Act Party: manifesto commitments:omnibus excerpt
ACT Party – Māori focused matters
The ACT Party has nineteen policy statements, and Māori interests are captured almost exclusively in one of these, entitled the ‘One Law for All’ policy proposal. (The only other place the word Māori appears is under Welfare where ACT notes the high numbers of Māori on welfare.) The ‘One Law for All’ proposal is, as the name suggests, a proposition that Māori-focused representative interventions are not required, and should be abolished from legislative frameworks at all levels. For example, removal of Māori electorate seats in parliament, no Māori-wards at local government level, removal of Māori consultation requirements from the Resource Management Act, etc.
Although not accepting Māori-specific representative mechanisms, the ACT Party does acknowledge the existence of Treaty of Waitangi grievances, and supports the acceleration of Treaty compensation processes. (We note other parties tend to speak of Treaty settlements not ‘compensation’ per se, in recognition of the low value of settlements relative to the scale of the grievances, and value of assets lost through Treaty breaches.)
The ACT Party notes significant disparities between Māori and non-Māori in the social sector, and suggests the solutions to these are increased choice for Māori, in order to access better services. Increased choice, however, does not extend to Māori language in schools, which Party Leader, Don Brash, yesterday dismissed as a policy option.
In our assessment, the ACT Party policy positions on Māori interests are reflective of two bygone eras. First, limited Māori-specific input on social representative structures is reflective of the 1950s and 1960s when Māori had little input in macro policy developments, such as urban planning. Subscribers familiar with Māori history will be aware this was a period of intensive (and facilitated) Māori urbanisation, and decision-makers (non-Māori) deliberately elected a Māori ‘pepper-popping’ housing approach. This period is now acknowledged as a central disconnecting point for Māori communities, contributing significantly to the breakdown of inter-generational Māori language transmission, and a loss of iwi and marae identity amongst Māori at that time. Given those types of historic negative outcomes, it is difficult to see any usefulness for Māori in foregoing representative models of decision-making in today’s context.
The second aspect of ACT’s policy position is to create ‘market-choice’ in the social sector. This is reflective of social policies attempted in the mid-1980s. Again, the historic experience for Māori during this time period was significant social upheaval with negative social policy outcomes, such as record (25%) Māori unemployment. There is no evidence that market-choice at that time improving Māori wellbeing – in fact the results of this policy era lead to a ‘closing the gaps policy in the mid-1990s. As an example, research shows ‘choice-theory’ in the school lead to school selection of students and ‘white-flight’, leading to resources actually being shifted away from Māori – and consequently less educational provisions for Māori communities (and ultimately educational results for Māori learners did not improve). Again then, the historic experience of this type of policy framework does not demonstrate policy advancements for Māori.
Although we have tried to highlight potential positives and negative aspects within the policy framework of all parties reviewed, in the case of ACT it is challenging to see any degree of responsiveness to Māori collective issues based on historic evidence or stated Māori aspiration. This is, of course, part of the political positioning of this party, on the political right, with a focus on individuals (not groups), and a focus on market driven choice (not targeted interventions).
From week ending 11 November 2011