THE LABOUR PARTY is at serious risk of, once again, succumbing to Reflexive Left Syndrome (RLS). Simply put, RLS causes progressives to respond predictably (and all-too-often counter-productively) to every issue affecting the Left. Those suffering from RLS do not wait for the facts; nor do they pause to consider whether their support for one part of the Left might put them at serious odds with another. Positions are fixed with precipitate haste, and room for subsequent manoeuvre and compromise is severely restricted. RLS nails its victims to the political spot: positions they frequently cannot abandon without incurring serious damage and/or ridicule.
The latest example of Labour succumbing to RLS involves the party’s position on the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.
At the First Reading of the legislation establishing the sanctuary, the vote in favour of this internationally acclaimed measure of marine conservation was unanimous. So far, so good. But, all it took for Labour to announce that it was “reassessing” its support for the legislation was a claim that it contravened the Maori fisheries settlement.
Te Ohu Kaimoana, the Maori Fisheries Trust, had announced that it was challenging the Crown’s actions in the High Court. Labour’s six Maori MPs, feeling obligated to defend their constituents’ rights under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Act of 1992, immediately began applying pressure to their Pakeha colleagues. References were made to the Seabed and Foreshore Act of 2004. With the party registering just 28 percent in the latest One News/Colmar brunton poll, Labour’s Maori Caucus wanted to know if it was intending to alienate their people’s electoral support all over again?
With typical haste, Labour succumbed to RLS. On 12 April, David Parker, Labour’s Environment spokesperson, and Kelvin Davis, its spokesperson for Maori Development, jointly issued a press statement declaring: “The lessons of foreshore and seabed must not be forgotten and the Crown should not by legislation run rough-shod over Māori interests.”
Exactly which Maori interests were being run roughshod over was not specified by Parker and Davis. That a number of “prominent Maori” (including Sir Tipene O’Reagan and Dame Tariana Turia) had spoken out against the sanctuary was all that was needed for RLS to kick-in.
But, Parker and Davis were not the only people to issue a media release on this issue. The former leader of Mana Motuhake, and Alliance Cabinet Minister, Sandra Lee, had some very different thoughts to offer on Te Ohu Kaimoana’s attempt to prevent the establishment of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.
“Te Ohu Kaimoana have a poor conservation record”, said Lee. “They openly supported illegal Japanese whale hunting in the United Nations Southern Ocean sanctuary when I was Minister [of Conservation] and probably still do. Perhaps they could focus their energy on helping our own unemployed rangatahi [young people] to get on the water fishing their own quota instead.”
Certainly, Sir Tipene O’Reagan’s response to Pakeha concerns about the fate of what he labelled “charismatic megafauna” [whales] could hardly be described as supportive.
The furore surrounding the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary offers a powerful example of the political difficulties into which RLS can lead a progressive political party. Almost overnight, the significant benefits to the global environment represented by the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary have been put at risk for no better reason than that a determinedly commercial entity like Te Ohu Kaimoana wishes to reserve the right to harvest the Kermadec fishery.
The Neo-Tribal Capitalist character of the forces pushing for the scrapping of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary has not been lost on Sandra Lee. Nor has the need for all the peoples of the Earth to challenge the right of commercial interests to plunder the planet’s living resources without let or hindrance. But Labour, rather than balancing carefully the respective claims of a vulnerable ocean eco-system, and a commercial Maori entity, has allowed its response to be dictated by RLS. They have rushed in like fools – and not in the defence of angels.
Thanks Chris. Well said!
It’s about time these elders were called out for what they really are:
Carpetbaggers!
Poseurs with wobbly walking sticks!
They’ve made a cynical and illegitimate living off the misery of Maori whilst at the same time holding them back in stone age tribal structures.
There’s something very wrong with a process that enables a lawyer to get on the NZ ‘rich list’ from a career in treaty claims.
(As an aside, this is a philosophical problem for the Left that needs addressing: The Left likes collectivism and tribalism is just a form of enforced collectivism, not unlike Stalin’s collectivization of farms in the Soviet Union.)
This is an important issue, because it pits two progressive ideals head-to-head: indigenous rights vs. the environment.
NZF typically opposes preferential treatment for Maori; but this time claims the bill is “breaking the law.”
Could it be that NZF and Labour both know the Greens will get it through allowing them to play the opposition card?
HIMSEE: Excellent summation.
My view is that ‘indigenous rights’ should mean equal rights *as an individual* but not necessarily as part of a tribal structure.
Fundamentally we all have a ‘right of association’ as part of the Bill of Rights but that also includes the right of the individual NOT to be associated. This is where I think we’ve inadvertently trapped Maori and held them down: They’re born into a culture which undermines individual effort and creates a culture of unwarranted victimhood.
In my decades of work in the 3rd World I have seen this many times: Otherwise intelligent and hard working indigenous people are held down by archaic and undemocratic tribal structures.
Sadly these tribal structures are often promoted by well-meaning progressives who see these places as a sort of human petting zoo where time stands still and where the natives must always dress in grass skirts and carry a spear . Although they would recoil in horror, they are in effect racists – paternalistic racists.
While I hope that society progresses towards a more inclusive and less divisive state, it’s too simplistic to say that “non-Western” values hold these cultures back.
For a start, it’s taken a few centuries (and may take a few more) to heal the hurt unleashed by colonialism. I sincerely believe Maori when they describe their connection to the land, waterways, plants and animals. Everyone has a right to their own spirituality.
Ultimately I think cultures need to be given the space and time to develop as they see fit. It would be great if we can get to a point and say “hey, the people around me have nothing to do with the injustices of the past — let’s move forward together.”
Spot on, Chris.
(I speak as a marine biologist who contributed a scientific paper to the Auckland Museum’s Bullletin on the Kermadec 2011 Biodiscovery Expedition).
Then you know the Kumadec is already a marine reserve, but do you see why National is being taken to court?
Transcript of the first reading here:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/51HansD_20160315_00000012/kermadec-ocean-sanctuary-bill-%E2%80%94-first-reading
You’ re right Chris. Imagine the taunts, Labour=anti-environment. The stakes for the Greens is much higher. The environment is supposedly their reason de’ etre. Can they thread the needle? I have my doubts.
The impression Labour gives with this about-face is: the only reason we exist is to appose the National party. But stand for little else ( no pun intended).
Was Labour aware that National were lobbied by James Cameron( Hollywood) and the US Secretary of State John Kerry under the guise of supporting the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary?
Maybe what is in fact required by Labour to return to power, is for Labour’s focus more on their Maori electorate.
Remember Key went into the the heart of the lair when he rocked on up to church at one of Labours strongholds during the last election.
Labour need to regain that ground and changing their mind on the Kermadec’s to align themselves with their core supporters would be a good start.
Cameron strikes me as the kind of Malthusian oligarch who would not so much like as internally rationalise the idea of poor people starving for lack of food so he can sail his submarines around an ocean sanctuary and make his documentaries of personal discovery in peace before retiring to the Wairarapa to enjoy a nice organic meal. But at the same time, Sealord have a very short sighted attitude to the environment, and Sandra Lee is totally right about them.
Well said Bert.
Outstanding analysis of what has been an absolute howler by Labour. Indeed, the question of why the left is so dreadfully afflicted by RLS is worthy of another column. Is it down to factionalism? Dogmatic certitude? The frustration of political failure? General neuroticism? Overweening arrogance? The left needs to examine these issues if they are to govern again soon.
Labour hasn’t opposed the sanctuary. It’s said the government has to go through the proper consultation and legal process first. Anything less is highly unprincipled and risks a repeat of the foreshore and seabed fiasco.
Spot on TB.
I think it’s morally objectionable to propose to stop the formation of the Kermadec Sanctuary. It’s not like there aren’t enough places to fish and we don’t have a huge body of water surrounding us.
Quite right Chris. Let’s not forget who the final dissenters on the foreign chartered vessels legislation were up until the last minute.
Notice the speed of the Labour reversal. I think they have concluded that they have to get on the “right” side of every argument more quickly. This why, for example, they issued the information about the Trust investigator and the Virgin Islands so quickly before marshaling all the evidence in order to refute the inevitable riposte.
I think this is a near panic response to the lack of traction their policy releases have achieved.
Unfortunately all this is based on a completely bogus notion of what might win them support. Policy almost never wins the support of those who don’t like you much in the first place. Nor will knee-jerk, on-the-hoof (hopefully) Left-correct declarations.
Selecting a party leader to support is like looking for a house sitter when you go on that overseas holiday. (I’m sure all you beneficiaries and wage slaves will be able to identify with this analogy). The applicant may say I will water your plants, or I will mow the lawn, or I will build a granny flat while you are away. None of this matters if you are afraid the dude will take off with the family silver when your back is turned. (Anther one for the Left base).
See the point is, it isn’t actually about policies, promises or quasi-PC positions. all of these are usually more likely to lose you support, not win more. It is about trust, affinity and respect. (Not only among the faithful, thought that would be a good place to start). And at this point for the Left, and I might add, especially Andrew Little, it is just about ONLY about these things.
I see the Greens have reiterated their support for the sanctuary and they get my full support for doing so, shame they didn’t stick to more environmental issues instead of trying to pretend they are financial wizards, im sure their support base would grow considerably without Shaws pseudo neo-lib comments
Btw I don’t know about this new term RSL I still prefer “chasing parked cars” which about sums up Labour at the moment….yap yap yap…Thud
Lets get the facts out there. National have screwed up again. Why do National find it so difficult to discuss policy with people? Because this mess wouldnt have happened if they had done just that.
The kermedec sanctuary was Labour’s plan that John key stole. He made the big announcement at the UN last year unbeknownst to his caucus, and political co partners, which were to be briefed later upon his return to New Zealand.
As always lone bandit John key, always the opportunist, and who always wants to be the center of attention throws it out there to wow the minions without bothering with important details such as the simple act of taking with those that would have a interest in such a move, and that have, not only a treaty, but a government backed promise for consultation as well. So once again National find themselves facing a court case. Notice the Maori party still aren’t walking the talk.
Labour leader Andrew Little said this was predictable, but the Government tried to ram it through.
He said the whole reason we have the Waitangi Tribunal “that investigates claims, makes settlements that then become binding” is because there are rights that need to be respected.
“Labour leader Andrew Little said his party was “very concerned” about a legal challenge by Maori fisheries group Te Ohu Kaimoana, which said the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary breached a historic fisheries agreement between iwi and the Crown.
“We haven’t got to the point of withdrawing our support but we certainly … share those concerns,” Mr Little said at Parliament today” Notice, the Herald has done a sneaky edit there (after certainly).
Lack of consultation over Kermadec ocean sanctuary
http://www.labour.org.nz/lack_of_consultation_over_kermadec_ocean_sanctuary
Kermadec: don’t forget foreshore and seabed
http://www.labour.org.nz/kermkermadec_don_t_forget_foreshore_and_seabedadec_don_t_forget_foreshore_and_seabed
Kermadec: don’t forget foreshore and seabed
Posted by Kelvin Davis on April 12, 2016
The lessons of foreshore and seabed must not be forgotten and the Crown should not by legislation run rough-shod over Māori interests, says Labour’s Environment spokesperson David Parker.
“The Government must not extinguish Treaty rights by legislation.
“Labour supports Te Ohu Kaimoana’s legal challenge being determined before this legislation proceeds. The Crown must allow this to happen and honour the outcome, says David Parker.
“The Government’s secret deal over the proposed Kermadec sanctuary also raises serious concerns about Treaty of Waitangi settlements and undermines the full and final settlement principle,” says Labour’s Maori Development spokesperson Kelvin Davis.
“The decision was made in secret with a feeble attempt at consultation so the Prime Minister could announce it at the United Nations.
“This does nothing but give Maori a very good reason to not trust the Government.
“The Deed of Settlement that was signed by National in 1992 states ‘nothing in this Act shall affect any Maori fishing rights’ but that’s obviously not the case now.share on twitter
“Te Aupouri and Ngati Kuri were given hours to consider a complex issue that affects future generations so that’s hardly appropriate consultation.
“Sir Tipene O’Regan says the Government was being pressured by international lobby groups to establish the sanctuary but failed to recall the area was already protected by an existing Treaty and kaitiakitanga (guardianship) from local iwi,” says Kelvin Davis.
http://www.labour.org.nz/kermkermadec_don_t_forget_foreshore_and_seabedadec_don_t_forget_foreshore_and_seabed
Foreshore & seabed was how many years ago? There are still far too many young Maori without a successful future. The treaty gravy train seems to only benefit the top echelon in the tribes while the majority of Maori who are not so well connected continue to suffer poverty along with the problems it causes.
There is a credibility gap in expecting us to trust in any kaitiakitanga from local iwi when it appears they don’t have any track record of looking after anything unless someone is paying them.
This is a bit harsh as there are many Maori who seek to improve the lives of their fellow men/women but I have been mild compared to what the hard right nutters say.
Its not the governments job to manage Maori land or even regulate Maori land. If any government of the day want to regulate Maori land then they’ll have to pay for the privilege under treaty principles.
It is typical of pakeha to back out of deals when it’s time to pay royalties. I can’t even remember a time when a kiwi of European decent ever honoured an agreement.
I’d actually like to see how far a pakeha government would coheres control over Maori land. I personally would call the bluff of NZ.racist.inc. I just don’t think racist NZ have the stomach any more to follow through on threats of genocide by legislation.
Good point Sam.
I understand, but the Foreshore and Seabed is still relevant, and its being used in this instance as a reference point re: consultation. Interesting that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is pretty much intact and is still basically the same under National, so why is the Maori party still propping up the government? One of their reasons for aligning themselves with National was to repeal that legislation.
NZ First pulls Kermadec sanctuary support
“The New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says the sanctuary breaches a 1992 Māori Fisheries Settlement and he does not support the Government breaking its word.”
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/301398/nz-first-pulls-kermadec-sanctuary-support
If Maori-controlled fishing activities (the mainstay in NZ) managed fisheries around the main New Zealand islands within NZ’s EEZ in a sustainable manner – as is always claimed by indigenous/first arrival people – then the Kermadecs are irrelevant to any actual or prospective claims. I’d like to know what particular target species would be in their sights.
I wonder, with John key being outed as a tax evader, is CT worried?
A lot of good points Words.
The R L S term could easily be levelled at National as well.
Hasn’t Key immediately called anything and everything that Labour or The Greens have put forward as ” barking mad”, stolen the idea, watered it down,then claimed it as his own.
Where was Chris when this was going on??
Completely agree with you there Grant.
http://www.tpwt.maori.nz/assets/Publications/TOKM-AR-2014-Fins-web.pdf
“The Trust and its wholly owned subsidiary are registered as charitable organisations with the Department of Internal Affairs
and are therefore treated as exempt from income tax.” p. 13.
The wholly owned subsidiary is called “Charisma Developments Limited”. I wonder if that’s related to “Charismatic” sea monsters, or whatever the whales were called. Or maybe it’s to do with whale riding activities?
I’m not trying to align the “legally confered” charitable trust status of Maori organisations with tax evading. I understand there are reasons why these organisations are exempt from paying tax, as are all kinds of registered charities in NZ that no doubt make stonking profits and have nothing to do with iwi organisations. It’s just another piece of information.
Yes like for example, Sanitarium, which is a company of the 7th day Adventist and despite being a large food manufacturer, it classes itself as an organisation that operates as a charity and that would make it exempt too.
Never let it be said that JK isn’t a masterful politicker. Everyone loves a sanctuary right? Gets cred with other countries right?
How happy he is to declare sanctuaries in other people’s domains. Why the fuck hasn’t he declared a sanctuary in the Taranaki Basin? Or in the Canterbury plains? No, not in HIS backyard.
National has worked the Maori party into an obedient puppy dog.
I respect Maori sovereignty but not necessarily their present sovereigns. Tangata whenua have been bought and sold, and sold again… their elite’s representatives in the House wittingly or unwittingly (they are not dumb, so the former) are are a convenient for political pincher movements when legislation comes up that the government doesn’t really want to pass. Shame.
Completely agree Roy. Yes John Key does see NZ as his own backyard, and he has given that away to his foreign mates and those in the oil industry.
We note that parliament is pretty much a fact-free zone these days and has degenerated into a kindergarten-like place where idiotic notions, delusions and fantasies are ‘debated’.
Discussion about a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is simply absurd when there is going to be a multi-metre sea level rise by mid-century and much of currently populated NZ will be under water by 2040, if not before.
‘Davidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections.’
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/40508of 9.htm
Bearing in mind atmospheric CO2 is at an all-time high (around 409ppm) and rising by more than 3ppm per annum, and the rate of annual increase is increasing, we will break through the ‘safe maximum’ of 450ppm before 2028, and maybe as early as 2022.
I shouldn’t be giving these Muppets advice but I doubt that they’ll listen. Can they remember that Key picked and choose his opposition topics carefully. He even sided with the govt sometimes.
Clark was in deep dodo with the anti-smacking bill and it was Key who eventually helped her get it through. It was a fatal flaw of Clark’s. People saw a guy who wasn’t just opposing for opportunity but someone who could make deals. I recall him walking out with Clark and he looked (dare I say it) presidential. Why the hell can’t they see that barking at every car makes people just avoid their campfire because they think ‘oh that’s just the mad dog that barks at everything’
The funny thing is it’s not ordinary Maori who see the benefits of these fishery details. They aren’t offered jobs or receive any benefits out of it. Instead the tribal elite hire Taiwanese trawlers to come here and plunder, lining their own pockets.
It’s all about greed. And now the elites want to be paid out for an area that they don’t even fish in!
Sure, but that’s not a reason to cut off those fisheries rights that came as a result of restitution for wrongs committed by the state. That’s a reason to make sure that treaty settlements are made more equitable in the future, to bust people for misappropriation of funds and embezzlement where appropriate, and to tax Maori big business the same way we want to tax Pakeha big business and multinationals.
That said I’m not arguing that it’s not nuts for Labour to imply they’ll throw away support of this deal entirely so easily- the default response should be to work for adequate consultation and compensation where appropriate, (ie. moving fisheries rights to other areas, replacing them with assets, or making monetary compensation) and THEN threaten to withdraw support if there’s no movement towards your position within a reasonable time frame.
Its all very well buying into a new sanctuary but the Gnats are just going for the warm fuzzies to prop up their flagging image because of their cows shitting in our waterways
Really since god knows when the NZ govt have been extremely lax in the conservation of fisheries rivers harbours and as a nation the few dedicated people in influential places in this country are lucky to still be sane with the wasteful ill informed policy makers that have plague our country in the name of capitalism and international finance
When is the bs buck going to stop. Fix some of the inshore and on shore abhorrent breaches of our environmental messes which are not being addressed fast enough then I will listen to them with 1 ear until they actually do something to enforce the penalties for destruction and abuse of our environment
Oh how much is it going to cost us to do our part for this sanctuary, royal visits?
Comments are closed.