Cunliffe’s state of the nation speech in Kelston was welcome relief to the nonsense of last week when the government decided to throw $359M at high-earning change and executive school principals. When the government’s answer to “underachieving” students is the establishment of charter schools, then anything they suggest needs serious scrutiny. So what exactly can executive principals achieve? If the government believes that successful schools are those with lots of Cambridge exam-achieving kids, then essentially their work programme will be to unleash high-decile school principals on low decile schools. Turning Maori and Pasifika learners into ‘mini-me’ decile 10 kids by advancing their styles of learning and engagement is better known as assimilation.

By contrast, Labour’s announcement of an extra $60 per week to families of new born children – including beneficiaries who are people too and some in society need reminding of that often – will help lift the burden of rising living costs across the board. Increasing the number of ECE centres in high needs areas as well as increasing free hours for children is placing investment and support where it’s needed most. In the early years of a child’s life and development. Moreover, extending paid parental leave to 6 months means that a parent can be at home with baby for a good period of time without too much stress on family finances. The Greens also came out with an impressive plan to ensure school kids get enough to eat at lunch time, greater access to nurses and free after school care. Labour and the Greens are agreed on prioritising the needs to children in order to give them the ‘best start’ in life.

There is a clear link between child poverty and educational achievement. Professor of Public Policy Jonathan Boston of Victoria University states that there is “a large proportion of children born into disadvantaged families and/or who experience protracted periods of childhood poverty who do not enjoy high levels of educational success” (2013:9). The idea of throwing money at executive principals does nothing to address the issue of childhood poverty and misleads people and organisations to becoming “cautiously optimistic” that it will have a positive impact on student outcomes. Further, the recent suggestion by some academics that it will raise the perception of teaching as a profession is merely succumbing to the lolly scramble of more money for management positions and careering off the (under) achievement of students in low decile schools.

NZ has long prided itself in being a society built on the egalitarian premise that everyone, regardless of race, class or gender, has fair and equal access to opportunity. This is not the case when 1 in 4 children is living in poverty and even less own two pairs of shoes. Focusing policies on alleviating financial hardship and disadvantage will lift student success and pave the way for future prosperity and peace that can be experienced by all and not the high-decile few.

Over the summer break our family were in the process of supporting our darling matriarch thru the decision of having to undergo radiation therapy. The meeting with the doctor had been set up for two o’clock one afternoon and I had to be there – because I supposedly speak good English. En route to the hospital Mum rings me at 1.27pm to say that the doctor has called for her and wants to meet her now to go over the procedure and explain any after effects of the treatment. Doing my best to sound firm, but not disrespectful over the phone I tell her to tell the doctor that the appointment is for 2pm and they should wait; taking all of me not to use words that my God-fearing, (very) Samoan mother would find unbecoming. Picking up the pace I walk into the consultation room at 1.48pm.

In the intervening 20 minutes between our telephone conversation the doctor went out to my mother and said that she needs to outline the procedure now and can’t wait for me to arrive. Later, mum tells me in Samoan that she didn’t want to be disrespectful to the doctor so she agreed to go in and begin the consultation. My blood boiling but aware that I shouldn’t do or say anything to upset Mum during this time, I ask the doctor a series of questions. Looking at her watch constantly and breathing that breath where you know she’s irritated at having to go over the information again, we talk for a good 45 minutes. Throughout the entire conversation she answers my questions by looking at my mother and only rarely glancing at me. Out of respect for my mother I just handle what I regard as extremely rude behaviour. Mum and I are in and out of Samoan so that we’re both sure that we’ve both understood the conversation, even though there are medical terms used that we have to turn into sentences and phrases because neither of us can find a Samoan equivalent. I think created some new Samoan medical terms that afternoon because we had to transliterate words at times.

Durie (2001) says that Doctors bring a scientific ethos to their work and can improve their treatment of patients significantly by being culturally competent. He adds that the best way to broach this divide is through language, by being aware that there are subtleties in language that need to be delicately explained and understood. Each time I asked the doctor a question she would turn to my mother and begin by saying “it’s your body and you can do what you decide is best for your body Mrs Collins” then briefly glance over at me. Mum would look somewhat confused towards me each time she started her reply with that answer; all the while my frustration growing at the obvious assumptions that she’s making of me. After I politely asked all the questions we had, we requested some time alone so that Mum could think about what the next step would be for her, for us.

Our family had met on a number of times to discuss this treatment with Mum; numerous telephone calls to Australia, prayer meetings, getting advice from our church Minister and calls back home to Samoa. The doctor had no idea of how we prepared for that meeting when she went about starting it half an hour early. To pressure my mum to have the meeting 30 minutes before I could be there to both offer moral and linguistic support was culturally insensitive at best. She had no idea of the cultural power that existed because as a doctor, she’s seen as holding authority and knowledge; the type that we’d been raised to respect. This meeting was about more than “mum’s body” and how she chose to have her body treated. This meeting was about Mum as the matriarch of our family being able to express her values, leadership, wisdom, faith, hopes, anxiety and tradition.  The respect that we had shown to the doctor wasn’t reciprocated and it made us feel belittled and undervalued. Eventually the doctor returned and Mum told her exactly what she was thinking and feeling in relation to the discussion and treatment – in true Samoan strength, faith and beauty.

Securing the majority of the 800,000 non-voters will be key to Labour’s chances for success next year. This was a central theme during the leadership selection period which saw the Party surge in the polls, its membership and arguably its relevance to most working NZ’ers. I carry my own obvious bias towards Labour both as a member of the Party and someone keen-as-heck to see a change in government in 2014. Former Party President Mike Williams said in 2005 that Labour got in because of the South Auckland vote. Many of us watching the coverage will remember the shift in fortunes as the South Auckland results came in, somewhat later than the others and got the Party over the line. I don’t need to wait till election night 2014 to make the very same remark – for Labour to win they need the South Auckland vote in their favour and more importantly, in numbers!

There are some important drivers to focus on in the new year for the South Auckland electorates as well as a couple of others in Auckland with high Maori and Pasifika constituents. I wanted to note a few of them here and pick up the conversation sometime next year.

Increase the Party vote: With the exception of Mangere, the electorates of Manurewa and Manukau East realised under 70 per cent of the Party vote (57% and  66% respectively). Louisa Wall is an outstanding candidate who is popular in the electorate. Alongside a strong team in Manurewa they can raise the Party vote result in the electorate as well as her own result. Ross Robertson has been a strong candidate in Manukau East for some years and held the confidence of the electorate for this time. He’s retiring at the conclusion of this term to focus on the local board – so my gain in many ways. Without making too much comment about this as my names has been linked to a possible run for the nomination, it’s worth acknowledging that the diverse populations in particular of Otara and Papatoetoe are strong Labour voters. Again, the campaign here needs to focus on securing even more Party votes for Labour. They will also need a candidate who can rally the troops to both enrol to, and vote. The person must articulate and to a larger degree, personify the aspirations of this community and I will observe the nomination process with interest.

Talk to me: At the last election I was working as a radio host for a community station. One of the things that I recall is that Labour’s messages needed better branding. Everyone I interviewed spouted the same thing – GST off fresh fruit and vegetables, First $5000 of income tax-free, and don’t sell our assets. But we struggled in those interviews to move past the single-liners. What are the benefits to low income families of cheaper fresh produce as opposed to readily accessible and cheap fast food? How much extra would I get in the hand if the initial $5K portion of my pay wasn’t taxed? What are the benefits of keeping assets in NZ ownership for my children and when I don’t see myself reflected in the governance boards of these assets? People must be able to recognise the impact of these policies for their families, when we’re all sitting around at home sussing out how we’ll fund the family’s meals next week, paying telephone bills, power bills and the kids’ school uniforms.

Better use of social media: Labour has much to learn from the Greens when it comes to social media. Yesterday I was excited to see the guest post by David Cunliffe on this blogsite which shows a willingness of the Leader and his Party to engage with people who digest information quickly. Immediately. And on-line. Personally I find facebook and other bits like twitter, instagram and all that stuff too time consuming. Labour has to get it right when it comes to communicating in real-time with (mostly) young people who prefer to receive their updates on an i-phone. There would be a reasonable proportion of the 800,000 non-voters that has access to these tools and this is a great way to connect with them. I’m always intrigued by the number of people who read from the TDB blogsite on a regular basis both for opinions on issues, but also because it provides a medium to offer people a critical perspective – the stuff missing from our current rubbish, fast-food diet of mainstream media.

Casting my eye out west: The newly created Kelston electorate looks like a strong Labour seat, on paper. I’ve already heard of a number of Pasifika people who are interested in putting their names forward for the Labour nomination and am excited because by this. Some are predicting that Carmel Sepuloni will get this nomination after the last seat she sought was dismantled resulting in Bennett running for the hills of conservative safety. In any case, this seat if being judged on paper, needs to be treated like a South Auckland election-night result-swinger. It needs a candidate that connects well with the community and will do everything to ensure there’s high Party vote support. My informal discussions with people lead me to believe that National is considering Laauli Michael Jones or Tuigamala Vaaiga Tuigamala as their local candidate which would make this seat fair game. I believe that Labour could win it and win it well if the candidate they choose is known to the community. The recent Whau Local Board results suggest to me that Labour is on the rise in this area which bodes well for any incoming candidate.

Victory for Labour in 2014 is definitely on the cards. On current polling a coalition with the Greens and Mana is possible. For Labour though, from Party leader to small fry like me, this holiday season is about resting up for a Party campaign that demands we win to ensure a fair society for all and not just the powerful and wealthy. Tough decisions will have to be made, where as a Party we keep the interests of NZ at the forefront, moving us even further away from the personality politics that dogged us previously. I go into this break enthusiastic about Labour’s chances for 2014. Moreover, I go into this holiday season enthusiastic about the nation’s chances of becoming a fairer and more caring country under a new administration. Merry Christmas.

Last week I had the opportunity to present a paper at the Equity Practitioners Conference in Perth. My paper looked at shifting the focus of university’s from recruiting Pasifika students to their institutions as mostly an activity of adding flavour, to a deliberate approach of engaging these communities as a means of facilitating their personal and familial aspirations. At the opening of the conference we were reminded that as equity practitioners our role was to work alongside marginalised communities and not determine their dreams. I was in for a great conference – well at least I thought I was.

As each of the sessions passed my excitement quickly dissipated whilst my anger and frustration grew. I listened to white, middle class practitioners outline strategies on indigenous, Aboriginal cultural competency and when I asked where they got all this knowledge from, was told they had a few informal meetings with some elders. At every session the Australian speakers spouted the same opening lines of “I want to acknowledge the indigenous people of Australia, original custodians of the land.” After the fifth session of this mantra I’d had enough and asked the speaker what she meant by that statement. She looked back at me curiously then took a few minutes to scramble for an answer. I was later told by a friend now working in Australia that public servants get an introduction card which uses that line as a basis for any opening remarks they use in public. Another Australian woman kept quoting my colleague formerly from NZ as a means to justify her position on the issue of race because it was made by “an indigenous Maori woman”. She looked confused and somewhat indignant towards me after I told her that the woman she was making reference to was actually a NZ-born Niuean.

At all but the Aotearoa-led sessions I heard people patting themselves on the back for the great work they were doing to reach under-represented communities. All the Aotearoa sessions were led by Maori and Pasifika colleagues based in Auckland. The difference in the approaches couldn’t have been starker. By the end of the conference I couldn’t wait to get on the plane to come home exhausted from my attempts to get people to think more deeply and critically about the work they were engaged with. Make no mistake about it – we need equity practitioners in tertiary institutions as people who will work alongside marginalised communities. But we need them to deeply understand, appreciate and recognise that these groups of people have hopes, beliefs, ways of life, languages and traditions that are exceptional and unique. It is therefore essential that equity practitioners ensure that they don’t relay indigenous ideas and practices after they’ve been sifted through the lens of privilege and dominance.

Jones (1999) made the observation when working with Maori and Pakeha female postgraduate students, that it wasn’t the natural right of Pakeha students to receive a detailed description on the experiences of their Maori colleagues. Whilst some might argue that everyone benefits from hearing and learning from the indigenous experience, Jones noted that in certain situations, it was only the Pakeha students who would benefit as their existing privilege meant their worldview would mediate the experiences of the other Maori students. This is something that the conference attendees needed to reflect on. In the end the conference was bitterly disappointing. I live these equity conferences every day – where people tell me what and how I am feeling having never walked in my jandals. It exemplifies the patronising practices that we encounter every day, wrapped up in good intentions and well-meaning practitioners. I had been hoping to leave Perth feeling invigorated and inspired. I left with the stinking reminder that the pursuit for equity in higher education still happens from the sidelines.

I sat down to dinner with a number of old mates from university-days a couple of weeks ago. We reminisced on being able to do all-nighters in the lead up to exams, mocked people about who they went out with and who they ended up with, pained over the ranging amounts still owed on student loans and the professions we found ourselves in today. Of the people around that dinner table, I was at university the longest – I took the longest time to complete my degree but also worked at the university once I had finished. One of the most engaging parts of the conversation for me was the number of people who had made deliberate decisions to move closer to the city. This sounded like a good idea because the 5-stage bus rides from Manurewa take a toll on you after the initial couple of years.

Interestingly, we talked about the decision to move closer to the city to either be in-zone for schools like Grammar, St Cuth’s and Epsom Girls. I couldn’t believe the kind of rent people were willing to pay for what they said would give their child “a better chance”. Those around me agreed that higher decile schools were better resourced, didn’t have the kind of “social ills” we were exposed to in south Auckland, assumed that kids at decile 8-10 schools had a greater chance of academic success and another even commented that the teachers were ‘better’. I sat there in absolute disbelief and alongside my wife commenced our work of slowly confronting their beliefs built on years of assimilationist knowledge widely accepted and promoted in NZ schools, media and common discourse. I can’t say how successful we were that night but am glad we had the chance to invite them to critically reflect on their decisions. I’ll let you know if we get invited to the next dinner.

In my Masters dissertation I wrote about what Brown-flight looked like in my school days. Back then our family succumbed to the words that my intermediate teacher told us saying that I was too bright for a high school in Otara. So like good, obedient Samoans we applied to a number of out of zone schools and to our astonishment I was accepted into Auckland Grammar. I only last a couple of weeks so my reality hit home fast. As we travelled home and reflected on dinner that night we concluded that this is what the contemporary version of brown flight looks like. That the upwardly mobile Pasifika person now has the ability to shift house and move their entire family into perceived opportunity by renting or buying in a high decile area of Auckland. Perhaps our schooling experiences were so painful that this is the way one can “choose” to avoid a repeat of those experiences? Or perhaps, we’ve accepted the idea that schools in south Auckland are ill-resourced so we act on the wealth of our own resources and move suburb? I’m not sure.

One of the key ideas I wrote about was the notion of choice. In my layperson interpretation of economics its suggested that consumers will make rational decisions in relation to the information they have before them. Butter or guns – supply and demand. It all sounds so straightforward, but it’s far from that. The choices that people from low decile communities are forced into making are more like school uniform this week and stationery next month – those are the realities. The new reality is that many of our people have been won to the idea that moving out and away from communities that we’ve traditionally lived in is the way to get ahead. Freire (1972) argues that after a while, the oppressed begin to mirror the attitudes and aspirations of the oppressor. At dinner that night I recognised the sad truth of his observation.

Well the Ministry of Education are up to their usual acculturalistic and assimilationist activities yet again. This time they’re out in Pasifika communities setting up ‘power stations’ that act as homework centres in churches in Porirua, south, west and east Auckland. Cleverly they’ve gone out and recruited Pasifika tertiary students under the guise of giving back to the community. They’ve duped church leaders and ministers into believing that opening their churches is for the good of the community and of course our leaders have been drawn into this intricate plan: the plan to make us palagi so that the government reaches its goal of students achieving NCEA level 2. The government’s education commitment is to the cause of re-election, not for the desire of changing an education system that remains neo-colonial.

Seve-Williams (2009) doctoral thesis discusses the need to understand the notions of egalitarianism and merit from a non-western perspective. Her study accounts for the voices of Pasifika students and their experiences in higher education. The NZ education system is premised on egalitarianism and Seve-Williams takes a critical approach to what that means for learners of diverse backgrounds who do not represent the privilege that comes from being part of the dominant culture in society reflected in schools (see Bourdieu 1976; Freire 1974). It is within this context that she (along with many other indigenous writes) invites a more critical approach to the function of education in society. Our young people bring diverse, rich and deeply critical knowledge to the classrooms and its high-time that knowledge was recognised and learned.

Whilst the theory noted above is hardly anything new to most people who’ve read a book or two over the last 200 years, it remains a mystery to me to see the Ministry of Education continuing its work that merely reinforces the idea that Pasifika students need to be more ‘western’ or Palagi to succeed. I don’t see this lot setting up homework centres anywhere else in the community and I don’t see them recruiting tutors for Palagi students. So whilst on the surface this all seems really nice, the practice is assismilationist. If the ministry spent more time diversifying its curriculum, making more scholarships available for trainee teachers, increasing indigenous educational resources, strengthening culturally responsive teaching pedagogies and reviewing its assessment practices then they’d achieve more in the long run. But this persistence of trying to fix Pasifika students and their families is nothing short of polite racism.

There are numerous Pasifika staff at the ministry. Will someone please stand up? Our people look to you to provide leadership and courage to fight the neo-colonial practices that continue. So whilst these Power stations might look and feel good, they’re yet another attempt to fix our kids. It’s the system that needs urgent attention and perhaps the people who need to be attending the power stations, are the Minister and her staff. In the meantime, we send our kids along to a brainwashing exercise that (mis)leads them into believing that this government cares about them.

Much of the commentary in relation to the recent Local Body elections has focussed on low voter turnout, ways to improve voter engagement and a couple of marginal seats that swung either way. These stories were pushed to the side when the media got excited over the Len Brown affair, which is nothing more than an ugly, smear campaign. Just a note while on the issues of the Brown affair: I agree with the comments of Rev Unasa on the reaction of Pasifika communities. Many are feeling betrayed by the Mayor but stand by him during this tumultuous time. Most of the people I’ve spoken to from youth groups and church have said that their hearts are towards his wife and children at this time, unlike the insatiable media appetite to dig more dirt on the matter. Unasa said that the healing for Mayor and Pasifika communities would take place as he delivered on the much needed support required for our poorest families and in time, made face to face connections in the community.

That aside, the big story for me around Local Body elections was the emergence of young, Pasifika leaders many of whom stood under the banner of the Labour Party. Lotu Fuli, Apulu Reece Autagavaia, Rev Obed Unasa, Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel and myself are just a few of the new people to have been elected to a local board and the Counties Manukau DHB. There are a host of others who have been returned to their local boards but I’ve been seriously encouraged by the number of young, Pasifika leaders who are stepping up. All of these people are (relatively) young and highly educated, but what’s more important than that to me is that they can bridge the gap between our parents generation and western society.

Labour needs Pasifika people who can do this. We need negotiators who can speak their heritage languages (whatever the level of proficiency) who are grounded and understand heritage cultures – the place of the church, respect for our elders, understanding the role of high chiefs: people who can move with some degree of ease between multiple worlds. This is not an easy task. In fact it is extremely difficult requiring cultural sensitivity, tact and maturity. But the fact is it’s needed and the Labour Party will be better off because it has the likes of these emerging leaders and others in its rank to build strength within the Party. And for the critics amongst us – I haven’t forgotten what I’ve said to and of the Labour Party when I wasn’t a member. If Labour is to be the Party Pasifika people call home, then the voices, leaders and views of our parents’ generations and our emerging leaders needs to be heard. The Local Body election results give us this very clear message.

Finally and on a personal level I want to thank the people of Otara who elected me to the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board. I too got a very clear message from the many people I met at churches, on the streets, at the flea market and in their homes. That while they were interested in the policies we were advancing their message to me was clear: you’re from Otara, so speak up for us. And one very nice but quite cheeky woman quoted a recent blog I had written on this site and said that I now had the chance to prove that I wasn’t one of those politicians who turned up on time, every 3 years to “scab for her vote”.

I remember following the 1984 election with excitement. My parents had always voted Labour and were keen for a Lange-Labour win in 1984 because they’d had enough of Muldoon. Whilst I didn’t understand much of their dissatisfaction with National at the time, the one thing I knew without any doubt was that David Lange inspired my parents. He was a big man, who had a big voice, was highly intelligent and had real presence. Every time he was on the news my parents were mesmerized telling me that I should follow this man and listen carefully to everything he had to say.

As a Samoan I’ve been raised in an oral tradition. My dad was a pastor and lay preacher for many years. Watching him from the pulpit for many years gave me a real sense of how you could best communicate a message – Dad’s were powerful and persuasive (and of course I’d say that, I was his son and good Samoan kids obey their parents). In many ways I saw David Lange as possessing the skills of a powerful and dynamic communicator, similar to the many church ministers and lay preachers that I was being exposed to as a child. Lange was a lay preacher of the Methodist Church I later discovered.

Pasifika people are drawn to great communicators; communicators who are dynamic, humorous, firm and persuasive. Looking back on the 1984 election, it was these attributes that won Lange so much favour amongst our people. Over the years I’ve seen how our people have been drawn to the likes of Helen Clark, Vaovasamanaia Winston Peters and in recent times, David Cunliffe. Whilst none of them are a complete replica of Lange, each of them possesses the traits that Samoan people are looking for in a leader.

In a recent blog I talked about how dynamic and inspirational Rev Uesifili Unasa was as he spoke of his vision for Auckland, acknowledging that his humble demeanour and powerful ability to communicate are huge assets to his political pursuit to become Mayor of Auckland. Coming from an oral tradition means that the lens we look through is slightly different from what may draw others to political leaders. Of course any politician is going to need decent communication abilities to get noticed.

I was one of a number of Samoans and other Pasifika people that packed out David Cunliffe’s New Lynn office when he announced his decision to seek the leadership of the Labour Party. It’s fair to say that amongst many Pasifika people in Auckland, David Cunliffe is the person they want as Labour’s leader. Cunliffe espouses the traits that naturally lend themselves to drawing Pasifika support – he’s intelligent, personable and a very good communicator. Admittedly, Jones and Robertson have those characteristics too, but I think his support amongst Pacific people comes from us feeling that he’s had a rough deal in the last couple of years. With so many Pasifika Labour members at his announcement, I believe it is fair to say that he has the support of Pasifika within the Party. Su’a William Sio is publicly supporting his bid for the leadership and that endorsement will have weighting in the community.

Watching the election coverage in 1984 was like sitting at the movie theatre trying to anticipate what would develop next. Late in the evening, David Lange emerged from behind the curtain on stage to give his speech as Prime Minister-elect. His speech was moving and inspirational. And whilst his government’s neo-liberal agenda that followed will always be an indictment on his administration with the awful effects still being felt today, his speech and person were indicative of the leadership Pasifika people are won to. Almost 20 years on it’s a different David and a slightly different context. This David claims to have learned a number of lessons from his time on the backbench in bringing some healing to troubled relationships within the caucus. Moreover, he has the intelligence, personality, work ethic and perhaps more importantly, a groundswell of support amongst Pacific voters to lead Labour to victory in 2014. And it’s that vote located mainly in south and west Auckland that Labour needs to inspire to the booths next year. I’m convinced that under Cunliffe’s leadership Pasifika voters will both be inspired to the booth and others, back to Labour.

I don’t normally read the Herald but today a kind person politely offered me a copy at the café I was having breakfast at. Unsure of what to do with the thing I have major distaste for, I went to the back section and found the official notices of people duly nominated to stand for vacancies in the upcoming local body elections. Admittedly I looked for my own name to make double-sure that my nomination made it and alas, it did. My interest was then taken by the people elected purely by virtue of there being the same number of nominations as there were vacancies on Council, namely Orakei and Howick. Immediately I thought of my days at AUSA when you could tick a ‘no confidence’ option. Pity.

A recent RadioLive poll showed that Auckland’s incumbent Mayor Len Brown will be difficult to knock off his perch with close to 50% support. He is followed by Palino, Minto and to my pleasure and surprise, Uesifili Unasa. Palino has ‘cash to burn’ and is throwing it at this campaign so I expect him to register on the polls. Minto – a man I have enormous respect and admiration for – has a high public profile and I expect him to be doing as well as he is. Brown is the incumbent. He’s got huge support from those of us out south having been a ward councilor and Manukau Mayor. Our local Labour electorate committee of which I’m a part of also endorses Brown. But it’s Unasa’s performance that has caught my eye.

Unasa has publicly stated that he has little resource to commit to his campaign and is therefore running a grass-roots race through local, community networks. I attended his launch as a family relative and heard one of the most inspirational, passionate and moving speeches I’ve heard in a long time. It was reported in the media that the launch was so well attended that it had to be moved out of the auditorium and onto the street because of sheer numbers. I saw many Pasifika people arriving to the launch straight from church, dressed in Sunday-best. I also observed many of our older people – our parents and grandparents generations – in tears as he spoke. They were overcome with the emotion that one of their sons was seeking the highest office in the city.

Last week on Native Affairs, Toeolesulusulu Professor Damon Salesa of the University of Auckland said that Unasa’s candidacy was the first step in normalizing Pasifika participation in the electoral process. His suggestion was that whilst Unasa may not win the mayoralty election, his participation alone suggests a coming of age for Pasifika because it would be regarded as ‘normal’ for us to seek this office. Underpinning that idea is the belief that the wider Auckland population would now be ‘open’, ‘willing’, ‘acceptable of’ a non-Pakeha Mayor. And to use Unasa’s own words and really stretch the context he used them in… “a representation of the new Auckland.” Whatever our politics: Unasa is undoubtedly pioneering the way forward for Pasifika people, ethnic people and minority groups to have every confidence that they can stand just like anyone else, for the highest office in the city. On that note, the mayoralty has already been won – regardless of who ends up taking office on Oct 12.