Interview: Tariana Turia, Maori Party co-leader

Tariana Turia

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia spoke this week to senior Herald Gallery staff Audrey Young and Ruth Berry about her attitude to National, her policies such as early super for Maori, and her plans for retirement.

What is the most pressing reason why someone should vote for the Maori Party?

the most pressing is people need to realise this is an MMP environment. If they genuinely want a Maori voice to be heard in Parliament. They have to give us enough political power to be able to speak with their voice otherwise we can't. so that is why it is critically important. It is not about a vote for National; it's not about a vote for anyone else. It is a vote about for a critical voice that needs to be heard in this environment.

If you are courted by National or Labour to form a Government will you insist that the Foreshore and Seabed Act be repealed?

We have got a number of things WE are putting on the table. That would be one of them and we are asking it to be repealed so that due process can be followed, that our people can go to court as they had a right to and so yes, it would be one of the things on the table?

Will you have any bottom lines?

Our bottom line really is our kaupapa [values]. We are saying that whoever we go with, they have to accept that we are a party that is driven by kaupapa.

Do you think a Maori Party holding the balance of power could be a modern alternative to a Maori upper House espoused by some, almost fulfilling a proxy constitutional position?

Well that certainly those who have advocated for the upper house have seen that if there was a strong enough Maori political voice in the House that that may well fulfil that role. The problem is that if the governing party chooses not to have relationship with the maori Party, then there would still be a need for an upper House because it is about having a treaty-based voice within the government which we have don't have at any point and haven't had at any point.

What would be your ideal constitutional arrangements for New Zealand?

We think that that is something really for New Zealanders to decide. We believe that there has to be a written constitution for Parliament and probably the one thing we would advocate is that it is underpinned by the treaty. But we think it is very important that the discussion is had even if it took five years but we think it is a very critical decision. The sovereignty of Parliament is extremely powerful when you don't have any constitution to guide the decisions that they make.

What is your vision for New Zealand?

My vision for New Zealand is want I want my grandchildren to grow up in. So what I want for them is that they are healthy, they are well-educated, they are able to participate fully in a society that respects all cultures who live here in this land , that Maori people as the tangata whenua whenua be acknowledged as such, and their status as the treaty partner would be upheld. That's it. I can only think about New Zealand if I think about what I want for my grandchildren.

If you were in a position to negotiate post-election would you prefer to be in a formal coalition arrangement or offering confidence and supply from the crossbenches?

We actually haven't come to a decision on that. What we've said to our membership is that we would go back to them and we would talk about what the options were and we have been really clear that we are a people-driven party and that they will make the decision.

What is your personal view?

I suppose the most powerful position that you can be in is to be inside the tent but voting on a case by case basis is a lot more powerful.

You said on Radio Waatea recently that National had probably done more for Maori than Labour. Can you explain?

If you look at the very significant developments that have happened - you look at kohanga reo, you look at kura kaupapa, you look at wananga, you look at all the Maori health services, the social services, they've all come out of the National Party. The difference is National never talks about what is does for us because basically they've got a red-neck voting population. And because Labour has always wanted our voted and needed our vote, they have always gone and told our people what they do for us. National has never done that.

Is the National of the past the same as a Don Brash-led National Party? It's voted against several Treaty settlements and reversed its position on ownership of lakes, for example.

Absolutely they're not the National of the past but neither is Labour the Labour of the past either. If we look at Labour since the 80s there has been a huge swing towards the right and for many people today they can't really see a lot of difference. If you go to hui, our people say you've got National stabbing you in the front. You know where they stand on absolutely everything. You've got Labour stabbing you in the back. They are starting to wonder just where New Zealand is heading given that these are the two main political parties.

Parliamentary library records show you have voted just with National 223 times and just with Labour 147 times. Labour is using the figures to suggest you will jump into bed with National. How will you counter that?

I don't think a vote against a piece of legislation is a vote with National. Our reasons for voting are significantly different and I don't think the average person out there will buy that argument that the Maori Party votes with National on any of the pieces of legislation, actually.

Labour is also saying that because you are not saying who you would favour that a vote for the Maori Party could be a vote for National and how will you counter that.

What is a vote for either of them at this stage? Here we have the Labour party who has enjoyed the trust of our people [and yet what they showed last year with the foreshore and seabed was that our vote didn't count, actually. It didn't matter. So why are they worried about where our people will vote because they didn't care about them. They were more than happy to vote against our people. So to say that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National is a load of nonsense. At the end of the day, a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for Maori political power in the parliamentary environment. That's what it is.

In what circumstance could you envisage working with National?

Well we haven't envisaged it.

How did your party decide to vote against the parliamentary motion calling on New Zealand Cricket to call off the Zimbabwe tour and did you get much flak for it?

No we didn't. All we said was that the Government should wait for the United Nations report, that the Government should be consistent in its approach to human rights issues around the world and not single out Zimbabwe. On one hand, they are singling out Zimbabwe and at the same time entering into trade negotiations with China. It made me start to wonder whether there is a price on human rights.

Could you explain your policy stating that Maori should get superannuation early.

There's about 13,500 between 60 and 65 years of age many of whom are already on a benefit. The difference between that benefit and the super is about $40 a week. It would make a huge difference because many of our people who live to be over 60 years of age, the majority are very unwell and because so few of do live to be beyond 60 years of age, we felt that given that they do contribute to the superannuation and don't benefit from it, that there shouldn't be any reason why the benefit age shouldn't be lowered to take into account the contributions they have made and the fact that they don't live long enough to collect it.

Do you think such a policy could be quite divisive?

Well it appears that it would be divisive . We didn't think so at the time we were promoting it. We tend to look through particular cultural eyes and we felt it was an important issue. But I acknowledge that Pacific people and poor Pakeha people should be considered in that equation. The argument we were trying to put was that even middle-aged Maori men still die earlier than poor Pakeha men. We do have to ask ourselves why maori people don't get access in the same way as others to particular health services which is probably more the reason why they are dying younger than the fact that they've got diabetes.

You're not resiling from the position?

No we're not resiling from the position but we do acknowledge that Pacific people and poor Pakeha should be included in that equation.

You define your policy as tikanga [custom/ practice] based on kaupapa [themes or values]?

Tikanga can mean many things to many people but tikanga isn't just on the marae; tikanga is about living your life, how you live your life. I remember when we were at Pakaitore and we were told we were acting against the law of the land. For many of us we hadn't broken the law because we live our lives based on tikanga, so tikanga is not part of a protocol.

Is it hard to change that mindset.

It has been actually. It's been quite hard to constantly think kaupapa and tikanga. I've grown up in a Maori environment and a Maori world, but outside the gates of that world everything that I've been involved in has been western and sometimes it can quite difficult to constantly reaffirm and restore your thinking back to kaupapa and tikanga. But it's been absolutely wonderful I think. You can see it in the faces particularly of our older people and our very young. Our young people love that whole idea of the restoration of values and practices.

The Maori Party says it would represent the Maori Treaty partner in Parliament for the first time. Can it claim to speak for all Maori?

Nobody can claim to speak for all Maori, but at least it would be an elected Maori voice in a parliamentary environment. Nobody ever speaks for all Maori, no one could claim to. But if the Maori Party was successful in winning the seven Maori seats then I think they could say that they are the elected voice. The real voice of the people is back on the marae, it's back at home. But they would be a voice in this particular environment.

So would you envisage even if National and Labour formed a coalition of which you were not a part that you would still have a role as a partner?

The most important role we would play is to be the most powerful advocate that we can be, to continue to raise the issues that our people put to us in this environment, to speak with their voice on political matters.

Given the party's desire to be culturally inclusive, can it actually claim to represent just the Maori Treaty partner?

I think that's a really good question, it's a really hard one. We've never had the opportunity to show that we can be inclusive, that we can walk alongside of other peoples, that we can manaaki [respect] others. We see the Maori Party as an opportunity to basically put in place what we think the Treaty wanted. And the Treaty was that our people wanted other people to come here, they wanted to welcome them here, they could see there was huge value in them being here. But we've never really had the opportunity to walk that talk. So in bringing other people along with us, we're trying to see the Treaty in action in terms of what our people's perception of it was.

Do you have any concerns that you are spreading your net too widely, isn't there still a something of kiwi vs iwi debate within the party?

That's really interesting because we've never used that analogy, it's starting to reflect the National line. I don't think there's every been an iwi vs kiwi argument in the party. I don't know what that argument is about. We are here to be inclusive, but we are unashamedly Maori-led.

People think you are quite radical, but you voted against the civil unions bill. Is there quite a strong conservative streak to you?

There must be. I've never considered myself to be a radical, I stand up for the things I absolutely believe in. I'm not afraid to make the hard calls when I have to. I'm certainly not anti-gay, I'm certainly not someone who would be considered to be voting with the Destiny Church or to have that line. In actual fact, and I'll probably upset everybody with this line too, but if I had have known when I married George the rights that he would get as my next on kin to property, to make decisions that maybe the domain of my own family I probably would not have got married. I don't believe relationships should be legislated for. In my family my children, my brothers and sisters my parents are my closest kin, not my husband. Quite frankly I felt the legislation was a bit of a smokescreen for what really is a marriage. If people want to be married, and they have a right to be married, then that's what the legislation should have said rather than trying to dress it up as a civil union.

Would you have supported gay marriage then?

As far as I'm concerned if people want to have a legal relationship with one another they can have it without necessarily being married.

Do you have any empathy for the position taken by probation officer Josie Bullock who refused to sit behind the men at a work powhiri?

Of course I don't have any empathy. When I'm in other cultural settings I follow the tikanga of that occasion. If I didn't feel that this was something that would impinge on my rights I wouldn't go. I just believe that when in Rome you do as Romans do and if I was in a cultural setting I would be respectful to to the occasion no matter who or what it was.

Do you believe you are going to win the seven Maori seats or is Labour going to crank up its well-funding organisation.

Yes well it's very hard to compete with the resources of the Labour Party, but I still believe we will win the seven Maori seats.

What of Don Brash's pledge to eradicate the Maori seats?

I just think it's a lot of rhetoric. I'd be interested to know if it's their actual party's policy. I think it's all about votes and that's the tragedy of it. I think New Zealanders have the right to be treated with a damn sight more respect. Politicians underestimate the intelligence of people out there. I do believe New Zealanders do want a new way forward, they are sick and tired of the politics of division and we're looking to them."

Do you enjoy being an MP?

It's not my favourite occupation. I do it because I was asked to by our people and I try to do it the best way I can. But I wouldn't say that I enjoy this environment. I find the House incredibly difficult and I find the behaviour incredibly racist. But I'm very excited about the Maori Party moving forward.

I don't intend to stay in politics for a long time. I'm very excited by the calibre of the candidates we have got, they're assertive, strong candidates who basically have done the hard yards before they got here. I'm excited, I'm nervous too of course, you can't help but be.

Are you suggesting this will be your last three years?

Well, I would like it to be my last three years and we will probably make that decision closer towards then. I'd always intended to leave Parliament in actual fact at the end of this term. It was never my intention to stay any longer, I believe you can stay too long and you begin to think you are all powerful and someone else owes you, but they don't and I'm really proud of the numbers of our young Maori people who are coming through and I want to move over and make way for them.

I'd always decided in my mind that I came in here to do particular things, I've done the best that I can while I've been here. But I've got some other priorities. I've got a granddaughter that we're raising who I don't see enough of and who I feel that I owe a lot more to in my twilight years.

Will that put voters off, the thought of you retiring?

We'll see how things go, how bedded down things are after three years. But this political party is not about individuals. It is about the kaupapa and it is about the opportunity that we can have a strong independent voice. The Maori Party is about our people's independence. We cannot continue to rely on the state to do for us, to act for us to tell us how to be. We have to stand on our own two feet and no one else can do it for us. It means that whanau in its widest sense have to come together to support one another. Our job is to see the resources are available to help them to do it.