Journey to the Other Side of the Earth

Despite maintaining cyber silence for the last few months, our intrepid adventurers are once again off on their travels.  They first make landfall in Tokyo, home of the Japanese imperial court. From here, they brave the perils of the Tokaido highway in their journey to Toyohashi, home of the daimyo-lord Koishi-Pryor.  Returning to Tokyo, they will pay tribute to the sumo priests before journeying on to the court of the great monarch Elizabeth.  It is rumoured her power grows weak and it will only be a matter of time before a new lord is installed. Their journey will take them into the heart of the unruly Welsh Marches and hinterlands before journey's end in the murky pulsing heart of the old British empire.

Ahem. I seem to have come over all Jules Verne there.  Will aim to post some updates of where we've been and what we've been doing. Sayonara for now.

ASB Classic Finals, Auckland 10 January

Nelson

Self-portrait with crutches, Kaiteriteri

Hopscotch and hideouts

Round 1: Fox v Joseph

I see I ended the year in 2008 on a flippant note, which no doubt can be attributed to sheer exhaustion at the end of a busy and demanding year. So much so, in fact, that it's been more than a month since I have sat down to type a blog entry in 2009.  I thought about many things to put in this first entry: a top ten review of 2008, an account of my holiday in the Nelson-Tasman area (which was very nice, albeit marred by a bad ankle sprain), even a heartfelt tribute to the glory of feet brought about by said badly-sprained ankle.

Who knows, you may still be treated to these wondrous thoughts and insights! I have, however, decided to start with an account of an event I went to last night at Te Papa, as part of the series of events and celebrations taking place around the motu for Waitangi Day.  This event was the second in Te Papa Tongarewa, the Museum of NZ's, Treaty debate series, and concerned the topic of the Maori seats in Parliament.  For those not in the know, 4 Maori seats were originally established in the nineteenth century for politically expedient reasons. Maori MPs were - and continue to be - elected from them by Maori electors only, who choose to enroll on the Maori electoral roll.  When the Westminster-based First Past the Post electoral system was changed ahead of the 1996 election to Mixed-Member Proportional Representation, the Maori seats were aligned with the number of Maori voters on the Maori roll. At present, this means that there are seven dedicated Maori seats in the NZ Parliament (which currently has 122 seats).  Of course, Maori can also be elected in general seats and, since MMP was introduced, numbers of Maori appearing on party lists and duly being elected to Parliament has also increased.  The 2008 election, which was intriguing on a number of levels, actually saw a slight decrease in the number of Maori seats from both Maori and general rolls.  As somewhat of a side-note to this, however, it is worth noting that Pacific and Asian representation increased. Guess who still made up the majority though?

The two speakers were Professor Phillip Joseph, a constitutional law expert from Canterbury University (signifier alert right there!) and Derek Fox, a veteran Maori broadcaster, unsuccessful Maori Party candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti electorate in 2008 and currently Press Secretary to Tariana Turia, co-leader of the Maori Party and a Minister in the new National-led government.  So why am I blogging about this debate, which may sound dry and dusty on this description?

Dan and I were in two minds as to whether or not to attend. It was after work on a beautiful sunny - and, more importantly, still - evening in Wellington.  The streetside cafes and harbour-front bars beckoned.  Nonetheless, we trooped - or limped, in my case - into the Soundings Theatre at Te Papa to hear what the two gentlemen had to say.  To describe it as a 'lively debate' is somewhat of an under-statement.  

Professor Joseph began in his eminently-reasonable patrician tones to lay out his arguments as to why the Maori seats should be abolished, partially in line with the findings of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform in the 1980s: they would create an 'over-hang' for small parties, such as the Maori Party; they would give small parties the 'balance of power'; they were unnecessary to increase Maori representation as MMP's party list system would take care of that; there were already 'protections' for Maori, first due to the principle of 'active protection' as outlined in the Lands case and Treaty guarantees; they were un-democratic, as they arose from a theory of reverse discrimination based on ethnicity and, finally, they were a historical hang-over from the bad old days, nineteenth-century pateranlism writ large. Quoting a dizzying number of statistics, he said that Maori were entitled to representation proportional to their population, which, in the 2005 election, had resulted in more Maori MPs than was equitable on population numbers. He finished by quoting Sir Tipene O'Regan, former chairman of Ngai Tahu, ad nauseum on the 'repugnance' of electoral privilege.

As I listened to this extremely narrow and one-eyed view, presented in the reasoned guise of respectable academia, it infuriated me.  Fortunately I was not the only one.  Derek Fox could barely restrain himself during this talk, particularly when Professor Joseph appeared to intimate that the Treaty (in its English version) protected Maori rights. Historian Claudia Orange, who was chairing the debate, intervened to remind the audience - and radio listeners, as this was being recorded for later broadcast - that the Professor's views were not the views of Te Papa, but his own.  When Derek Fox got up to speak, he spoke of the insult and repugnance he had felt listening to this paper.  He passionately spoke about the structural inequalities that disproportionally affect Maori in education, health, employment and imprisonment. He also pointed out that Maori electorate MPs were only elected by Maori, and thus had a mandate to solely represent Maori views and issues, unlike Maori list members, who were both selected by centrist parties and answerable to wider electorates. Many of the questions from the audience shared some of his emotional outrage at Professor Joseph's dispassionate views and apparently monocultural framework.

While I shared their emotional response, I was also aware that Professor Joseph had not been fully engaged on an intellectual level.  A young lawyer tried to challenge his views on the grounds of substantive vs nominal equality - at least that was the nugget of his ramblings about Matt Damon and the movies - but his question was somewhat lost.  Im my view, this means that Professor Joseph could potentially dismiss the perfectly legitimate criticisms that came his way as emotive, uninformed, partisan, political, or misdirected.

Had I been able to hobble to the front quickly enough, or had my wits about me a little bit more, I would have made the following points (in the form of questions of course!), all of which I think are suspect uses of academia to structure public debate:

- at no point in his many references to just one Maori commentator, Sir Tipene O'Regan, did Professor Joseph ever say that he was referring specifically to the abolition of the Maori seats. Having not yet followed up the reference, this makes me suspicious.  If O'Regan had been talking about the Maori seats, why not quote that rather than his more general comments about electoral privilege? (Am happy to be corrected here!)

- at no point, did Professor Joseph refer to the substantial body of Maori opinion that does not hold this view, making his 'use' of O'Regan's views look like a classic case of valorising the 'native informant' i.e. find a Maori voice who appears to be agreeing with you and continually cite them to give your own arguments greater legitimacy, while not referring to any alternative Maori views

- his reliance on a welter of statistics, and falsely modest admissions of unfulfilled predictions, fudged the fact that since the 19th century, only one election (2005) has produced slightly larger than proportional representation for Maori, also obscuring the fact that there has continued to be greater-than-proportional representation for Pakeha (or 'NZ Europeans'), compared with Maori, Pacific and Asian peoples.

- his continual reference to the historical expediency of the establishment of the Maori seats, as if they still served the same purpose.  Compare the nineteenth-century Native Land Court, which was the instrument by which Maori communal land ownership was broken through individualisation of title, resulting in the phenomenal loss of Maori land in a relatively short space of time.  Yet today's Maori Land Court, which is a descendant of the its predecessor, the bench of which is mostly Maori, interprets Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, the guiding principle of which - in a kind of 'shutting-the-stable-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted' way - is the retention and protection of such Maori land as remains.  The purpose of institutions can change, as the times do.  The venerable institution of Parliament is a salutary example of this.

- in further lending legitimacy to his views, Professor Joseph repeatedly cited the findings of the Royal Commission, who, in recommending MMP had also recommended the abolition of the Maori seats as inconsistent with the notion of proportional representation.  It fell to Claudia Orange to point out at the end of the debate, the significant caveat that the Commission had added to this: that while the Maori people collectively wanted the Maori seats, the seats should be retained.  It would be politically disastrous to abolition the seats, which a less purist legalistic interpretation might have acknowledged

- constitutional law and electoral rights do not occur in a cultural and historical vaccuum.  As Derek Fox pointed out, the shocking statistics for Maori are a result of institutional and, particularly, political failure to deal effectively with them.  Protected Maori representation for Maori not only ensures that these issues are on the agenda, but, in this government (and I grudgingly concede this, not being a National supporter), Maori are uniquely positioned to do something about it at the political level, to try and level out the playing field, to try and achieve substantive equality.

- having said that, so-called political equality does not equal social equality. It may be technically true, as Professor Joseph pointed out, that there are no barriers to Maori participation in the electoral process and therefore no need for protected seats. This view, however, takes no account of substantial social barriers to effective participation. Martin Luther King stung the conscience of the US by saying that 'we cannot be satisfied ... while the Negro in New York believe he has nothing for which to vote'.  In the US, that changed in 2008, but, no matter what his substantial achievements, Barack Obama does not automatically equal better social outcomes for African-Americans.  The same applies in NZ.

- the Lands case established not just the Treaty principle of active protection, as Professor Joseph appeared to suggest, but also that of partnership, which did not rate a mention. Partnership represents a much higher bar, and one that still remains as a horizon to be reached.  Maori are not just one 'ethnic minority' to be proportionally represented, but the indigenous people of this country.  The protection of 7 Maori seats of 122 seems but a small concession to the principle of partnership, viewed in this way.

In my opinion, academics have a responsibility to fully explore all sides of a debate in order to advance well-informed critical arguments, not selectively present evidence, set up straw men, and advance their own agenda (it came as little shock that Professor Joseph all but admitted he was a National supporter).  The public has a responsibility not to be over-awed by them when they do so.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest ; )

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays!

Compliments of the season to everyone - especially to those in Japan and the UK who won't be sharing in the sun and sea at the moment. Who could put it better then NSync (watch highly amusing video here featuring Gary Coleman and a badly-bleached Justin Timberlake here): Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays!