Stephen Franks' leaked memo

To: ACT Caucus, Peter McCardle, Roger Styles, Alan Hitchens

From: Stephen Franks

Date: 19 December 2003

Subject: "Who are the Suckers?" or "Maori as Victims of the Left?

Roger Styles' figures suggest that the Maori 15 per cent of the population are consuming in state services and money three times the tax they pay. They will confirm many New Zealanders' suspicions.

This could be a fantastic story for getting across a positive ACT message.

Equally, it could be a great story for attracting only the mean spirited and fearful who want to demonise Maori.

If we use it wrongly we could get huge immediate attention yet no extra votes. The bearers of long suspected bad tidings might get kudos for telling it like it is. But from experience the more likely net effects could be

* To be reviled, as messengers of unwelcome news.

* To see the data become part of the folklore after a month or two yet we would be forgotten as the source.

In other words we could be simply a channel for bad news and derive no benefit from the work done.

We can use Roger's good work so people learn more about us and our policies. It is of no benefit to us to have them learn more about Maori alone. We should use it to startle attention out of some of the audiences we want to attract, not to confirm the impressions of people who will probably vote Winston or Tamihere anyway.

I suggest :

* That the story be salami sliced to run for days.

* That it be used in each of the relevant portfolios, in a planned sequence

* They would include, Finance, Maori Affairs, Education, Social Welfare, Health and Employment.

* That it be related to government claims to the contrary, and in particular to the spin around the Te Puni Kokiri economic study released earlier this year, and the criticisms on it of the disabilities on Maori land holding

* That it be withheld until say the third week of January when Ministers, their officials, and commentators will again be readily available.

The story could fizzle if it fails to become contentious. We might get good takeup while the government is shut down, but TV may find it hard to get opposing spokesmen. If so it could duck part of the story or close it down early for fear of not satisfying the statutory duty to be balanced. They could start out hostile to the story out of simple political correctness.

The story must not feed allegations that we are gratuitously 'exulting in bad news about Maori'.

It should:

* appear as the culmination of a carefully planned, comprehensive piece of policy analysis

* show we are driven by a desire to find solutions.

* insist that the government confront the hopelessness of its policy

* say what we would do to change things.

By way of example:

* In my portfolio I would first focus the story on the spin from TPK around the release of the misleading NZEIR study on the Maori economy earlier this year.

* The NZEIR has a number of carefully coded messages for Maori, and stern criticisms of current government policy. Each of us can extract those relevant to our areas and give a simple uncoded translation.

* For example the study points to serious problems for Maori enterprise in the current land holding patterns. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is described as unsuitable for Maori development.

* There are passages about governance that do no confront the really serious problem of corruption and lack of a "conflict of interest" consciousness among Maori leadership.

* There are some fairly straightforward words about the many soft tertiary qualifications for which Maori are signing up.

* There is no blunt statement anywhere about the impact of welfare upbringings on the work and savings ethic of young Maori.

I suggest an overall theme or tone and flavour to our releases. They might regret that Maori have been seduced into taking instead of making. They are being corrupted and degenerated by welfare. Muriel, for example can call on Tamihere, citing some of his recent stuff, to ask what he has been doing in Cabinet to oppose Cullen's plans announced today to make welfare even more generous, and to replace sticks with carrots.

Rodneys' drafts already show how trivial Treaty settlements are, in comparison to the annual transfers. This says that Pakeha should not be salving their consciences about the destructive effects of welfare by feeling that the Treaty assets will change things.

We should call Clark in to this, linking the "closing the gaps" spending and seabed and foreshore appeasement, with her much praised political "management".

They may be an objection to identifying this kind of failure on a race basis at all. That is to allow the enemy sanctuary. They have made our politics tribal. If we refuse to attack the consequences, and identify the political dynamic they can cement it in.

This kind of failure can be measured on a race basis because the government has chosen to identify race as if it explained and caused relative failure. It is government failure. We are getting more of what we subsidise and excuse and foster. Labour's hatred of competition, its excusing and tolerating of crime, its interference with the natural disciplinary powers of schools, parents and other institutions, its support of failing schools to avoid upsetting teacher unions, of course hurt the least capable in society first. Maori politicians, and their sponsors, Clark, Cullen and Wilson use high taxes and benefits to disguise the collapse of self-reliance and contribution from Maori families.

I think a way of giving bite to the theme is to identify with Maori. Future generations of Maori will revile their current leadership. They have used their political clout inside Labour to turn their followers into humiliated welfare dependents. We can preemptively acknowledge that Pakeha faced with the same temptations and the same excuses for non-contributing develop the same failure habits.

Fraud and corruption in Maori organisations is exactly what we would expect anywhere money gets handed out for nothing, where accountability is excused out of political correctness, where people are promoted on a representative basis rather than on merit. Ordinary common sense tells us we will get these "outcomes" from all the government "interventions". Think of the age old sayings - "Easy come, easy go" , "Rags to rags in three generations". You can't hold on to wealth without the habits and skills acquired in the course of gaining it.

It might be handy to brief one or two Maori prepared to say something supportive. At the least we should hope someone might stoke the flames of by saying we're raising an issue that needs addressing. For example, Tahu Potiki and Sir Tipene O'Regan and Alan Duff might get an advance copy or brief in the hope that they might be willing to partially endorse us.

Stephen Franks