media. Her comments didn’t go down well with either side of the house but ACT deputy leader John Boscawen did his best to defend her. I’m sorry to have to interrupt my colleague but I’m having the harangues here from the opposition the Labour opposition and I’m also have to listen to continual interjections from Tariana Turia” he said in Parliament. Ms Calvert continued: “The honourable Tariana Turia seems to believe that –“ “Point of order” Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia interrupted “If this member is going to use my name she can pronounce it correctly. I’m offended that she doesn’t.” And Turia wasn’t the only one offended by Calvert’s speech. Attorney General Chris Finlayson labelled Ms Calvert’s comments “unpleasant”. A comparison between the practice of Tikanga and the Alice in Wonderland fairytale were enough to push Ms Turia over the edge. We’re not allowed to refer to those matters in the house but when somebody denigrates another culture then – for me – that’s racist” she said”. Ends.

*ACT CLAIMS: Established ‘co-governance’ of the Waikato River with more rivers to come.*

*FACTS: *Previous policies and statutes had permitted the Waikato River to be contaminated by the thousands of resource consents granted by successive local authorities over the century. Someone had to take a stand. We refer Act Party to the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 in which the government apologised for the forced raupatu of the lands of Waikato people and their communities.

The claim to the Waikato River by the Waikato people was a separate settlement which the then government agreed to negotiate a settlement on in the future. That negotiation occurred during 2009 and culminated with the settlement Act.

And yes it was essential and good practice (as with the EPA) that Maori and their communities be involved with the cleaning-up of the Waikato River and to protect its life-force reduce the pollution and to make it safe for swimming and fishing and recreational pursuits for both Maori and Pakeha citizens.

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: Proposed to ban us from clearing native scrub on our own land.*

*FACTS: Has this actually occurred? **Has the Act Party seen the proposed legislation? Has it been placed before* the House for consideration and debate? Did the Act Party vote on this and lose? What is the issue here? Has the Act Party been in a long-drop for the last year? Has it not seen the devastation of native fauna and fora that we as a country are suffering due to encroachment of industry poor land management practices cows defecating in our waterways loss of biodiversity aerial spraying and ignorance of land-owners and Act Party property owners?

If the government decides to ban the removal of native scrub for good rational reasons (to protect and keep the biodiversity active to protect the land from top-soil loss and erosion to prevent imported noxious weeds and other non-native fauna to secure a hold in our country – then so be it.

We endorse the government and its political partners in doing so. But why is Act blaming the Maori people for this policy decision?

* *

*ACT CLAIMS: The WAI 262 recommendations: Wellington’s Town Belt: Teachers forced to learn Maori: Maori** Party’s desire for a new constitution; ad finitum ad nauseam.*

*FACTS:* This ad nauseam diatribe is just that.

This latest diatribe proves the insecurity of the Act Party. What is telling about this advertisement is that Act is demonstrating that it intends to deliberately diminish the importance of whakapapa – which is the basis of Maori social, political and legal structures - the essence of being Maori. To all Maori landowners Act’s proposed policies represent a continuation of the Dickensian policies which originated in the Native Land Act 1862.

The kaupapa of economic dependence is to ensure that owners of Maori freehold land retain it so that it can be passed on to future generations. It is as well to remind ourselves that Maori have their roots in New Zealand and nowhere else. In the past Maori have sought recognition of this from the various courts by consistently arguing that their use and control of their land be viewed differently from but not as less than ownership inPakehalegal terms.

Retaining their land and developing it is of paramount importance to Maori because it is a resource which provides both an economic base and a source of spiritual mana binding the people together. It is essential therefore not only to preserve this base but to broaden it thereby maintaining the identity through land-based whakapapa links of its owners.

ACT was founded in 1994 - but not to solve problems: but to cause social and racial problems: and to create turmoil and cause and brutalise Maori people and their communities for the sins perpetuated on them by successive governments. This fact is indeed reflected in Act’s policies and in the public behaviour of Don Brash, Hillary Calvert and John Boscawen.

*CONCLUSION*

Don Brash you and your political party colleagues are Maori-phobic. You and your political party colleagues each exhibit Maori-phobia.

Given the outrageous intent set out in this advertisement - truly there is a reason to draw a line – not in the sand - but under the Act’s party racist and bigoted political posturing.

In 1998 author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta King said: homophobia is like racism and all other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.

In 2011 we as a family say: these Maori-phobic actions by the Act Party and its Maori-phobia culture is racism and all other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize Maori people and their communities and in doing so: to deny their humanity, their dignity and their personhood. These racial and unnecessary attacks on Maori people and in their own country by a Pakeha-membership political party are not justifiable.

We will not be voting for these discriminatory proposals: the sum of which deserve not to see the light of day in November’s elections. It is appropriate Act has yellow as its political color.

*Fabling Family*

Auckland

ends

© Scoop Media