In his maiden speech to Parliament in 2020, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told his fellow MPs:

You know what it feels like to have a pebble in your shoe? That will be my job here. A constant, annoying to those holding onto the colonial ways, a reminder and change agent for the recognition of our kahu Māori.

Three years later, most would agree that he and fellow co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer have been just that — visible, critical, combative, prepared to be controversial.

The question in 2023, however, is how does the party build on its current platform, grow its base, and become more than a pebble in the shoe of mainstream politics?

Recent polls suggest Te Pāti Māori could win four seats in Parliament in October. But its future doesn’t necessarily lie in formally joining either a government coalition or opposition bloc, even if this were an option.

The National Party has already ruled out working with the party in government. And Te Pāti Māori has indicated partnership with either major party is not a priority.

Such are the challenges for a political party based on kaupapa Māori (incorporating the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Māori society) in a Westminster-style parliamentary system.

Focusing on Māori values
These tensions have existed since 2004, when then-Labour MP Tariana Turia and co-leader Pita Sharples established Te Pāti Māori in protest against Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Under that law, overturned in 2011, the Crown was made owner of much of New Zealand’s coastline. Turia and others argued the government was confiscating land and ignoring Māori customary ownership rights.

As a kaupapa Māori party, Te Pāti Māori bases its policies and constitution on tikanga (Māori values), while advocating for mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. That is, Māori self-determination and sovereignty, as defined by the Māori version of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

A tikanga-based constitution has helped shape policies advocating for Māori rights. But it has also, at times, sat at odds with the rules of Parliament.

Waititi, for example, called pledging allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II “distasteful”. He also refused to wear a tie, breaching parliamentary dress codes.

Between left and right
Over the years, the party’s Māori-centred policies have enabled its leaders to move between left and right wing alliances.

Under the original leadership of Turia and Sharples, Te Pāti Māori joined with the centre-right National Party to form governments in 2008, 2011 and 2014. This was a change from traditional Māori voting patterns that had long favoured Labour.

During it’s time in coalition with National, Te Pāti Māori helped influence a number of important decisions. This included finally signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the development of Whanau Ora (a Māori health initiative emphasising family and community as decision makers), and repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

However, internal fighting over the decision to align with National led to the resignation of the Te Tai Tokerau MP at the time, Hone Harawira. Harawira later formed the Mana Party.

The relationship with National proved unsustainable when Labour won back all the Māori electorates at the 2017 election. Notably, Labour’s Tāmati Coffey beat te Pāti Māori co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell in the Waiariki electorate.

Rebuilding Te Pāti Māori
Waiariki was front and centre again in the 2020 election, where despite Labour’s general dominance across the Māori electorates, new Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi reclaimed the seat. The party also managed to win enough of the party vote to bring co-leader Ngarewa-Packer into Parliament with him.

Sitting in opposition this time, the current party leaders have been vocal across a range of issues. The party has called for the banning of seabed mining, removing taxes for low-income earners, higher taxes on wealth, and lowering the superannuation age for Māori.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Some policies, such as 2020’s “Whānau Build” have caused discomfort. Aimed largely at addressing the housing crisis, Whānau Build identified immigration as the root of Māori homelessness.

It was a sentiment more often associated with the extreme right, and the party has since apologised for that part of the policy.

Contesting more seats in 2023
Those bumps and missteps notwithstanding, recent polls show just how competitive Te Pāti Māori has become in the Māori electorates.

Ex-Labour MP Meka Whaitiri — an experienced politician who has held the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate since 2013 but left to join Te Pāti Māori this year — is in a tight race to regain her seat against new Labour candidate Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

Co-leader Ngarewa-Packer is also running a close race against Labour candidate Soraya Peke-Mason for the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate — a Labour stronghold.

But Te Pāti Māori has also shifted from its previous focus on the Māori electorates, with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait standing in the Rotorua general electorate.

The Māori Electoral Option legislation, which came into effect this year, now allows Māori voters to change more easily between electoral rolls. In future, Te Pāti Māori may find it can best to serve Māori by standing candidates in general electorates.

Broader social change across Aotearoa New Zealand has also likely been an important contributor to the success of Te Pāti Māori, with greater understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga and te reo Māori among voters.

Indeed, the current party vision of an “Aotearoa Hou” (New Aotearoa), includes reference to tangata tiriti, a phrase being popularised to refer to non-Māori who seek to honour partnerships based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

According to the most recent polling, Te Pāti Māori may not be the deciding factor in who gets to form the next government come October.

But the party’s resilience and growth after it’s electoral disappointments in 2017 and 2020 show an ability to rebuild. In doing so, it is carving out it’s place in New Zealand’s political landscape.

And if Te Pāti Māori is not the kingmaker in 2023, it is still on the path to influence — and potentially decide — elections in the not-too-distant future.

Annie Te One is lecturer in Māori Studies at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“Is there a democratic Papua New Guinean nation — or is it merely an arbitrary nation built on a shaky, crumbling foundation of disparate traditional customs and the Melanesian Way?

“Has the system of government become a hybrid of concepts that fail to work on any level — a bastardisation of both democracy and custom?” Susan Merrell asked in her article, published in the PNG Echo on 13 July 2015.

Paul Oates, in another article published by PNG Attitude in July 2021, remarked that: “It has taken me a long time to reach an understanding of what the problem was leading up to Papua New Guinea’s independence.

In that article, titled “System we gave PNG just doesn’t work”, Oates argued that “At the time, in the 1970s, the thought process was that the Westminster system works for us in Australia, this we can impose this obviously working system as a unifying force for a people and their many hundreds of cultures.”

Oates, Merrell and many other critics have [concluded] that democracy has failed in PNG and, as Oates puts it, “the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy would never work when the majority of the people involved didn’t understand it and never would”.

It is true a lot of our people were illiterate at Independence on 16 September 1975, the idea of independence was a beast travelling up the Highlands Highway, gobbling everything and everyone in its way and the Westminster system of government and elections were foreign concepts that were far removed from their traditional governance systems.

Educating the populace on what democracy was about was out of the question. The high illiteracy level and the logistical nightmare would have made a massive public campaign hard.

Our founding fathers chose the democratic system of government over the other forms of government, because this system was best for a country like PNG with a population divided by varying and distinct cultural practices and ideologies. It was a concept of
a government that would unify the people.

When the national constitution was adopted in 1975, it gave birth to the Westminster system of government, a concept that, if understood clearly, should have allowed our people to choose their government through regular, free and fair election.

But that was not to be. Without knowing what democracy was and what the Westminster system of government was, our people went to the first national general election in 1978.

Since that election, and at every other later election, our people have incorporated the Melanesian Way of leadership into the new democracy we adopted and a home-grown system had flourished.

The results we have today is the price we are paying.

Compounding this is other underlying challenge like the integrity of the Electoral Roll that must be addressed.

Another issue is the weak political party system we have. A small country, PNG has 46 registered political parties to date, each with their own policy platforms. It is a nightmare for the voters, no one bothered to get to know all the political parties well.

The country’s weak political party system [has also been] the cause of the instability in the governments since 1975. In PNG, governments do not only change at the elections but on the floor of Parliament, through motions of no confidence in the prime minister.

The instability in PNG politics has forced prime ministers to spend more time and resources managing the politics rather than the government and country.

Furthermore, the “systemic and systematic” corruption, the escalating lawlessness and the decline in the economy are matters that are impacting on lives and businesses.

The challenges are huge, it will require massive legislative and structural reforms across all sectors of government to ensure PNG really meets its development goals moving into the next 50 years.

It will also take a massive change in mindset, attitudes and behaviours by our people to achieve true peace and harmony.

“That these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

— Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President, The Gettysburg Address, 19 November 1863

This PNG Post-Courier editorial was published on 15 September 2023, the day before Papua New Guinea celebrated its 48th year of independence. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The United Kingdom’s commitments to upholding human rights have come under question this week over the West Papua issue, resulting in a heated exchange between a government representative and five members of the House of Lords.

The exchange occurred on Monday after the Minister of State for the United Nations, Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, responded to a question posed by Lord Harries of Pentregarth on what progress had been made in obtaining access to West Papua for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Lord Ahmad said the UK government welcomed recent engagements between the UN and Indonesia to meet the recommendations of a Universal Periodic Review, calling for the UN to access and review the human rights situation in West Papua.

He said Indonesia was an important bilateral partner.

“We recognise that a significant amount of time has passed since the visit was first proposed, but we hope that both parties can come together to agree dates very soon,” Lord Ahmad said.

The statement was unsatisfactory for Lord Harries, who pointed out that the UK was not among the eight countries which had endorsed the universal periodic review, and demanded clarity on where the UK stood.

“He (Lord Ahmad) mentioned the universal periodic review of Indonesia. He will know that, at that review, a number of major countries, including the United States, Australia and Canada, called for an intervention from the UN in Indonesia and an immediate visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,” Lord Harries said.

Support not clear
“It is not at all clear that the United Kingdom was among those supporting that call. Perhaps the minister will be able to enlighten us.”

Lord Ahmad acknowledged a visit by the UN human rights chief to West Papua had been “pending for a long time” but added that the conservative government supported an earlier visit.

The answer was not well received by Lord Lexden, who condemned Indonesia’s control over the Melanesian region.

“Is it not clear that this small country is suffering grievously under a colonial oppressor,” Lord Lexden said.

“Indonesia, which is busily exploiting the country’s rich mineral resources and extensive forests in its own interests? Will the government do all in their power, in conjunction with Commonwealth partners in the region, to get the UN to act and to act decisively?”

Lord Hanny of Chiswick, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Purvis of Tweed shared their frustrations, describing the details of human right reports on West Papua and pressing Lord Ahmad on why the UK was not among 8 countries that endorsed the Universal Periodic Review.

“It is over a year since the UN special rapporteur’s allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and the forced displacement of thousands of indigenous Papuans,” Lord Kennedy said.

Foreign Office ‘does nothing’
“What is the point of the Foreign Office highlighting human rights concerns if it does nothing about them in its negotiations with the country in question?,” Lord Purvis said.

“Why the UK does not seem to have been part of that group of eight countries that pressed for an early visit by the High Commissioner for Human Rights?” Lord Hannay of Chiswick said.

“It is surely reasonable to ask a democratic country such as Indonesia to admit the high commissioner to look into abuses of human rights. That is what it should do, and I hope that we will press that strongly,” Lord Hannay added.

Lord Ahmad said he had spoken to the High Commissioner of Rights about the situation, and acknowledged that a visit was overdue.

He said, the alleged human rights abuses, are regularly brought up in bilateral talks between Indonesia and the UK.

“My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we engage with them quite regularly,” he said.

“As I said earlier, Indonesia is an important bilateral and regional partner with which we engage widely on a range of issues of peace, conflict and stability in and across the region; it is a key partner.

“In all our meetings, we raise human rights in the broad range of issues, and we are seeing some progress in Indonesia, including on freedom of religion or belief,” he added.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Thank you to Lord Harries for your tireless support, as well as Lords Lexden, Kennedy, Hannay, and Purvis.
Pressure is growing on Indonesia. They cannot ignore the international call for a UN visit any longer @MsgSecretariat @ForumSEC @UNHumanRights pic.twitter.com/hjlLxXLDN9

— Benny Wenda (@BennyWenda) April 18, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz