A Good Deal? By laying the foundations of “neo-tribal capitalism” the Treaty Settlement Process interposed a rapidly expanding Maori middle-class between an impoverished Maori working-class and the Settler State's elites. Without the TSP, the huge transfer of wealth and resources from ordinary New Zealanders to those privileged elites could not have been accomplished.
WHEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF 1990-99 came up with the
“Treaty Settlement Process” (TSP) it created a winning strategy. No single
state initiative has done more to pacify the principal casualties of the
economic and social changes of the past 30 years. By laying the foundations of
what Dr Elizabeth Rata calls “neo-tribal capitalism”, the TSP interposed a
rapidly expanding Maori middle-class between an impoverished Maori
working-class and the Settler State elites. Without the TSP, the huge transfer
of wealth and resources from ordinary New Zealanders to those privileged elites
could not have been accomplished.
By the time the Fourth Labour Government was voted out of
office at the end of 1990, its neoliberal policies had laid to waste huge
swathes of Maoridom. Whole communities had been devastated by mass lay-offs in
the state-owned forests, Post Office and railways, as well as the privately
owned freezing-works and car assembly plants. A disproportionately large number
of these displaced workers were Maori.
The Treasury’s preferred method of dealing with mass
unemployment was to let the jobless rot on a benefit. Retraining and
re-employing redundant workers was deemed to be both cost ineffective and
ideologically unsound.
The results were entirely predictable. In a frighteningly
short period of time all the familiar social pathologies of poverty: drug
addiction, child abuse, domestic violence, marriage breakdown and gang-related
crime; began to unravel the working-class Maori suburbs of Auckland and
Wellington. While dealing with these pathologies imposed a massive fiscal
burden on the state, the alternative – an activist government intervening to
create jobs and strengthen communities – was dismissed as unacceptable. The
whole point of the Douglas-Richardson Revolution was to put an end to state
interventionism.
The skewed ethnicity of this new “underclass” (as
journalists were beginning to call it) did, however, present the new National
Government with a problem. Maori nationalist sentiment had grown rapidly in the
1980s – most particularly in the agitation for tino rangatiratanga –
Maori Sovereignty. The possibility that these radical ideas might be
transmitted to and taken up by unemployed Maori was a source of considerable
concern among Pakeha elites. A mass Maori uprising, inspired by tino
rangatiratanga, could only be contained by the use of deadly force – a
course of action that would almost certainly spark a civil war.
The TSP, by contrast, could serve as an effective diversion
from the misery and anger gripping urban Maori. By nominating traditional iwi
as the Crown’s key negotiating partners the Settler State offered a sense of
historical continuity and by enlisting the talents and shifting the focus of
Maori nationalist leaders it deprived the Maori underclass of the tino
rangatiratanga firebrands who might otherwise have set it alight.
Even so, it was a near-run thing. The occupation of Moutoa
Gardens in Whanganui in early-1995 balanced on a taiaha-edge between peaceful
protest and violent insurrection. The Government of Jim Bolger and Douglas
Graham (the minister responsible for the TSP) held their hand and the occupiers
refused to be provoked. The Whanganui confrontation, which could so easily have
ended in disaster, caused the Crown’s negotiators to redouble their efforts.
By the end of the decade the TSP was well entrenched. The
multi-million dollar Ngai Tahu and Tainui settlements had demonstrated the
awesome commercial potential of the neo-tribal capitalist model. The tribes’
corporate structures were offering employment to Maori graduates, and tribal
scholarships were supplying the Settler State with the highly-educated Maori
personnel it needed to give bureaucratic expression to the “Treaty partnership”
which the New Zealand Court of Appeal deemed to have existed between Maori and
the Crown since 1840.
The creation and consolidation of the Maori middle-class
which the TSP and the partnership model facilitated has proved to be a shrewd
investment on the part of the Settler State. It has been achieved at a fraction
of the cost of effectively educating and gainfully employing the
tens-of-thousands of untrained and unemployed rangatahi. Indeed, the transfer
of wealth (in the form of Crown cash and resources) from the poorest Maori
communities to wealthy tribal elites (the Iwi Leadership Group) mirrors neatly
the transfer of wealth from the 99 percent to the top 1 percent of income
earners that is the hallmark of neoliberalism globally.
The cost – a large urban Maori underclass in the grip of all
the evils to which poverty gives rise – has not yet risen to the point where
the Pakeha elites feel compelled to do more than refine and expand their
techniques for social control. That the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children
will feature a large number of middle-class Maori professionals, appointed to
ensure that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld, even as the
children of Maori poverty are made the guinea-pigs of National’s “social
investment” ideology, merely reinforces what an extraordinary success the TSP
has become.
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Tuesday, 23 August 2016.
28 comments:
With reference especially to the success of Ngai Tahu Maori capitalism, could not free market Neoliberalism be successfully "outdated" by the "illiberal"(?) idea and goal of systematically moving towards direct individual participation in capitalism by all ?
Would this not make social democracy more democratic by ensuring that not one of the "demos" is left "underprivileged" by not owning any economic power with the advantages and responsibilities that go with it ?
Well I hold no hope for the future of poor Maori. The political arm(s) of these created wealthy Maori elites (Maori-Mana parties) exist for and about claiming for 'Maori', and if largess is granted, seem to 'take' and then revert to traditional tribal methods of distribution.
Chiefs and families of Chiefs are first, second and third the rest pick up the crumbs and complain against the giver which is the NZ Government.
How much money or assistance from the Tanui settlement went to ordinary Tanui folk and how much went to the elites of which Tuku Morgan ($54 underpants) is one?.
Or am I wrong?.
I always enjoy reading your blog. Your view of New Zealand history is like Game of Thrones - you know it is loosely based on real events but it has a fantastical element that adds greatly to the entertainment value. I mean, where else could I read about the evil 'Settler State elites'?
Yeah, some settlers came on ships, some on canoes. Nonetheless, anyone who has made the effort to learn how Aotearoa has evolved the past couple of centuries is likely to see the `settler state' notion as having a considerable basis in reality. Not fantasy. Just stretching the point somewhat.
Key point is that poor Maori are so happy with the status quo that they can't be bothered organising to replace it with anything different. Nats sure have the Maoris sussed, eh?
BTW, anyone who disagrees must confront the fact that pan-tribalism is a meme that continually fails to infect the Maori psyche. Explain why Mana Motuhake disappeared into the Alliance black hole, never to be seen again. Explain why Maori are 16% of the electorate, and the Maori Party polls at 1% continually. Explain why Tuku, Tau, & the other Maori bros all exited NZ First, despite their leader was/is Maori...
As a registered Ngai Tahu iwi member, I can attest that a kind of 'broreaucracy' had sprung up in iwi after settlements.
I been in employment interview situations and come away thinking 'how on earth did these uneducated dropkicks get on the interview panel and credibly do their jobs within Ngai Tahu?'
There is also a perception in Ngai Tahu that the main economic focus of the iwi is centred around Canterbury to the expense of the rest of the rohe.
Major Ngai Tahu talent (ie people with major degrees from major universities with experience at home and abroad) are sitting on the sidelines.
Kiwiwit said "where else could I read about the evil 'Settler State elites'"
1.) Mr Trotter did not use the adjective "evil"
2.) If you don't get historically accurate descriptions from your usual information sources you are making bad choices of reading material. The right claims to abhor bad choices - though it seems they abhor them only in others and mostly as a pretext for denying assistance.
Ths settler state brought with it the social structure of the British state, and whilst aristocracy and gentry were mainly absent they were soon created. Squatocracy, run holders and farmers removing Maori land, a transplanted working class, private schools. Old England of the Antipodes. We despite declared social mobility have stayed that way for 150 years. How very unsurprising that the Tories create a brown version of themselves. You can bet its not at the cost of the long term upper classes but at the expense of Joe and Rangi Average.
Yes BlisteringAttack (24 Aug 15.53), Although Ngai Tahu claim they give jobs to the 'best' candidates, there is always the perception that nepotism and cronyism are rife.
I have been in Ngai Tahu interviews and thought that my skills, knowledge and qualifications have not been taken seriously.
One interview I was in for a Ngai Tahu job was so chaotic that I considered making a complaint as I have no idea how the interview panel arrived at a balanced decision as to who was the best candidate.
There have been allegations this year that the Ngai Tahu CEO - Arihia Bennett - has been embroiled in nepotism etc
So, yes a broreaucracy exists as does nepotism and cronyism in Ngai Tahu.
Also ask any Ngai Tahu outside Canterbury (Westland, Otago, Southland etc) and they will tell you there is a huge emphasis on economic development in Canterbury and not much else.
Funny how TSP is a fact on the ground (FOG) when really (IMHO) the only settlement process is when peoples of a nation gain a common identity (something elements of the left don't want). TSP is a piece of string of indeterminate length.
Having set up corporations based on enterprises (property development, tourism, dairying and other ecologically expansionist activities) may wean them off demanding money from the state? The rump however are being sought by the left (crapademia) to see history as only yesterday, reify their identity and place their ancient culture and it's requirements in an already full space of 2017.
Yep, a very astute analysis, Chris.
I'd really like to see some new in-depth analysis from Rata, up-dating her main body of work - much of which was written a decade or more ago. Especially want to see detailed work that's readily accessible to the wider public (ie beyond the scholarly community).
Her critique emerges fundamentally from a Left-wing standpoint, but unfortunately (and all too predictably), the Identity Politics faction will always dogmatically cry "racist !!!" and "anti-Maori !!!". A lot of frenzied values signalling but not always a great deal of complex thought going on in those particular circles.
"to see history as only yesterday, reify their identity and place their ancient culture and it's requirements in an already full space of 2017"
Somebody steals your wallet, you might eventually forget it. Somebody steals pretty much everything you have and see how long you hold a grudge for. That's one of the reasons why history is only yesterday. And in fact Maori are not being taught that 'history is only yesterday' it's part of their fundamental beliefs.
GS says
"Somebody steals your wallet, you might eventually forget it. Somebody steals pretty much everything you have and see how long you hold a grudge for. That's one of the reasons why history is only yesterday. And in fact Maori are not being taught that 'history is only yesterday' it's part of their fundamental beliefs."
....
Historical trauma as public *narrative*: A conceptual review of how history impacts present-day health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001826/
better to arrive in Aotearoa as a Cambodian refugee than Maori with a grievance mentality because the Cambodian starts swimming to a real island the Maori swims to a mirage.
No-one embarked on the settlement process intending it primarily to be a balm for the effects of "neo-liberal" economics. No-one is that machiavellian. Even if the Douglas reforms had not happened the pressure to resolve the historic grievances would have still existed, and would have resulted in much the same process as has in fact happened.
Was it foreseen that the settlements would enhance the growth of the Maori middle class? Yes, that was obvious, not just in the post settlement administration, but also the settlement process itself.
Has that assuaged tensions? Possibly, but then again possibly not. An articulate Maori middle class has been very effective in highlighting the issues of disadvantage, and capturing a significant share of state resources to deal with it. A specific Maori political party has developed and most political parties have changed in response. Some to a huge degree.
The key question you raise, at least in my mind, is whether there was fundamentally a different model for iwi to manage their resources, once they have settled. I must say it is hard to imagine one. They all have to operate in the wider economy, and they all face the same expectation of increasing the asset base and providing a return for their social objectives.
One thing however is clear. Iwi all see themselves developing new and more autonomous social models in health and education. It is no accident that the primary adopters of charter schools are Maori. The charter school model provides more autonomy, which is at the heart of iwi aspiration.
As usual JH you may have a point but I cannot quite figure it out. Are you saying that historical trauma doesn't exist? Are you saying it's just an excuse? I mean the article seems to be in favour of it as a 'thing' but as usual you post it without any context at all. Personally I think it's real. It's one of the reasons why Israelis have constructed an apartheid state in the Middle East. It's one of the reasons why many Australian aborigines are alcoholics. People who have been colonised, who have had their entire economic base taken away, who have had their culture denigrated and destroyed, definitely have a rightful grievances. And it might also have physical consequences. Probably time you checked your privilege. (Love that phrase – it really annoys conservatives and racists.)
As usual JH you may have a point but I cannot quite figure it out. Are you saying that historical trauma doesn't exist? Are you saying it's just an excuse? I mean the article seems to be in favour of it as a 'thing' but as usual you post it without any context at all.
......
I think the article while pointing out the role of narrative suggests we examine the appropriateness of the narrative: "we can't live in your culture"? Modernity has caught up with just about everyone (modernity being agriculture and industrialization requiring a division of labour)
http://www.oocities.org/athens/stage/8922/
while NZ’s post colonial hangover adds an extra factor, a moneybags boss is still a boss whether Māori or Pākehā
it is unrealistic to somehow expect Māori people to be exempt from capitalist and neo liberal hegemony, we are all prisoners of our times to some extent, but having a tradition of collectivism and historic and recent experience of military force used against them, Māori are surely prime candidates for taking the fork in the road in future
Wayne Mapp
The charter school model provides more autonomy, which is at the heart of iwi aspiration.
....
Mai Chen is suggesting we should have a "formal multicultural policy on a bicultural base". I wonder how that will affect Iwi membership?
duggledog (1,677 comments) says:
January 24th, 2015 at 8:47 am
Was talking to a Maori colleague last week, she’s relatively high up in the aristocracy in her particular tribe and knows a fair bit about what goes on in there. She said the average bro has a really, really bad feeling about all the Chinese that are popping up everywhere. She wouldn’t say exactly why the Chinese specifically, which started me wondering.
fernglas (217 comments) says:
January 24th, 2015 at 9:01 am
========
Duggledog.
Tell them to harden up; the Chinese are here to stay, just like us Pakeha
Vote: 16 1
Report abusive comment
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/01/general_debate_24_january_2015.html
Of course that's in line with National Party Policy
[Cultural competence] is the ability not to presume that other people are like you and to see the differences as a benefit and not as a detriment" – Mai Chen, chair of the Superdiversity Centre
“I think this decade is the point where we change our allegiance much more obviously from Europe of the past to Asia of the future” – Paul Spoonley, Pro-Vice Chancellor at Massey University
.....
And Mai Chen says The Crown is now the Chinese migrants (i.e everybody) and we need to do everything we can to take advantage of the Diversity Dividend (down to 10p post Brexit)
@GS
People who have been colonised, who have had their entire economic base taken away, who have had their culture denigrated and destroyed, definitely have a rightful grievances That's well put. And Maori have had to deal with the colonisation and economic destruction process multiple times and managed admirably. In a recently read book there was a memory from an old war on Russian soil. Troops from a losing side were forced to retreat into a freezing river also women followers who held their babies over their heads to save them. When they drowned their frozen arms remained high still cradling their children above the water. A horrible vision: Maori have survived equally harsh situations, their leaders have fought for their survival, nurturing their people and culture through their traumas. They deserve accolades not unrestrained sneers.
Maori had trauma in the early 1800s from pakeha colonisation and interference in their culture, some was of benefit, but good results were prone to change downwards. Their economic stability was undermined by pakeha many of whom were cheats and sold rights to settlers coming from Europe which they did not hold, or made sweeping. lying statements about conditions. New Zealand relied on confidence tricksters mainly British, enticing and making money from the settlers, who believing and trusting sold up and made the perilous journey and were traumatised to find primitive or intolerable conditions.
Then they looked to claw back something and Maori were traumatised at these alien invaders with their pieces of paper and measurements who could dispossess them at a stroke. Then came the beginning of neo lib and again there was chaotic change in their living conditions and economic stability. Now there is the large payout where money, which is a human concept, replaces land and physical attributes. It is some recompense, but in the years while the cases of bad faith have been heard, (which record valuable Maori and NZ history), the economic base of the country had been largely decimated. Small local businesses have been laid waste and commitment to building capacity for individuals and the country through such acts as trade training giving access to skilled jobs in NZ, has been abandoned.
It is sad to see Maori elites adding to the policy of disempowerment of struggling Maori. It is a cheap shot from people who have risen into the wealthy class. Hekia Parata and husband have both achieved success pakeha-style, and have ended up falling prey to 'Affluenza'. The latest from Ms Parata re-arranging special needs funding shows her distance from the strugglers. She has for years been starving Salisbury Girls School of enrolments because of the neo lib preference to abandon working long-term systems replacing them with constant policy changes; thus the local 'wrap around' operation with overworked, support staff drowned in cases and doomed to few successes and many failures. More expensive in the long run, and heart-breaking to those who can see better methods.
People writing here putting Maori down in general, are disgracefully ignorant when one only has to look around to see the whole country is suffering from damage to our economic stability, just as Maori originally suffered it. Those who make particular points about Maori failure as in Ngai Tahu are feeling the difficulties at the coalface of the new economic order. We have heard how hard it can be for Lotto winners to expand their vision and keep stability and wisdom, so it has been for Maori.
Everyone who has worked in a number of pakeha community projects know how hard it is to establish solid and forward-looking practices that have joined-up ideas, practices and visions. Maori are also facing conflicting ideas and drives. Everyone knows what community is and feels equal, don't see the need for discussion or examination and self-criticism, but often no-one takes responsibility for doing the unglamorous jobs that underpin the organisation. Leadership battles follow, and can become contentious.
Maori have had these - it is one of the greatest human abilities to decide on a common goal and agree on ways to reach it. And to be strong enough to be humble and accept criticism, and monitor each other and accept fault which is best if found kindly, but firmly, so that all either keep to precepts or rehash them to something achievable, at the same time being ethical and moral
@ jh, yeah I heard her say that the other day - think it was on Jim Mora's panel - & thought wtf??! Everyone knows The Crown is an abstract entity devised by constitutional lawyers to represent the monarch as head of state. How could she lose the plot so dramatically? She's in legal partnership with our top constitutional expert so you'd expect her to be mentally on the same planet as him.
Then I thought, okay, postmodernism. Ignore the truths of the past & just make it up as you go along. Very fashionable approach to life for younger generations since the '90s. Neuroscientists discovered that the brain uses a huge proportion of our energy intake, so makes sense to avoid using it whenever possible (if you want to conserve energy for important things like facebook, cellphones, TV2).
This site adds fantasy to the definition: www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Crown.aspx
A legal fiction. Very postmodern.
The Law Society kicks for touch. It seems to view postmodern meanings of the legal term as an entire quagmire, in which meaning depends on context used. It carefully refrains from opining on any actual meaning & suggests the Law Commission brainstorms the definition instead. http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-archives/issue-819/definition-of-the-crown-a-difficult-matter
The Wikipedia consensus is that the Crown is a synonym of the state. Looks like Mai Chen may have been articulating the socialist view that the state is the people, and immigrants are a new part of the people. Louis XIV famously said `I am the state' but the idea that we all share the contemporary equivalent of his power seems too much of a stretch. Just try exercising your sovereign right to tell the government what to do!
David Round argues that the crown is just a cypher for "the people". I think (unfortunately) she is right. Although
In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged that British subjects were already in New Zealand. Implicit in Māori agreement to the treaty was that more immigrants would come from the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Some Māori have argued that their ancestors agreed to allow immigration only from the countries named in the preamble to the treaty, and that regulation of immigration from other places is a matter that should be discussed with them as a treaty partner.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/immigration-regulation/page-1
According to the government we hate ourselves (celebrate diversity). Anyone who objects is to be chased around the room like a mouse.... EEeeeeK!!!
http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/diverse-auckland-are-we-there-yet/
Dennis Frank
I enjoyed your comment - relevant points and referring to Mai Chen's opinions which when about the 'i' word seem irrationally positive for an unrestrained policy.
Mai Chen
Indeed we are enjoying a diversity dividend
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11531147
Super-diversity is the “new reality” that defines Auckland, Professor Spoonley says
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=1E27606A-CA5C-9A61-06BA-1D96F4285A37
But there is an even bigger problem in using superdiversity as a descriptor: “diversity defies definition” (Meissner, 2015: 559). While some authors use census data to prove that their contexts are superdiverse (e.g., Arnaut et al., 2016a; Belling & de Bres, 2014; Cadier & MarMolinero, 2014), there is no heuristic that determines at what point diversity transforms into superdiversity. “The use of ‘superdiverse’ as a descriptive adjective,” argues Deumert (2014), “is a theoretical cul-de-sac, because the complexities brought about by diversity in the social world ultimately defy numerical measurement” (p. 116). Tagging on super- does not solve the problem but amplifies it, requiring us to accept that which cannot be defined as an article of faith. To facilitate the process an American journalist Walter Lippman once labelled “the manufacture of consent”, the authors appeal to affective rhetoric (radical, tremendous, complexity of a different kind) and syntactic structures that naturalize superdiversity, making it an agent and an astroturfing voice that “questions the foundations of our knowledge”
https://www.academia.edu/21163221/Superdiversity_and_why_it_isnt_Reflections_on_terminological_innovation_and_academic_branding_2016_
‘The possibility that these radical ideas might be transmitted to and taken up by unemployed Maori was a source of considerable concern among Pakeha elites. A mass Maori uprising, inspired by tino rangatiratanga, could only be contained by the use of deadly force – a course of action that would almost certainly spark a civil war.’
Really!? What elite have you surveyed, did you survey back then? You just made that up Chis. Fair enough, it is opinion. Fantastic opinion though.
But as you often do, in my opinion, you see things as coherent groups moving on a dramatic stage. Is this the result of Marxist thinking? I have not studied that and I am glad if it results in such categorical error.
Come off it, there was no risk of war and there is no such thing as ‘Maori’ as a group and there never has been, nor can be now. Hello! Maori people, their close families and wider families are the same as Pakeha. Disparate. Of all different experiences and influences and circumstances, classes. So if they behave similarly to Pakeha, so what? They (some) even have tried to have royalty. Why? It’s what people do, everywhere.
So you see some grand strategy by National, the Tory settlers’ party you think, to create Maoridom in our own image. Whereas we are just normal conservatives and you fail to understand us. We think organic, self-organising peoples should be encouraged to create their own functioning communities. And those always have hierarchies and yes, classes. But where we totally differ is we try to help those vague divisions remain at peace with each other whereas the left tries to set them to war.
And finally, if there had been a civil war started by a few ill-educated, probably Marxist damaged, Maori radicals, guess who would have shot them? The NZ Army, which I guess is at least 50% Maori, or more accurately, New Zealanders with a large variety of some Maori tribal heritage. Same as it ever was.
Charles E
Fantastical to think that the elites might be concerned about Maori uprising! You are fantastical yourself. Did the Tuhoe invasion pass you by? What prompted that do you think?
And the amount of time effort and government money spying and listening and building a file of hot-headed sayings that could be repeated to super-suspicious delvers of dirt in the police force, government and no doubt in cahoots with overseas agents - fantastical enough for a really good NZ novel. But it did happen didn't it. Do you remember?
A handful of nutters in the bush and a very stupid police force do not make for a civil war gw. They make for a farce.
On Country life an ex stock broker from Australia had bought a property in Katikati and was doing permaculture. It seems a lot of hedge fund manager types are doing the same (buying ranches etc). He still holds to the peak oil theory (no speed bumps). That's about it the life my great grandparents had choosing a site to dream for and a simple life enjoying nature and "kind friends and family" is for the wealthy. We pawns are victims of the great social experiment (in association with BNZ and Harcourts).
Post a Comment