Friday, August 21, 2009

Rodney Hide - a rare politician

While cooking tea last night I received a call from Radio New Zealand. Nothing unusual there. Except they didn't want to know what I thought about anything to do with welfare. The reporter wanted to know what I thought about Rodney Hide's latest position. Apparently he is not only saying he will resign as Local Government Minister but will quit all his other portfolios. I asked why she was asking me. Because you are an ACT member? No. I resigned. I was a candidate. I would be happy to comment described as a former candidate but not as a member. She was still keen.

Of course I support what he is doing. It's hugely important to him because it is hugely important for the future of New Zealand. We can't progress under different democratic rules. That will do nothing for the relationship between Maori and Pakeha or Maori and any other minority.

Do you think other ACT members support him? They should. ACT philosophy is about individual rights yet this is an example of the collective demanding privilege. Maori should have to fight for seats along with everybody else.

What will it mean for ACT's relationship with National? How would I know. You would have to ask the Parliamentary representatives.

That's the guts of it. But I should add that thank God we have a politician prepared, as Lou Taylor wrote yesterday, to put his balls on the line over an issue.

Here's the RNZ item canvassing various views.


Anonymous said...

A rare minister indeed. Something we haven't seen in 9 years, and longer actually...

Compare this principled stance with Labour ministers that when they got caught out, only apologised for being caught, not for the wrongdoing.



I agree. Well done and well said Rodney.
As I noted on my blog today, TV3 is being most mischievous.
What is Liarbour's view.
Gooner notes their opinion seems to be shifting in line with public opinion.
Liarbour might be changing its views out of unprincipled populism whereas Rodney has always had his principled view.

Lou Taylor said...

Hi Lindsay
Any moves to further entrench the notion that NZ will be a nation of Maori vs the rest is one of my major concerns.
The "rest" are already a mixture of 100 or so differnt nationalities (as I pointed out I would deal with at least 30 differt ones each week just in the normal course of business). We are all NZers in my book but a racial fence down the middle is long term trouble.
Somehow I think that our more recent immigrants, once they settle in and start to exert more economic and political influence, will not have the same degree of empathy to the Maori as us Pakeha have shown.

Lucy said...

I hope he sticks to his guns. If he does I know that I and many other former National supporters will back him

Anonymous said...

who are you to be a voice for Maori? this is a bicultural nation first, and a multicultural nation second. When you can accept that Maori have an equal footing with the hegemony, then and only then can good change come about. We are not a homogenous one, and you can not pay lip service to multiculturalism to maintain the status quo of the dominant group. This is your platform for yourself and your followers to create a pool of justification for your belief system, but I as anonymous, am just as entitled to my own.

Big News said...

It's hugely important to him because it is hugely important for the future of New Zealand. We can't progress under different democratic rules
Linday, that's disgraceful. you outline how this is not important for New Zealand and that the seats are " undemcratic", then I`ll take you a little more seriously on this issue

Andrei said...

hang on anon;

Haven't you just expressed you opinion on Lindsay's blog thus contradicting you thesis This is your platform for yourself and your followers to create a pool of justification for your belief system

I strongly doubt that Lindsay wants her blog to be an echo chamber to reinforce her own views.

I agree with Mr Hyde on this issue, disagree with him on others.

Likewise with Lindsay sometimes I agree other times no.

So it goes.

Peter said...

This is a bicultural nation first, and a multicultural nation second

No, we are a democratic nation first.

Lindsay said...

Dave, How can seats reserved for one ethnicity, and one ethnicity only, be fair? I want to see Maori participate in the process as much as the next person but by the same means.

Anon, who is denying you a voice? Is anyone saying Maori shouldn't be allowed to stand for council?

Anonymous said...

Just as long as i can keep having me hangi on saturday cuz.

Big News said...

I want to see Maori participate in the process as much as the next person but by the same means.

that's all well and good, but I was actually referring to substantive representation, which doesn't happen by the same means, and you know that.

Lindsay said...

So you back affirmative action - I don't. You believe Maori can't or won't compete on a level playing field - I believe they should, can and already do. What is "disgraceful" about that?

Anonymous said...

Andrei I strongly doubt she doesn't.

Maori are not in the same position as Pakeha, they never have been, and to say it is because Maori haven't picked up the ball is sanctimonious and patronising, and it is to deny that postcolonial racism is entrenched in this country.

Progressive legislation in this country has worked against Maori over and over and over. A thousand pieces of land legislation lodged by the crown against Maori between 1850-1993 in contravention to the treaty speak volumes to the take over of land and resource by stealth, where pure aggression by war had failed. The Hunn report on assimilation, the Tohunga suppression Act of 1906 which as I heard an esteemed Maori elder describe made it illegal to be all that is 'Maori', the failure of the crown to rightly adjust for inflation to reparations paid in perpetuity for tribal lands stolen, the crowns further interferrance until 1996 in tribal self determination of any of this money that was theirs but was 'managed' by the very people who'd taken it off them. Government schemes in the 1950's which pushed Maori men and women into public sector 'blue collar' work presumably because they were too stupid to do anything academic and therefore were not encouraged into it 'naturally' as Pakeha were and can be seen by the numbers of Pakeha in the tertiary system. the fact that in the 1980's as neoliberal reforms were introduced Maori were the highest sector of the community to lose their jobs and why? because of the same schemes that put them there in the first place. The continual denial by the Pakeha hegemony that Maori are not on the SAME LEVEL AS THEM. The quite obvious eurocentric format of newsmaking which perpetuates Maori as antagonist, Thief, Radical. the fact that nothing gained by maori in the last 100 years has not come without a fight.

You don't beleive in Affirmative Action Lindsay? you've never needed it, you have no value in a thing that exists not for your advantage. You have already benefited and continue to benefit from the 'affirmative action' of progressive white pakeha led governments which are in actual fact that very reason you are who you are. Not your 'hard work' or 'right attitude'.
I'll not visit your blog again, as it disheartens me to see the ongoing negativity expressed towards Maori. I personally as a Maori, don't need that kind of poisonous attitude in my conciousness.

Lindsay said...

Give me a break. In the report Maori and Welfare I emphasise the ways in which Maori were discriminated against, duped and patronised. I believe welfare particularly hurt Maori because of the position of social and economic disadvantage they started from.

BUT I cannot agree that the way forward is through different rules. Stop seeing what isn't there.

Big News said...

You state that you want to see Maori participate in the process as much as the next person but by the same means.

Rodney Hide doesn't.

Those submitting on the issue of Maori seats to the Auckland bill did not get to participate in the process "as much as the next person" in a substantive way (for example, compared with other bills) as the decision to preclude Maori seats was made by cabinet, with Hides substantive influence, before submissions closed.

Do you think that is a fair consultative process?

Lindsay said...

I don't think the consultative process was fair in as much as a decision seemed to have pre-empted the report back. However Rodney was correct to give early notice that he would not introduce the legislation requiring reserved seats as Local Government Minister. I do not know how much that influenced cabinet's decision.