A question of race?

Today I wanted to highlight a debate in the New Zealand Herald that I think has had the correct media treatment applied.

The New Zealand Herald is one of the best newspapers in the country and this clearly shows why.

The debate was about the operation of quota systems in medicine schools to allow a certain of number of Maori to train as doctors. It was kicked off, this time, by former ACT leader Rodney Hide in this opinion.

In it Hide said he was prompted to write the opinion after receiving a phone call from Dr Ranginui Walker during a radio show.

Hide said he “had been complaining about the two standards of entry to medical school: one for Maori and one for everyone else”.

“The (Auckland) university dropped the bar to a B-bursary for Maori. Everyone else needed an A-bursary or better. Once into medical school, though, Maori students had to perform and pass like everyone else.”

He also spoke of an adjustment to the selection scheme that allowed students’ suitability based on elements other than just academic success.

“They were no longer strictly academic. It counted if students did kapa haka, went to the marae, played sports or practised music.

 “Walker explained that gave Pakeha students "a bit of an edge over Asian students who are totally, single-mindedly focused on academic excellence and had nothing else to offer the profession.”

Later he admonished processes that use quota systems and other “touchy-feely criteria” to select candidates.

“The colour of a student's skin now counts for entry to medical school, as well as academic record and ability. It shouldn't.

“The legendary George Nepia wasn't selected for the 1928 All Blacks tour of South Africa. He was left out for a simple reason: he was brown. That was wrong. Maori players first toured South Africa as All Blacks in 1970. They toured as "honorary whites". That was disgusting.

“I was brought up with the ideal that we should judge people by what they do - it's wrong to judge people by their race, colour or creed. Everyone should be free to play; selection should be based on merit.

“Auckland University's policy turns that ideal upside down. Skin colour counts. For Walker, the correct mix of colour is more important than having the best class.

“But race, colour, creed shouldn't worry us. We shouldn't care if doctors are yellow, white or brown. All we should care about is that they are good at the job. And that should be the university's sole concern. It is wrong that the university discriminates on skin colour. It is wrong that it is attempting a correct colour mix. The university should treat all applicants equally: that means being blind to race.”

In response the Herald published this column from Craig Riddell, the president of the Auckland University Medical Students' Association who also happens to be Maori.

Riddell used the opinion piece to cleanly and effectively deconstruct Hide’s argument against quota systems.

He argued that through quota schemes there is a better chance of training “doctors who are culturally fluent and not merely culturally aware”.

“Strong interpersonal skills and commitment to extra-curricular activities mean more rounded people and potentially better doctors.

“…The University of Auckland's actions towards these goals are laudable, not lamentable.

“Maori and Pacific students are not the only group with different admission standards. Similar logic underpins the Regional-Rural Admissions Scheme, which provides places for rural students to enter medicine based on an assessment of their connection to their local community.”

Like Michael Laws, Paul Holmes and countless others before I suspect Rodney Hide knows that the race card always draws a large amount of attention and for a former politician struggling to find their relevance that is like gold.

But the fact that by the time I came across the opinion piece (a week after it was first published) and debate on it had already been closed because of the standard of comments shows that this sort of sensationalist opinion-writing always attracts the radicals.

I do not think that we should completely avoid articles that are against Maori however I do believe in the right of response and I think the Herald did a wonderful job by giving Riddell a chance to respond to Hide’s statements. Ka pai.

Coming home

When I first started this blog I was clear that I wanted to use it to discuss the media’s treatment of certain stories rather than focussing on the issues being discussed in the articles.

However yesterday morning I was reading the local news sites over my morning coffee when I came across this story. From a reporting point of view there is nothing wrong with the story itself, reporter Yvonne Tahana has done a fine job with balancing the different sides of the discussion.

However my problem with it is the actual issue and I felt compelled to write about it. So here are my thoughts, please indulge me.

I do not doubt Professor Paul Tapsell but when he talks about the demise of the roll of the marae in Maori communities I question whether his research basis was broad enough to make such sweeping comments.

While he is planning further research Professor Tapsell says in the article that he believes after monitoring death notices within his own iwi, Ngati Whakaue of Rotorua, over the past year that an increasing number of families are choosing to keep bodies at home.

He says he hopes it doesn't signal the demise of tribal marae as a Maori institution and remembers keeping bodies at home never happened when he was a boy.

“Any talk of it and kaumatua were down to the home in a "flash" with young people to help them carry the deceased to the marae.

“Now bodies don't make it back from Australia, let alone a couple of kilometres down the road, he said.

"Without the death ritual of tangihanga we're losing the real reason of why we have marae. It's about linking the dead with the living [and] with those yet to be born.”

But I think the view that marae are only used for tangi is missing the point. Marae have never just been for tangi. Marae were, and continue to be, used for birthdays, weddings, wananga, hui and a number of other events. In many communities the Marae is still the central hub and it will continue to remain that way as long as those who whakapapa to it can still identify with it.

I am pretty confident that my own marae will never die because there were many of us that were fortunate enough to grow up calling Wairaka home. As always there is a core lot of people who keep its heart beating, the ahi kaa burning, but the call home is always there for those of us who are no longer able to live there and we will continue to instil that same sense of turangawaewae in our own children.

Over the years the personnel who have kept that place ticking has changed, a trend that will continue to be so in the future but that is the point. Just like Professor Tapsell said the marae links us to the past and the also the future and so my boy will grow up knowing where his feet stand and one day, when he is ready, he will give back.

The problem for me is that the article makes no mention about the shift of Maori from their papakainga to the centres for work and the impact that this has had not only on the marae but on their children and grandchildren.

There are many Maori who no longer identify with their marae. Also other cultural influences are changing how people want to grieve for their loved ones. And while that is a personal choice I feel sorry for them because the aroha that exists in a marae is beyond beautiful and a marae will only die if the people let it.

If you haven’t been back to your marae lately I urge you not to wait until the next tangi, just do it.

Songs from the Inside

Ok, so I’m back.

It’s been a while since the last one and to tell the truth I have no other excuse than I've just been too lazy. However that doesn’t mean that there haven’t been areas that I wanted to discuss on here, there have been plenty but too often I would finding myself just staring at a blank page or worse - lurking on Facebook.

Anyway today I wanted to talk about a series that was aired on Maori Television, Songs from the Inside. Last night was the final in the 13-part series and while it wasn’t technically a story in the media it was story-telling at its best.

It was also about an issue that impacts deeply on Maori.

According to statistics Maori, at May 2011, made up 51.2 per cent of the prison population. Maori are, clearly, over-represented and it is a problem that has been the subject of many a report, debate, media report. However, despite such Government policies as whanau ora, we are no nearer to solving the issue.

In fact it seems things are just getting worse and as I sat there watching the last episode I was reminded of something that a good friend always used to say: “give them something to lose…”

And I started to wonder.

As a reporter I was lucky enough to be given an opportunity to see and hear some of the stories in Waikeria Prison’s Maori Focus Unit, Te Ao Marama. I wrote a story from my first visit to the unit and it one that will probably stay with me forever.

I hung it on a group of inmates graduating from a taonga puoro course offered. The course looked to rehabilitate by reconnecting the inmates with their Maori roots.

The reason for the story was to discuss the idea of privatising some parts of the prison system and whether Maori organisations could run those facilities. I didn’t ever get my answer but as part of my research I interviewed Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples and he said that it could be idea for the future.

He based his statement around the success of some of the country’s Maori Focus Units, such as that seen at Te Ao Marama, and said at the time statistics showed that those prisoners who had been through the untis were 7 per cent less likely to reoffend than those who stayed in the general prison population.

He said he believed this was the case because these sorts of units look to reconnect Maori prisoners with their roots. After my experience at Te Ao Marama I could see that it was definitely a possibility – the men on the course suddenly had a reason to lift their heads up.

And the Songs from the Inside series also seemed to show the same promise.

The series was directed by New Zealand actor Julian Arahanga and follows four well-known Maori musicians on their journey to help prisoners serving time at Arohata and Rimutaka prisons.

Over the past 13 weeks the programme has shown Anika Moa, Maisey Rika, Ruia Aperahama and Warren Maxwell working with 10 prisoners in the step-by-step music programme to write and produce their own material.

The programme was developed by Evan Rhys Davis, who had tutored a pilot scheme of the course at the Spring Hill prison in Waikato a couple of years ago. It is hoped that inmates will be helped by developing a postive, creative outlet. 

Last night they unveiled the finish products and I was blown away. The musicianship behind the songs was unbelievable and the talent from the inmates as well as evidence of the sure hands belonging to the professional song-makers clearly showed through.

However it wasn’t just the songs that touched me – the brutal honesty in some of the stories coupled with the signs that this programme might have affected a positive change in the inmates was inspiring.

One of the male-participants summed it up perfectly.

Tama, who was interviewed the day before he was released, said the programme had given him something to hold on to.

“If it wasn’t for this production and this unit I probably would have tried anything to stay in here, it’s been my home for so long.”

It is a sad statement and I could almost hear Gaye’s voice saying “just low hanging fruit but just give them something to lose”.

And perhaps I am naive but I want to believe that Tama has been so inspired that he is going to follow a different path on the outside - because what is the point of locking someone up if there is no rehabilitation?

Sure these people have made some bad decisions but they are still New Zealanders and one day they will be released. Hopefully they never end up going back to prison. Hopefully they go on to make their lives better because in turn they will then make their families’ lives better and if their families are living better lives then our country will be better for it - don't you think?

They are, after all, somebody’s mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter. They are the “low-hanging fruit” at the moment but they could go on to do something far greater than they ever imagined, than any of us probably ever imagined, they just need to make the changes and take the chance.

Or at least that is what this series gave: the sense of promise.

The series was beautifully shot, the final programme simply amazing with the recordings of each song portrayed through a series of images that also told a story, and I have no other option but to commend Arahanga, Evans and Maori Television.

There is no way that our mainstream channels would have ever invested the time and money in a series like this and I am so glad that we have Maori Television because while people continue to discuss The GC and the depiction of Maori in it as well as whether it was a good investment of taxpayer funding, there is another side of the story out there that is also just as relevant and should be talked about just as much.

Ka pai to mahi Julian.

And if you haven't seen it check out the series here.

Terrorist or political prisoner?

Is Tame Iti really the bogeyman, the devious mastermind behind an elaborate plot to inflict pressure on political groups and potentially put innocent lives at risk?

Or is he a political prisoner, the hapless victim of a police-force trying to cover up a series of mistakes by pinning it on the veteran activist?

Well, it depends on who you listen to.

Ever since 300 police, that included the armed offenders and anti-terror squads, stormed properties across the country on 15 October, 2007, Iti has been the face of the Tuhoe Terror raids.

Police alleged Iti and 16 others had been involved in paramilitary training camps in the Urewera mountain range near Ruatoki in the eastern Bay of Plenty. They claimed the people attending the camp threw Molotov cocktails and fired semiautomatic rifles and pistols.

The police referred evidence gathered during the raids to the Solicitor-General to consider whether charges should be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

However the Solicitor-General declined to press charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act, because of inadequacies of the legislation. According to Helen Clark, the Prime Minister at the time of the raids, one of the reasons police tried to lay charges under anti-terror legislation was because they could not use telephone interception evidence in prosecutions under the Arms Act.

Fast forward four years and Iti and three others were found guilty of six charges of unlawful possession of military-style firearms and Molotov cocktails at the training camps.

Iti and the man described as his “leftenant”, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, were sentenced to 2.5 years in jail last week. Their co-offenders Urs Signer and Emily Bailey had their sentences adjourned but home detention of nine months was signalled.

Since sentencing there has been much debate around the issue. Search Iti’s name on google news and you will find at least 90 articles relating to this situation. His face with the distinctive moko has stared out of television screens, flickered across websites and appeared on the pages of all of the major newspapers in the country. He has been the topic of many lunch time conversations and perhaps even for this period surpassed John Banks as the biggest news of the day.

The opinion and commentary has been diverse and covered the spectrum from the right-wing National Business Review to the pro-Maori Native Affairs but frustratingly still questions remain unanswered.

I have read many of the stories and watched a lot of the interviews and what I have been intrigued with is the choices that are being made in terms of representation.

The police are desperately trying to convince New Zealand that they were justified in what they did and the sentences handed down to Iti and Kemara proves it. Iti’s camp and Maori leaders are outraged by the sentence arguing it is harsh and the two men are being made scapegoats by the police.

Police commissioner Peter Marshall appeared on Native Affairs this week. His manner was conciliatory, while endorsing the police’s decision and behaviour.

He said police were forced to act because Iti and his group were a threat to the public’s safety.

“The definition of a terrorist under the Terrorism Suppression act is a group of people with a pre –disposition towards violence with a political agenda so it was in that context that there was concern.”

He said the investigation was worth it because the four people convicted of the firearm charges had never offered a proper reason for what they were doing in the Urewera.

Also appearing on the programme the editor of the National Business Review, Neville Gibson, reiterated points covered in this story.

Gibson said even though it had never been proven that Iti was involved in recruiting a “private militia” he was glad the police did what they did because he felt safer that those sorts of people were locked up.

“At least there has been a sentence and it is custodial.”

On the flip-side, Greens Party co-leader Metiria Turei, also appearing on Native Affairs, said the allegation of the foursome being involved in “private militia” was unproven because of a lack of evidence.

“It looks more like that because the powers granted under the Terrorism Suppression act they played FBI with the natives because they had those new powers and did so with these people here. Now much of the evidence they gathered was inadmissible.”

She was backed up by Auckland University law expert Khlee Quince who believed the sentence handed down to Iti and Kemara was harsh because irrelevant information was taken into consideration.

Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell had earlier appeared on the show and made an excellent point by highlighting the case of Bernard Shapiro.

Flavell said Shapiro’s case should have acted as a precendent in the sentencing of Iti and Kemara.

Convicted of seven firearm charges which included the unlawful possession of two military semi-automatic rifles, explosives, grenades and a grenade launcher, the Christchurch man received a sentence of a $5000 fine payable to the St John’s ambulance service.

No matter who you believe, I recko we still haven’t heard the whole story of what happened in those days leading up to 15 October, 2007 and no doubt there is still more to come in this saga so I, like many, will keep following it.

However if there is one thing I learnt working in the media industry and that is the old cliché of ‘Never believe everything you read’ is true and I will always keep it in mind, how about you?

Sparking up

Did you know that smokers are poor Maori?

At least that is what a couple of the country’s reporters would have you believe after this year’s budget was revealed.

Yesterday was budget day and true to all of the predictions Bill English announced a zero budget.

It has clearly been signalled that the Government want New Zealand to be smoke-free by 2025 so it wasn’t a surprise that the budget included plans to raise the level of taxes on cigarettes

However what was surprising, and also disheartening, was the reaction from some of the country’s television reporters.

In a show of incredible ignorance Barry Soper of Prime News stated during an interview with English that the Government’s plans to increase the tax on cigarettes by 10 per cent every year for the next four years would affect people that could least afford it because smokers are low-income earners.

And then there was the interview with Hone Harawira in which he asked about affect the price rise would have on his constituency because all of his constituents are Maori and Maori are smokers. I didn’t catch the interview myself but my brother-in-law was outraged.

In his opinion the reporter may as well have said that Maori were all smoking dole-bludgers who were destined to end up in jail because that is the level of bigotry the comment showed.

Ok, so smoking is a habit that is prevalent in Maori and low-socio economic areas but that doesn’t mean that all smokers are poor Maori or that all Maori are smokers. I mean to make rash generalisations that smokers are poor Maori is, well, just ignorant and bigoted.

I gave up smoking when I was pregnant with my son, took it up again when I became a reporter and then gave it up again last week. It is a filthy disgusting habit but at the end of the day it comes down to personal choice.

And there are many, of all races and income-brackets, that make the choice to spark up – it isn’t just Maori or the poor.  

The fact that some of the country’s reporters can be so bigoted is disturbing. I once thought that those in the media were meant to be open-minded and fair but I am fast seeing that there is a lot of prejudice out there and I am starting to wonder if we still live in the 1950s.

Thoughts?

Te Mangai

The announcement that the 12-week lock-out of some Affco workers was over was great news this week.

It has been a long and bitter fight for those workers who have been unable to work because of the protracted negotiations between their employers and the Meat Workers Union so it would have come as a huge relief that the two groups were finally able to reach an agreement on Tuesday.

The break in the long-standing dispute has been somewhat credited to the Iwi Leaders Forum however this left me wondering about a few things.

I must be honest here; I have never been a fan of this group as I see it as very subjective and selective. I think that if there is going to be a group comprised of iwi leaders then representatives must be those with a clear mandate to lead their people and I am not sure that the chairpeople of runanga necessarily have that. (Especially as much of the time those at the head of those organisations are desperately fighting to keep hold of their job, Maori politics is not for the faint-hearted.)

The question of mandate was clearly raised in the Affco story.

Former Tainui chairman Tukoroirangi Morgan was trumpeted as one of the key forces within the Iwi Leaders Forum which helped reach the breakthrough between Talleys and the Meat Workers Union.

Morgan talked about the role he played in a press release, which was picked up and replicated in a story in the Waikato Times, and described that he had talked with Affco “patriarch” Peter Talley on two occasions.

He said the iwi leaders’ job was to get both sides of the dispute around the table “and moving towards compromise and, ultimately, agreement”.

"History has been made here and role of Iwi in the modern industrial society has been forever changed," he said.

Trouble is Morgan is no longer a recognised iwi leader with a mandate from the Tainui people to represent them. Even he acknowleges this.

"Iwi exist to protect and advance the rights and interests of Maaori. While I may no longer be Chair of Te Arataura, I will always be Waikato-Tainui.”

I don’t doubt his motives in this case and good on Morgan for wanting to help his people but surely his continued involvement with the Iwi Leaders Forum leaves questions about their credibility as a group?

The Iwi Leaders Forum is a relatively new creation. Initially, when Morgan was the chairman of Tainui, it was described as the collective of the motu’s chairpeople.

They meet on a regular basis to discuss issues that are of interest to Maori but how can it be an Iwi Leaders Forum if not all members are recognised leaders?

Already their mandate to represent Maori as a whole is in doubt as shown here in this story and I believe that it is media that give this group the mana and recognition that allow them any sort of political presence.

In the past there have been stories that the group have influenced policy development around issues such as the foreshore and seabed and emission's trading scheme. The group has also been described as “the most powerful lobbying group in Wellington”.

Sure they probably assert some influence but the trouble, the way I see it, is Maori politics is a murky world and often it is a difficult area for reporters to navigate.

One of the most difficult jobs is being able to find the right person to act as a spokesperson for any group within Maoridom whether it is marae, hapu, iwi or in general. Mana-munching is alive and well so often those who claim to be the spokespeople do not represent the opinions of that group. Other times the right people do not want to talk to the media and so the reporter is left with no other option but to talk to those who will give them the quote that they need.

What is your opinion on the Iwi Leaders Forum? What about how do you think the media should ensure that they are talking to right people about issues pertaining to Maori?

Enough is enough?

I’ve been trying to avoid blogging about Louis Crimp because his statements were, well, ridiculous and I didn’t want to give him any more attention than he had already received.

However a tweet from one of the cuzzies, Leonie Simpson, inspired me to write this post.

The tweet read: “#CampbellLive why did you gave Crimp tv oxygen? More ridiculous than news”.

And that is exactly the point – why do media outlets continue to give people like Crimp space?

Almost every major media outlet has jumped on the story, which appeared first in the Weekend Herald, about Crimp’s comments that he donated $125,000 to the ACT Party because he believed the political group would stop what he considered special treatment for Maori.

I can understand the purpose of that initial article - the Banks-donation affair has been one of the biggest new stories in the last three months and here was a fresh angle which moved things forward, fair enough I get that.

I even get stories like this one where the political fall-out from such comments is analysed but what I don’t get is that you allow someone like Crimp time and space to spout his bigoted views to the nation as seen in this story by the New Zealand Herald

Sure, you may think that he is painting himself as some sort of lunatic but what is this adding except fuelling an already tense situation?

As part of the fourth-estate journalists in New Zealand have a responsibility to the public and democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context.

Far too often the country’s media indulge in Maori bashing just to lift the ratings but it is a form of the lowest-common-denominator-type journalism.

Today it is Crimp, last month it was John Ansell and next week it will probably be another raving bigot. It is nothing new – Maori have had to face these sorts of tirades ever since – but I do not think I am alone when I say that I am tired of it. What about you?