MANA and resistance to the next National government

September 28, 2014 by

Protest

Fightback is committed to the MANA Movement, however we are still in the process of assessing the 2014 electoral defeat and future prospects. Grant Brookes (Fightback/MANA Poneke) offers one perspective.

Over the coming week, MANA leaders Hone Harawira and Annette Sykes will tour the country, talking with members and supporters about where next for the Movement after the election.

The media called it a “landslide victory” for National, a “catastrophe” for the opposition. John Key was labeled a “rock star politician”, said to be “even more popular” than he was three years ago.

National won 61 seats in Parliament – enough to govern alone, based on the provisional count.

The election turnout, at 77 percent, appeared slightly higher than the 74 percent of registered electors who cast a vote in 2011. But fewer people registered to vote this time. So the percentage of the population who voted in 2014 is much the same as in 2011. That was the lowest election turnout since 1887.

Of the 3.4 million eligible voters in New Zealand, just over a million of them wanted three more years of National. But over 2.3 million – 70 percent of the people – didn’t vote for that.

John Key does not have the support of the majority of New Zealanders. And popular opposition to National appears to be solidifying.

There is the potential for resistance, leading to a change of Government in 2017. Where will the resistance come from?

John Key has already outlined his three primary targets for the next National Government: “the economy, reforming the education system and changing the New Zealand flag” (http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/keys-priorities-economy-education-and-the-flag-2014092209)

According to the New Zealand Election Survey, non-voters are predominantly young, poor and Brown. John Key’s talk of focusing on “the economy” is code for helping the rich get richer. The suffering of the million non-voters will increase.

Four years of confrontation over national standards, Novopay, charter schools and executive principals have turned teachers ¬– especially those belonging to the NZEI union – into implacable opponents of this Government. Key’s plan for further “education reform” is a recipe for even greater tension. Lining up ACT pup David Seymour for the associate education portfolio could be one provocation too many.

Key has also signaled “the biggest shake-up of the State Sector so far”. This will mean renewed privatisation and attacks on public sector workers. So teachers could be joined in struggle by other groups – like nurses, who enter negotiations for a new national collective agreement in November.

The coalition deal with the Māori Party will ensure that some of the lucrative fruit carved off the state sector will go to Māori service providers, widening the rift between the favoured few around the tribal elites and the sufferers at the flaxroots.

New anti-union laws set to be rammed through before the end of the year will deepen the divide between the Government and organised workers. Workers could expect to have to fight for their rights after Saturday’s election, said Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly.

Key has also said he also expects rapid progress on signing the unpopular Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) after the election. The Petroleum Summit in Auckland next week is expected to announce new offshore oil drilling projects.

These could also be flash points for opposition. But in reality, this National Government is propped up by a minority of the population which is cocooned from the realities facing wider New Zealand society. The disconnect between the Government and most of the people means that resistance could emerge from just about anywhere.

As a smokescreen for all these unpopular moves, John Key will surf a wave of patriotism around the Gallipoli centenary next year to launch his great distraction – a referendum on the New Zealand flag. On issues like this, even small groups of socialists with clear ideas – like those in Fightback, the International Socialist Organisation and Socialist Aotearoa – can play an important role in stopping the opposition from being side-tracked.

To translate into long-term change, however, the struggles which emerge will need to connect with other streams of resistance. And they will need to articulate viable alternatives, as well as protesting against the Government’s agenda. This means that the struggles will need connections back into the political arena.

Three days after the election, MANA leader Hone Harawira wrote to his supporters, “The next three years will be tough, with National continuing to pass laws to make the rich even richer, destroy our environment, attack beneficiaries, and make even more families homeless. On top of that you can expect to see more attacks on Maori as people interpret the win as a license for Maori bashing.

“Unfortunately I don’t see anyone in the Opposition having the balls to lead the fight back. Sure there will be ‘outrage’ and ‘condemnation’, but after the big talk… nothing.”

Labour MPs have already shown they’re more interested in scrapping amongst themselves for the top job than in taking the fight to National.

“That’s why MANA is so important”, added Hone, “and why you are so important, because unless MANA campaigns for these issues and stands up for those who are vulnerable, the people will suffer.”

It was a call for MANA activists to be active in the resistance. This will not only reduce suffering. Visibly identifying with the struggles will allow MANA to publicly voice alternatives, and rebuild public support. The call will be well received. Most of us came to MANA from the Movement, and we are at home there.

But we shouldn’t just be resisting National’s agenda. MANA members should also represent our kaupapa by working in positive programmes to help the community, from volunteering in school breakfast schemes to teaching free classes in Te Reo Maori. Many of the million non-voters have switched off from “politics” to such an extent that they won’t notice our flags on protests and picket lines. But they might notice the MANA t-shirt worn by a volunteer over the counter at the soup kitchen.

Finally, where does this leave the Internet MANA alliance?

When MANA members agreed to a temporary alliance with the Internet Party, lasting until six weeks after the election, we accepted that it was gamble, but one worth taking for the chance to expand our appeal beyond Māori and a radical fringe and to get more MPs. The gamble did not pay off. The election result has badly damaged the public image of the alliance. It could be beyond repair.

If the perspective for MANA over the next three years is to turn “back to the streets” – joining the resistance and embedding ourselves in our communities – it is unclear how well-equipped the Internet Party is to join us.

Some Internet Party members have already joined MANA, including leading candidates like Roshni Sami and Miriam Pierard. But the party as a whole does not have the same roots or experience in struggle.

Laila Harré has said that the Internet Party will hold a general meeting to consider its future in the next few weeks. She said all options were open – including winding up the party.

If the Internet Party disappears, or decides not to join MANA in returning to the streets, I hope we will welcome any new friends willing to support our kaupapa.

Filed Under: Mana Party

Employment Relations Amendment Bill a provocation of organised labour

September 26, 2014 by

Petone-Fairness-at-Work-Rally

By Vita Bryant (Fightback Poneke/Wellington).

As National heads into its third term of Government, almost foremost on its legislative agenda will be the implementation of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which has already passed its second reading.

This Bill is no more than a thinly-veiled attack on workers, unions and minimum labour standards, and contains a number of provisions that significantly undermine the employment security of the most vulnerable members of our workforce.

The first of these is the removal of an employer’s obligation to conclude collective bargaining in good faith unless there is a genuine reason not to, instead allowing employers to declare that bargaining has reached a “stalemate” and to seek a determination from the Employment Relations Authority that the bargaining has been concluded. Even Peter Dunne, United Future MP and National Party sycophant, raised concerns that such a removal will allow employers to “go through the motions” of collective bargaining without any real intention to form an agreement. This provision discourages the formation of new collective agreements, and has a very real potential to allow employers to claw back the hard won gains fought for by unions through collective bargaining.

Secondly, the Bill removes the provision that new employees are covered by any collective agreement already negotiated for their work for the first 30 days of their employment, a provision expressly designed to give new employees fewer rights than contained in the existing collective agreement, as well as making it more difficult for new employees to understand what is being offered by that collective agreement. Over time, a situation where new employees accept lesser conditions and wages than unionised employees performing the same work incentivises employers to a “race to the bottom” in terms of the wages and conditions offered to each new employee.

Furthermore, the amendments allow employers to opt-out of multi-employer collective agreements where conditions and standards are uniform across workforces (for example DHBs or franchises), removes employees’ rights to scheduled rest and meal breaks, and imposes restrictions on the right to strike, including allowing employers the ability to deduct pay for even small industrial actions. Finally, the Bill removes protections for vulnerable workers in workplaces where the employer frequently changes hands.

Contrary to the National Party’s view that the amendments merely provide ‘clarification’ and extend flexibility, the changes are in fact an effort to claw back workers’ few remaining rights. Both the Human Rights Commission Te Kahui Tika Tangata and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi have submitted that the Bill contravenes New Zealand’s international obligations to protect minimum employment standards and promote collective bargaining, putting us in a similarly embarrassing situation as when we became an international laughing stock with the passing of the Employment Contracts Act 1991.

Such a blatant disregard for international law highlights the true agenda of the recently re-elected National Party Government – union busting and the unapologetic erosion of our most basic labour rights. At a time when collective agreement coverage is at an all-time low (just 17.3% from 2005-2010), it is not merely scare-mongering to say that our Government wants to kill collective bargaining once and for all.

Pleading or appealing to National’s conscience will not stop these attacks. The power of unions and communities lies in taking collective action. Strikes hit union-busting governments and employers the hardest, and wider community mobilisation can also support unions.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

WGTN event: Where Next for the Left?

September 26, 2014 by

snowden key lying lie

A discussion of the post-election prospects for radicals, facilitated by Fightback.
6pm | Monday 28th September | 19 Tory St
[Facebook event]

Filed Under: Events

Where next: Reflections on a defeat

September 23, 2014 by

annette sykes internet mana road trip

Fightback is committed to the MANA Movement, however there are differences in opinion over the nature of the Internet MANA electoral campaign. Ben Peterson (Fightback/MANA Otautahi) offers one perspective.

In the wake of the crushing election defeat, the left in Aotearoa, particularly members of the MANA movement needs to take careful lessons. The Internet Party alliance was a gamble,and it did not pay off. Being open about that is important. But recognising failures cannot be used as an excuse to withdraw into sectarian politics and practices.

The IP alliance was an attempt to share MANA’s political alternative to new layers of people. MANA’s message has a loyal following, but one that is politically isolated from much of the population. The alliance was an attempt to break out of this isolation and to build our movement for change. Unfortunately, this attempt failed. While the vote did slightly increase, and some activists did join Mana who might not have done otherwise, it was not enough. Dotcom was portrayed as a force that discredited MANA’s message. While MANA did not water down its politics, the perception was that a ‘deal’ had been done. This perception combined with the pressure of the entire political establishment combined to defeat Hone in Te Tai Tokerau, and the movement has lost its seat in parliament.

This is a bitter failure, and it is one that we need to reflect on.

But this cannot be used as an excuse to unnecessarily withdraw. Some socialists will use this as an excuse to turn back easier fields, such a small campus groups or activist niches. But this leaves us in exactly the same place as we find ourselves after this failed electoral experiment. One road was not successful in reaching new people and building our movement, the other does not even try to. Both roads will fail to build sustained and articulate movements for change.

Learning the lessons from this campaign will mean doing more, not less. It will mean building stronger and politically clearer projects of the left. The mainstream media played a central role in undermining MANA and distorting our message. We need to build our own media projects to fight the battle of ideas and build our pro people alternatives.

Our pro people message is best shown when people themselves express it. Building movements and taking to the streets articulates the strength of ordinary people. Activists will have to build stronger organisation in our unions and communities. Building larger organisations of fight engaged in struggle can help to build the audience for radical ideas.

The campaign for InternetMANA did show that this is possible. The attendance generated at the roadshows, and the increase in volunteers willing to work for the movement shows there is a basis for an alternative. In hindsight, it was naive to think that this could be translated into an electoral challenge effectively overnight.

But if we can organise and build on these seeds, organisationally and politically, it can be a stepping stone for struggles in the coming months and years. I think socialists need to collectively think about how to respond to these challenges and how we are going to work more effectively, together, going forward.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Establishment combines to kick Hone out of parliament

September 21, 2014 by

hone_harawira_arrested_mt_wellington_surrounded_by_police_N2

An initial reaction to the 2014 General Election results from Ian Anderson (Fightback). More analysis to come.

This election was a disaster for the left. Apparently a landslide victory for National, non-votes again matched National votes, underlining the lack of a convincing alternative.

Labour and the Greens lost votes.

The biggest tragedy was Internet MANA’s failure to win any seats as a fighting opposition. Internet MANA was an electoral alliance, designed in part to engage tau iwi and widen the party vote for MANA’s project of rangatiratanga for te pani me te rawakore (formed through betrayals by successive Labour and National governments).

However the electoral campaign was fought and lost not in the party vote campaign, but in MANA’s home turf, Hone’s electorate of Taitokerau.

The establishment parties combined forces to kick Hone out of parliament. Labour chose to run a hard campaign in Taitokerau – happily backed by the Nats, New Zealand First, the Maori Party.

This was the culmination of a  generalised establishment smear campaign against Internet Mana and everyone associated with it. The ‘Mood of the Boardroom’ was that Harawira and Harre are “dangerous radicals,” which as ISO’s Andrew Tait observed, is an endorsement from a socialist perspective. Just as in the Scottish referendum, the boardroom-aligned parties combined to strike fear and terror into voters about the dangers of an alternative which threatened their power.

Make no mistake; the establishment attacked Kim Dotcom because he threatened big studios’ business models, because he backed social democrats and an indigenous-led movement, because he led youth in chanting “Fuck John Key.”

However, the association with Dotcom was also discrediting for legitimate reasons. Dotcom is a profiteer and a misogynist, a man who pays his Filipino workers less than the minimum wage. For any tactical advantages the ‘sugar hit’ seemingly offered, it also sent signals that MANA was engaging in the same old dirty politics. On election night, Dotcom apologised for the impact of his association on MANA.

Those of us who seek to forge a transformative movement of the people have a lot of reflection to do, and a lot of work to do. It was never just about winning seats, and many who hoped for better results knew that perfectly well. Liberation was never going to come through a higher vote, but rather through a combined struggle in every sector. On election day the movement lost a fighter in parliament, but as the only MP arrested fighting for public housing, his mana does not depend on a seat.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

WGTN: March for free education

September 19, 2014 by

reclaim hub

We are students, university staff, and members of the community. Whichever parties form a government after September 20th, we are demanding an end to corporatisation of education.

We demand:
* Fully funded public education
* A Universal Student Allowance, cancellation of all existing student debt
* Bridging courses and support for people entering tertiary education
* Living Wage for all staff
* Student and staff representation in planning education policy
* A move away from funding primarily targeted towards marketable research, towards funding all socially valuable forms of education and research

Meeting at the VUW Campus Hub for a student and staff forum, before marching onwards (to parliament? National Party offices? Ministry of Education? Participants will determine our final destination).

Event called by Reclaim Vic, endorsed by Tertiary Education Union.

Campus Hub | 1pm | Friday 26th September
[Facebook event]

Filed Under: Events

Body Politics (a poem by Sionainn Byrnes)

September 18, 2014 by
james connolly

Mural in Belfast, photo taken by Sionainn Byrnes.

Poem by Sionainn Byrnes (UC Femsoc, Fightback).

Trigger warning: references to incest

What am I? On A3 sheets of recycled pulp mashed new
Furry ended felts and snapped crayons strewn across the room
I am opportunity, I am hope, I am green ribbons in auburn pigtails

I am marital glue – pasty, gelatinous, salty
I am a human born of expectations failed and fresh
I am what hurting people produce in the temporary solace of their shared dysfunction
I am the love child of belts on skin, welts on skin, wounds melting when skins are shared

Unbeknownst to me I am ‘working class’
I am of terrorist descent
A portent of my danger in years to come
My shrapnel bombs now stained by menses
I am the red scare

And yet if I were a man, I would be more Irish than I am
Because strong men in Belfast – who share my blood – don’t mix real politics with feminism
Don’t take notes from insular girls who live a world away from reality
Green ribbons don’t make you one of us
And what’s this whakapapa you mention?
I hope you know that’s illegal here – cue laughs –
Plus we only speak Gaelic

And somehow I’m the hick?
Because I tried to speak in the language of your own politics
Lesson learnt: don’t try to make struggles and troubles equal

But I am still S – I – O – N – A – I – N – N, Sionainn to you
I am Gaelic on recycled pulp mashed new
True, that in New Zealand I have settled felt-like upon that paper with privilege
Even though spelling errors on official documents erase a part of me I am nonetheless lucky that my face matches the papery palette of power

White craft materials affirm me while sing-song lilts denounce my green ribbons, my lack of sexual inhibitions, my stories that stain the blanket men in ways they never experienced in Long Kesh

I dive into murals, into barbed wire, into taxi drivers who seem only to know the directions to Shankill Road, into the bed of my cousin’s friend Cormac
In order to make whakapapa relevant to me, to them
In order to retrieve something that was lost in emigration
In order to settle the fuck a niece that ensured my mother would never return to Ireland, and which is apparently not illegal

My green ribbons, tied to my lack of sexual inhibitions, tied to my ideological positions

Fuck a niece informed my femininity
To my uncles I say: that’s what I mean by intersectionality
That’s what the return line from Christchurch to Singapore to Frankfurt to Dublin to Belfast means

As a side note I am constantly referred to as Siobhan because it is more recognizable than Sionainn
My mother is Siobhan
I am my mother, and all of her baggage
I am lost in transit
I am running out of room for presents

It occurs to me that I was a child when this began
I was opportunity, I was hope, I was green ribbons in auburn pigtails

What am I? On a pixelated screen some twenty years later
I am a well-read Frankenstina
I am a work in progress, regress, progress, regress
Future, past, Sionainn, Siobhan
Brick by brick by bricolage
Still pasty, glutinous, and salty, though, my glue, my mashed potato mortar, has not yet dried
I am a body politic, and a voice worth hearing in the right context, but one that is trying to learn its place and its limitations

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Mass Surveillance and Resistance

September 16, 2014 by

GCSB-WAIHOPAI-FIVE-EYES-750x400

Revelations just five days before the General Election pose serious questions about the nature of the New Zealand government. Whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed details about the GCSB and the rest of the spying apparatus. The revelations on spying reveal that it is a serious threat to the democratic rights of New Zealanders.

Snowden has provided evidence that the NZ ‘intelligence’ (spying) agency, the GCSB, is collecting ‘metadata’. This metadata is collected by the US National Security Agency (NSA) through wiretaps across countries, including in NZ. Records of emails, text messages and phone calls for all NZer’s is kept and can be accessed by X-KEYSCORE, a program developed by the USA.

As such, not only the government and NZ spy agencies, but international spooks, such as Snowden’s former workmates in Hawaii have access to people’s online information.

These revelations are important on several fronts. Firstly, Prime Minister John Key has repeatedly said that mass surveillance is not taking place. Like Dirty Politics, this information raises serious questions about how honest PM Key has been to the NZ people.

Secondly, the GCSB engaged in programs that they knew to be illegal. The law was changed to expand the GCSB’s powers, but this was done after the fact.

This spying hasn’t been used to stop terrorist threats. The surveillance state in NZ hasn’t prevented any terrorist acts. But these powers or similar actions have been used to smash political threats (the Urewera Raids) and economic threats (Dotcom) to the status quo. So while as individuals, the collection of metadata raises concerns about where our personal information may end up, it has documented ramifications for our democratic rights.

Hager’s Dirty Politics showed that National’s strategy is to maintain power through whatever means necessary and increase the influence of big corporations. This right wing agenda seeks to minimise the amount of people involved in politics. National take their place in a long history of big money and their capitalist parliamentary formations working to make everyday people feel disempowered and disconnected from mainstream politics.

Responding to this is necessary. An important part of the fight against the surveillance state will be removing elected representatives. The September 20 election is an important opportunity to both remove the Key government from power, and to elect important fighters into parliament, such as Annette Sykes, John Minto and Hone Harawira.

Giving John Key the arse will be an important start, but it will leave the GCSB in place. Even if we succeed in removing the GCSB, it won’t stop the corporations and monied interests that they serve. But by building the movement against these injustices we can build a power that counters the 1%.

As Laila Harre said at the Moment of Truth, we need to go ‘house by house and street by street’, and convince people to demand greater protections on our democratic rights. When so much power is concentrated in the hands of so few, behind closed doors, only the power of the people can challenge it.

See also

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Mass surveillance and sexual violence: The difference between Snowden and Assange

September 16, 2014 by
Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden: whistleblowers persecuted for exposing imperialist abuses

Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden: whistleblowers persecuted for exposing imperialist abuses

Last night’s ‘Moment of Truth’ event in Auckland, called together by Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom, revealed the extent of mass surveillance in Aotearoa/NZ. Our government, in complicity with a transnational regime headed by the US, collects extensive personal data through information technology. As seen in the 2007 Urewera Raids, governments will use this information to justify attacks on ordinary people.

The ‘Moment of Truth’ event brought Dotcom together with whistle-blower Edward Snowden, Wikileaks founding member Julian Assange, and journalist Glen Greenwald.

Although Snowden, Dotcom and Assange are all sought by authorities, the nature of the charges are different. Copyright and espionage laws are largely designed to help governments and corporations protect their power; sexual violence, in the case of Assange, is itself an abuse of power.

We can walk and chew gum, opposing both surveillance and sexual violence. Fightback supports exposing mass surveillance, however we argue it is not necessary to give a platform to Julian Assange. These cases need to be distinguished.

Edward Snowden
Snowden is a whistle-blower, known for leaking classified information from the US National Security Agency (NSA). He is sought by the US government for espionage and theft of government property, currently residing in Russia.

For socialists, the real crime is not Snowden’s betrayal of his imperialist masters, but the international system of violence and surveillance he helped expose. Betraying this system is a necessary, even heroic act.

At the ‘Moment of Truth’ event, Snowden revealed that the NSA has bases in Auckland and Northland. Progressives in Aotearoa/NZ welcome Snowden (and journalist Glenn Greenwald) in helping us expose the complicity of our government in imperialist abuses.

Kim Dotcom
Kim Dotcom is a German-Finnish resident of Aotearoa/NZ, the founder of file-sharing business Megaupload. In early 2012, Dotcom was arrested for copyright infringement at the behest of the US government.

Dotcom describes this experience of state repression as a politicising event. In opposition to imperialist agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and the Five Eyes agreement, Dotcom found unity with social democratic and radical indigenous forces, forging the basis of the Internet Mana electoral alliance.

Dotcom is no angel. He’s a profiteer (although Internet Mana’s policy process has led to Dotcom advocating taxes on the rich), and was accurately described by Internet Party gender spokesperson Pani Farvid as a “product of sexist culture.”

As phrased by Jacobin Magazine’s Gavin Mueller, “it’s so easy to hate Kim Dotcom that you almost forget that the US convinced the New Zealand government to send in an assault brigade, bereft of a valid warrant but outfitted with automatic weapons and helicopters, to arrest a Finnish citizen at the demand of Hollywood studios.”

Progressives in Internet Mana unite with Dotcom around shared demands, particularly opposing corporate copyright laws and transnational state repression.

Julian Assange
Assange is a founding member of Wikileaks, an organisation whose leaking of state secrets have helped in exposing international imperialist abuses. He is also sought for questioning related to charges of sexual violence.

Some accuse the women involved of being CIA ‘honey traps,’ or the authorities of manufacturing charges.

However, the facts of the case are well-established, admitted by Assange’s legal defence. Assange had sex with a woman while she was sleeping, and had sex without a condom when requested to wear a condom. These are violations of consent.

We don’t have to trust the state to believe women’s testimony of being assaulted.

Assange should not be given a platform at progressive events. This discredits the movement against neoliberalism and mass surveillance.

See also

Filed Under: Civil Liberties, Oppression & Liberation

Feed the kids, end the hunger system

September 10, 2014 by

Feed the Kids logo

Internet MANA recently released its policy platform for eliminating poverty. Feed The Kids is a key plank. This article by Grant Brookes, originally published by Fightback in March 2013, offers a socialist perspective on feeding the kids and ending the hunger system.

One in five New Zealand children were living in poverty in 2011, says the Ministry of Social Development. Other organisations put the figure at one in four, or 270,000 kids.

The Ministry of Health reports that over 20 percent of households with school-age children do not have enough food.

Over 1.8 million food items were distributed in schools last year by KidsCan – just one of a growing number of charities now feeding hungry kids.

In 2011, KidsCan also launched New Zealand’s first ever aid programme for children living in this country.

In January 2013 the Variety children’s charity became the second aid programme, with a new scheme allowing donors to sponsor a local child for $35 a month.

The facts are stark. The plight of children in Aotearoa today is an indictment of capitalism. The time for government action to “Feed the Kids” is now.

MANA Party leader Hone Harawira has a private member’s bill before parliament to deliver just that.

His Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill (or “Feed the Kids Bill”, for short) would ensure government-funded meals are available to every child in decile 1 and 2 schools.

The Bill is being supported by a wide range of groups, from education and health sector unions, to child welfare advocates, Christian social service agencies and the government’s own Children’s Commissioner.

With backing from the Labour Party, the Greens, the Maori Party, NZ First and independent MP Brendan Horan, it is currently just one vote short of the numbers needed for it to pass its first reading in parliament.

Yet MANA’s Feed the Kids Bill also has its critics. Right-wing opponents of the Bill say it’s the job of the parents, not the government, to make sure kids are fed. They say that if the state provides food it lets bad parents off the hook when they spend their money on “booze and smokes” instead.

Some of the harshest critics have been Maori.

Yet in the pre-European Māori world, looking after children wasn’t just the job of the parents. Men and women described each other’s children as “ā mātou tamariki” (the children of us many), as distinct from “ā māua tamariki” (the children of us two).

This shared parenting was based on shared resources. Extended family groups often had their own plot in communal gardens and their own places to fish and hunt. They also laid claim to particular trees.

The idea that the mother and father alone are to blame when children go hungry only came to Aotearoa with the introduction of capitalism.

In a repeat of the “enclosures of the commons” which had dispossessed European peasants, colonisation turned shared Māori land, natural resources and taonga into private property. Ownership was quickly transferred to the Crown, wealthy colonists and corporations.

Responsibility for raising children was transferred in turn to the biological parents, especially the mother, so the rest of the community could be put to work for the Pākehā capitalists.

Today, many of those who blame the parents feel genuine concern for the kids. They may also appear to reflect “common sense” about the way the world works. But ultimately they are echoing the mouthpieces of capitalism.

Prime minister John Key, for instance, responded to a Salvation Army report which showed record demand for food parcels in 2011 by blaming individuals: “Anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills… Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”

However, the National government is also aware of substantial public support for state-funded meals for all kids in low decile schools.

So late last year they advanced their own counter-proposal. They announced a small increase in funding for businesses to deliver a little more, to a select few, through charities.

“The government has given money to KidsCan to fund more schools, and the government has worked with other commercial entities like Fonterra to run programmes in schools”, John Key said.

Fonterra attracted a lot of publicity for its milk in schools programme, trialled in Northland in 2011 and then rolled out across the country.

But Fonterra CEO Theo Spierings had spelled out the cold, capitalist logic behind the idea. It wasn’t about caring for kids at all:

“I don’t believe in charity”, said Spierings. “This is a business decision – it is really something like advertising and promotion…

New Zealand is the largest exporter of dairy products in the world, but at home, we’re not drinking as much milk as we used to…

Long term we want to have these kids on milk and not on carbonated drinks when they are 20 years old. And when they earn a salary, they go to the supermarket and buy our milk”.

The effect of leaving child welfare to the whims of “business decisions” was felt by the Red Cross in 2011, when Countdown supermarkets withdrew their sponsorship and crippled that organisation’s school breakfast programme.

Fonterra is not alone in its ruthless approach to “advertising and promotion” to children. Sanitarium uses its sponsorship of the KickStart Breakfast programme to teach kids “breakfast patterns that can be replicated in the home” by buying their products.

They also use children to subtly reinforce the message that their “bad parents” are to blame. They tell kids to “appreciate how good they feel and pass this message on hopefully improving their families’ overall health”.

And by refusing to provide breakfasts and lunches on a universal basis to all, the charities favoured by the National government brand the needy kids at school with the stigma of poverty from a young age.

The efforts of all the charities combined, meanwhile, represent a drop in the ocean compared with the level of need. Around 150 schools, and thousands of children, are stuck on the waiting list for help from KidsCan. Many more schools don’t bother applying.

The greatest outrage, however, is that charities are aligning themselves politically with the National government.

KidsCan proclaims a “vision of a New Zealand where less fortunate children have an equal opportunity to make a positive contribution to society”. Yet KidsCan CEO Julie Chapman is publicly campaigning to discredit the idea of government-funded school meals available to all.

“As the Prime Minister said, not all children in low decile schools need a food programme”, she declared. “KidsCan supports the model of business, community and the government working together… as the most effective and financially prudent approach.”

The problem of New Zealand’s hungry children is not down to “bad parents”. As Donna Wynd of the Child Poverty Action Group puts it, “If a few children go hungry in the morning then that suggests a problem within individual families. If hundreds of children go hungry morning after morning then the problem is structural.”

Part of the structural underpinning of hunger is our low wage economy. For it’s not just the children of beneficiaries who are effected. Food banks and budgeting agencies report that the greatest increase in people seeking assistance is coming from working families.

So part of the solution requires stronger unions and more militant bargaining, to raise wages across the board. But there is also the need to struggle for a collective approach which supports parents, children, and those disabled by capitalism.

The clearest commentary on MANA’s Feed the Kids Bill has come from the organisation Auckland Action Against Poverty.

“As the Bill recommends, the provision of this food shouldn’t be left to charity but should be taxpayer funded”, says AAAP spokesperson Sarah Thompson. “This will ensure greater access country-wide and decrease the dependance on the whims and follies of individual charities and businesses…

Every time another charity picks up a ‘feed the kids’ or ‘provide them with shoes’ or other such programme, commendable though it may be from an individual point of view, it is another nail in the coffin of the welfare state…

In addition, in the larger scheme of things, there is an urgent need for decent job creation, a living wage and higher benefit payment rates.”

MANA is pursuing struggles like these in parliament, as well.

The main job now is to get the Feed the Kids Bill passed. But there are also questions for MANA leaders.
Their feedthekids.org.nz website says, “The Bill recognises the importance of charities, businesses, and school volunteers currently involved in food in schools programmes”.

But it’s become clear that these charities and businesses are not wholeheartedly committed to child welfare. As the history of Aotearoa suggests, a society which truly shares the care of children must also share ownership and control of land and resources, taking them back from businesses like Fonterra.

Filed Under: Mana Party
Next Page»