A headline on The Spinoff today stated the obvious:
Nicole McKee’s new Act leadership role means record Māori party leaders – but no one Māori voice
The article beneath was triggered by news that Nicole McKee has become the Act Party’s new deputy leader. Both minor parties in the coalition government therefore have leaders and deputy leaders “who whakapapa Māori”.
McKee joins Act Party leader David Seymour, who has Māori ancestry, while New Zealand First is led by Winston Peters and deputy Shane Jones, who are both Māori.
On the other side of the House of Representatives, Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is Māori and Rāwiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer lead The Maori Party.
Seven of the 12 party leaders and deputies in Parliament have Māori ancestry.
The Spinoff’s Atea editor Liam Ratana declares:
Whatever your views of the individuals, it’s a significant achievement for Māoridom.
He then asks:
But will that be the focus or are we in for more arguments – and insults – about who represents Māori and who doesn’t?
This brings into considerations the dubious notion that there can be – or should be – a single political Māori voice.
As Ratana rightly recognises, Māori representation – just the same as non-Maori representation – spans the political spectrum, from left to right.
Thirty-three MPs of Māori descent sit across six different parties in the 54th Parliament.
Because Māori are not a single homogenous group, different factions champion vastly different social and economic aspirations and Māori political voices hold varying and sometimes conflicting ideologies.
Nobody should be surprised.
What we should brace for is more of the racist ruse of vilifying a political opponent for not being sufficiently Maori.
Ratana recalls:
In 2024, Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clark famously said to Peters: “Moumou tō toto Māori (Your Māori blood is a waste).” While Peters has thrown his own insults before (he referred to Rawiri Waititi’s traditional tā moko as “scribbles on his face”), it’s hard to see Maipi-Clark’s comment as anything other than diminishing the mana of not only Peters, but of all his whānau and tūpuna too.
The fledgling MP is far from the first to accuse another Māori politician of not being Māori enough or not the right kind of Māori. In 2022 Labour’s Willie Jackson called Seymour a “useless Māori”, and more recently Māori development minister Tama Potaka has found himself denying he’s part of an anti-Māori government. While recent insults and accusations have come against a backdrop of anger at the government – some political commentators have labelled the coalition “the most overtly racist government we’ve seen in recent decades” – is it ever fair to diminish a politician’s whakapapa?
Shane Jones doesn’t think so. “I don’t believe in this notion [that] just because I have a different idea than the majority of your viewers, that somehow makes me less Māori than you. Be a long day in hell before I’ll agree with that,” Jones said in an interview on Te Ao with Moana last year.
Ratana also recalls that McKee looked like she was trying to get ahead of any battles about how her whakapapa gelled with her political beliefs from the outset.
“I am proud of both my Māori and my British ancestry,” she said on the weekend. “I do not need to choose between them, and I do not need a political party to tell me what my identity is supposed to mean. My whakapapa is mine. My views are mine. My vote is mine. My country is mine too”.
Then she took aim at Te Pāti Māori. “Te Pāti Māori claim to speak for all Māori. They do not speak for me. They do not speak for every Māori parent who wants their children safe and well educated, every Māori business owner who wants less red tape and more opportunity, or every Māori victim of crime who wants consequences,” she said.
But let’s get back to the notion of a single Maori voice.
Even if The Maori Party could point to higher numbers, Ratana says,
… it would remain tricky for it to claim it speaks for Māori. Certain issues are often portrayed as being “unifying” – things all Māori care about, including the treaty, whānau, te reo Māori, culture and whenua. These are issues many Māori would say are important, but lots of Māori care about other things too. A majority of Māori don’t maintain a regular connection to their marae, and can’t speak te reo Māori. This doesn’t mean these issues aren’t important to them, but it shows that Māori are different and have different experiences and views.
Sure, mana motuhake and the establishment of a Māori parliament might be great ideas and important for some Māori, but others will be more focused on stable jobs, warm homes, and three square meals a day.
In the concluding paragraphs, we are told:
Well, we now have the most Māori political party leaders we’ve ever seen in parliament, and that means we’re also closer to having more representation of the full spectrum of Māori and their political views and experiences.
Many Maori MPs and many disparate political and ideological voices, in other words.
Who would have thought it?
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
On the other side of the House of Representatives, Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is Māori and Rāwiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer lead The Maori Party.
Seven of the 12 party leaders and deputies in Parliament have Māori ancestry.
The Spinoff’s Atea editor Liam Ratana declares:
Whatever your views of the individuals, it’s a significant achievement for Māoridom.
He then asks:
But will that be the focus or are we in for more arguments – and insults – about who represents Māori and who doesn’t?
This brings into considerations the dubious notion that there can be – or should be – a single political Māori voice.
As Ratana rightly recognises, Māori representation – just the same as non-Maori representation – spans the political spectrum, from left to right.
Thirty-three MPs of Māori descent sit across six different parties in the 54th Parliament.
Because Māori are not a single homogenous group, different factions champion vastly different social and economic aspirations and Māori political voices hold varying and sometimes conflicting ideologies.
Nobody should be surprised.
What we should brace for is more of the racist ruse of vilifying a political opponent for not being sufficiently Maori.
Ratana recalls:
In 2024, Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clark famously said to Peters: “Moumou tō toto Māori (Your Māori blood is a waste).” While Peters has thrown his own insults before (he referred to Rawiri Waititi’s traditional tā moko as “scribbles on his face”), it’s hard to see Maipi-Clark’s comment as anything other than diminishing the mana of not only Peters, but of all his whānau and tūpuna too.
The fledgling MP is far from the first to accuse another Māori politician of not being Māori enough or not the right kind of Māori. In 2022 Labour’s Willie Jackson called Seymour a “useless Māori”, and more recently Māori development minister Tama Potaka has found himself denying he’s part of an anti-Māori government. While recent insults and accusations have come against a backdrop of anger at the government – some political commentators have labelled the coalition “the most overtly racist government we’ve seen in recent decades” – is it ever fair to diminish a politician’s whakapapa?
Shane Jones doesn’t think so. “I don’t believe in this notion [that] just because I have a different idea than the majority of your viewers, that somehow makes me less Māori than you. Be a long day in hell before I’ll agree with that,” Jones said in an interview on Te Ao with Moana last year.
Ratana also recalls that McKee looked like she was trying to get ahead of any battles about how her whakapapa gelled with her political beliefs from the outset.
“I am proud of both my Māori and my British ancestry,” she said on the weekend. “I do not need to choose between them, and I do not need a political party to tell me what my identity is supposed to mean. My whakapapa is mine. My views are mine. My vote is mine. My country is mine too”.
Then she took aim at Te Pāti Māori. “Te Pāti Māori claim to speak for all Māori. They do not speak for me. They do not speak for every Māori parent who wants their children safe and well educated, every Māori business owner who wants less red tape and more opportunity, or every Māori victim of crime who wants consequences,” she said.
But let’s get back to the notion of a single Maori voice.
Even if The Maori Party could point to higher numbers, Ratana says,
… it would remain tricky for it to claim it speaks for Māori. Certain issues are often portrayed as being “unifying” – things all Māori care about, including the treaty, whānau, te reo Māori, culture and whenua. These are issues many Māori would say are important, but lots of Māori care about other things too. A majority of Māori don’t maintain a regular connection to their marae, and can’t speak te reo Māori. This doesn’t mean these issues aren’t important to them, but it shows that Māori are different and have different experiences and views.
Sure, mana motuhake and the establishment of a Māori parliament might be great ideas and important for some Māori, but others will be more focused on stable jobs, warm homes, and three square meals a day.
In the concluding paragraphs, we are told:
Well, we now have the most Māori political party leaders we’ve ever seen in parliament, and that means we’re also closer to having more representation of the full spectrum of Māori and their political views and experiences.
Many Maori MPs and many disparate political and ideological voices, in other words.
Who would have thought it?
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
And if they ever all thought as one, why did it require over 500 of them to sign the Treaty? What a ridiculously stupid concept - just as is the notion that they had sovereignty to cede, other than that over their own little transient fifedoms and, moreover, that the Crown, the most potent empire on the planet, would have wanted those fifedoms retained so it could one day enter separate 'partnerships' with each them.
As the saying goes - pull the other one, it has bells on!
Yet, today, we have all manner of apparatchiks beavering away entering these very 'partnerships' to ensure the creation of a new nation -New Sneetchland.
And, just as the creator of the Sneetches foretold, a very expensive lesson is to be learned down the track - a track the majority of us actually voted not to be on. So go figure - and who are YOU now going to hold to account?
And, if you're struggling, it's quite easy, for more than one has a christian name beginning with, 'Ch...', and/or the other give away, they're quite often wearing a lanyard with a stone or bone attached.
And the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Ratana if we demanded a separate voice for white New Zealanders.
It's ludicrous to believe that all who consider themselves Maori, or even a tiny part Maori have ever, or will ever speak as one voice on any topic, as an agreed point of view.
And in what language ?
The huge variety of dialects pre European ?
The concocted bullshit they affect today wen its appropriate ?
CXH has it in a nutshell. What's more, who ever talks about a 'non-maori' voice as if the rest of us have a uniform set of opinions and outlooks.
The concept of 'maori' becomes suspect once ancestry is split 50/50 at best, and even more untenable once a 25/75 split is in evidence.
Anyone else notice that the current threatening advertisements by the IRD are entirely in English ?
Not a word of Maori !
Why are only English speakers obliged to sort their taxes in time ?
Every other Govt proclamation comes in a non translated Maori laden text .
The hundreds of staff in the IRD Communication Dept are a bunch of racist hypocrites ?
If one is to consider the true meaning of the Treaty articles. The concept of a Maori political, collective voice and for that matter any other collective operating in this democracy, ceaced to exist in 1840.
When exactly do we become one people?
Allen H - its a maths square law 2 - 4 - 8-16-32-64-128-256-612 ad infinitum.
At what point does anyone Maori DNA become so dilute that its irrelevant ?
However, our Masters think that 1/512 of Maori DNA makes one person more deserving than any other race, and should be supported in perpetuity by others.
Why can't Luxon et al understand this instead of making it impossible for future generations to fix ???
That's the bloke who thinks that he is really clever with the maths and accounting, who is running NZ into the ground.
Here's a reminder READING THE TREATY.
Below is a copy of the final English draft, written on the 4th of February 1840 ( known as the Littlewood draft).
It was translated into Māori ( Te tiriti o Waitangi) and signed by over 500 chiefs.
The wording matches exactly to the Māori version.
All other versions are INCORRECT.
Article the first
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.
Article second
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
Article third
In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
Signed, William Hobson
Consul and Lieut. Governor.
He iwi tahi tatou - we are one people".
This is the true version of the treaty of Waitangi.
There is no partnership.
There are no principles.
Anonymous @4.06, thanks, but you probably see my point that if one is just 50% maori, one is no longer maori. Any smaller proportion, as you indicate not only takes one further away from being maori, but becomes a total irrelevancy. No non-maoris are given recognition of the parts of their fractional ancestry, so why should diluted Polynesians?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.