NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money

The recession is over!  Yeah right…

One of the responsibilities of a Niu Sila/New Zealand Government being voted in by the public, is for that Government to look at the bigger picture - to make policies, plan for the future, implement changes - things the average Sione and Sina have little power to do themselves.  Yet this Government, with a Palemia/Prime Minister who was a former market speculator, has had a hands off approach to the economy.  That right wing mantra: the market will correct itself.

Little comfort for the nearly 3000 people who lined up last week, to apply for only 150 jobs at a new supermarket opening in Manukau, Aukilani Saute/South Auckland.  It’s an amazing illustration of how people are desperate, and not just a few, but heaps of people!  The majority were Maori and Pacific Islanders.  But there were also Indians, Asians, Palagi/Pakeha/European, people from across Aukilani/Auckland.

What’s the Government’s response?  Do nothing.  Well that’s not totally true.  They appointed a Tax Working Group made up of rich Palagi males to recommend how to make the tax system more efficient.  Their recommendations?  Tax cuts for the rich, increase the goods and services tax (GST) which will affect the poor the most. 

Again I’m being unfair on my representations on the Government.  The Tax Working Group also suggested a capital gains tax which would be like most western nations, where land and property owners would be taxed for the appreciation in value of their land/property.  Of course that would be too bold a step for the Government to make in Niu Sila/New Zealand, a country obsessed with owning houses as their nest egg.  There’s no incentive to put savings into industries that create innovation, further capital, and more jobs.

So when the public see the Government reject the extreme recommendations of the Tax Working Group (such as the capital gains tax), it would make a GST rise and tax cuts for the rich look more palatable for the public to digest.

Meanwhile, 3000 people await to hear the outcome of their job interviews/applications.  For these people it’s about putting bread on the table, paying the bills to keep a roof over their heads, and getting from week to week.  While those entrusted to look at the bigger picture seem to also be looking out for the rich only.

UPDATE:  The Government announced it will raise the minimum wage by… wait for it… it’s a whopper… it will be raised by “25 CENTS!”  That’s right folks.  Meanwhile the struggling Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, will be spending $26 million on propaganda to charm the education sector of her unpopular National Standards policy! Hmmm….

It’s been an interesting political year for Labour. After losing the elections, former leader Helen Clark appeared to have saved the party from internal squabbling by immediately stepping down, allowing for the new leadership to step in. However, this new leadership: Phil Goff and Annette King, have struggled to make traction with the voting public.

This is in contrast to the ruling Government. There’s no denying that the current National Government is popular, if the regular polls are anything to go by. While there have been hiccups along the way, National has stayed ahead. More specifically, Palemia/Prime Minister John Key is very popular. With this backdrop, it must be very fustrating for the Labour leadership seeing that no matter what they do, or how hard they try, nothings happening for them.

Because of this, the Labour leadership has apparently been asking itself some hard questions, as they should. However, the answers the leadership have come up with, I’m not so sure on. A lot of commentators, including some in the Labour ranks, have decided the electoral defeat for Labour was a rejection by the Niu Sila public, of the progressive/social liberal movement. Apparently, the Niu Sila public had become more conservative, and if Labour were to gain support, it would need to contest for that conservative support from National.

Goff has always been from the “right” of the Labour party, and there are quite a few traditional Marxists, such as commentator Chris Trotter. Along with strategist Pagani, there has been a slow movement from the Labour leadership towards laying down the platform in which Labour will preach from in 2010 going into election year. Earlier rants this year by Trevor Mallard were early warning signs of things to come. And recently Goff made a speech entitled “Nationhood”, further building on that platform.

While the speech had some very good points, regarding the role of the Maori Party in coalition with the National Government, some of the wording was clearly catering for the conservative/red neck voters, such as “grievance industry” and “birthright to the beaches” populist slogans. Now Goff and his leadership/strategists are not stupid, and know they are engaging important substantial political and philosophical issues (ie identity politics vs class politics), they are also taking the opportunity to grab the superficial political points from the conservative/red neck vote at the same time.

Unfortunately, I think they will lose using either or both strategies. Political point scoring from the conservative/red neck vote can only get you so far on the left. While Trotter believes there are more social conservatives than social liberals on the left, I think that’s all too simplistic a view. I think I am sociall conservative in many ways. I am a Christian, but I am also Samoan. I have a tertiary education and currently hold a professional occupation, but my background is from a working class family. I have some socially conservative values, but I have some strong convictions against neo-liberal economic theories. And thus, this is the reality of post-modernism. There are many more layers to an onion, than just class or identity.

And so this is the basis of social liberalism/progressivism. Whether we are male/female, hetero/homosexual, indigenous/immigrant, religious/atheist, the social liberal/progressivism strives for a society that is inclusive of all peoples, where there is an equality amongst all irrespective of background.

For Trotter, he believes there must be a point where the left must decide that one of those identities must take precedence over other identities. For Trotter, and the Labour leadership, that is the proleteriat. The class warfare is the paramount battle to be fought. Identity politics, including Maori/indigenous politics is a distraction to that paramount battle. I believe he is wrong.

It is because of the broad Church of social liberalism/progressivism, that the left finds it’s strength. Unity through diversity. Unfortunately for Trotter and Co, they are banging the drums of divisiveness on the left. It seems as though the beat they are banging too includes: you’re either with us or against us. That might win some votes from the conservatives, but it will alienate so many more on the left. Furthermore, many of the social conservatives on the left, are in fact Maori or Pacific Island. Those on the left that disliked the “anti-smacking” law and civil union legislation were Polynesian. The working class proletariats are again, people of Polynesian back ground. Therefore it kinda only leaves the true red neck Pakeha voters to which Goff will appeal to the most.

But there is an important question that needs to be asked of identity politics. As a Samoan, I can associate myself with the struggle of our fellow Polynesian cousins, the Maori. With a similar worldview, but also our shared experience with colonialism, the struggle to have an indigenous outlook may not grate with Euro-centric theories such as Marxism, but also against aspects of liberalism. Some indigenous academics have often called human rights (a product of liberalism) as another form of colonisation. Not because there is an outright opposition to human rights, but because the authors of mainstream human rights come from a Euro-centric point of view, such as centering around the rights of the ‘individual’. From a communal culture such as Polynesian societies, this form of human rights does not fit well. And so these issues will need to be resolved, but that in no way means one must choose one identity over another.

Identity politics (along with Marxism/class struggle and environmentalism etc) are here to stay. The Maori Party is likely to be around for a while, and therefore so is identity politics.

Ok, that’s my political spiel for a while hehehe. So many more exciting things to post up about soon…

There are three recent Government policies and proposals that have been released in the last couple of days that illustrates what this new Government is all about.

1. Kiwisport programme. 

“Kiwisport delivers on the Government’s promise to put money directly into the frontline to help more New Zealand children participate in organised sport,” Palemia / Prime Minister John Key said.

But Niu Sila / New Zealand’s poorest high schools will lose thousands of dollars each year because of this Government policy billed as helping more children to play sport.  Principal Peter Gall said Papatoetoe High School’s funding for sports staff would fall from $41,000 to $33,000 because the new money was not linked to a school’s decile rating.  “It seems that we’re robbing the poor to pay the rich,” said Mr Gall, who is also president of the Secondary Principals Association.

It’s amazing that not only are the poorest in our society (including many Pacific peoples) are losing out, but this drive to get kids active seems a bit contradictory of the Government scrapping earlier this year the new law which stopped schools selling junk food!  On top of this the Government announced earlier this year they were pumping $60 million odd into private schools while gutting out funding for poorer schools, special needs facilities, adult education and night schools.  This doesn’t look like getting kids active, but more about moving more money towards the rich schools.

2. ACC changes

ACC (Government accident compensation scheme) changes by the Government mean from November 16 visiting the physio will cost patients at least $10-20 each time, now that the ACC has decided to cut costs.  Dr Smith said since the service became free, the number of clients in higher socio-economic areas using the service had “occurred disproportionately”.

But Jonathan Warren, president of the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists, says the move is “short sighted” and will end up costing the Government more money.  “These changes mean that some people who need treatment will not be able to afford it. If a patient doesn’t get early treatment for an injury, recovery can take much longer and their health may suffer in the long run,” Mr Warren said. “In some cases a simple problem, untreated, can lead to permanent disability … Untreated injuries will end up costing the Government much more in health and social dollars.”  A provision for those with lower incomes was argued by the society, Mr Warren said, but was unsuccessful.

Once again the changes in ACC will affect the poorest people in society.  Usually those that need the free service the most are those that can’t afford it, and are proned to injury due to their occupation (manual labour, construction).  While $10-$20 a visit may sound cheap, if you need to visit every week over 6 months, that’s a lot of money especially when you’re already trying to make ends meet.  As said above, more pacific people who can’t afford the visits will not go at all, leaving injuries untreated and causing more cost in the long run to our health system.

3. GST increases

Currently here in Niu Sila we pay 12.5% of goods and services in GST (goods and Services Tax).  A working group panel reviewing the tax system said lifting GST to 15 per cent would raise an extra $2.1 billion a year. That would rise to $6.2 billion if the tax was set at 20 per cent.  Raising the rate of GST could increase the economy’s efficiency if it was used to shift the mix of taxes away from income tax the group says.  “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households, especially in the short run,” the panel said.

Progressive tax systems mean those that earn more, pay more taxes.  This is based on one of the notions that a regressive system such as a flat tax rate would harm those on lower income than those on higher incomes.  Increasing GST is the same in that although everyone will be paying 15% on goods and services, those on a lower income have less discretionary funds to absorb that increase.

Once again, this proposed change will affect the poor and benefit the rich.  Robbing the poor to pay the rich.

Palemia / Prime Minister (PM) for Niu Sila / New Zealand,  John Key is leading a contingent of Niu Sila politicians, public figures and diplomats on a visit to the Pacific.  Yesterday in Samoa it was announced there would be a further advance of the unique “Treaty of Friendship” relationship between Samoa and Niu Sila.

PM John Key met Head of State, His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Efi before meeting with Palemia of Samoa, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi.  “During my discussions with Prime Minster Tuilaepa I outlined New Zealand’s intention to enhance our aid programme to Samoa,” John Key said.  “Development assistance to Samoa will increase from N$10.5 million (T$17.85m) to NZ$14 million (T$23.8m) this year.”

One of the people in the Government’s contingent is legendary All Black Michael Jones of Samoan descent.  One of the things he is famous for, other than his crunching tackles and superb athletic skills, was the fact that he was staunchly against playing on the Sabbath day, because of his Christian beliefs.  Yes, a son of Samoa.

Yesterday in nusipepa / newspapers here in Niu Sila there were questions posed by the media on whether Michael Jones would stand for National in the next general elections.  This isn’t something new as those rumours had been swirling around in last year’s elections.  While Jones did not stand for National last year, he publicly supported John Key during the campaign.  I’m sure National won over many Samoan votes since Jones’ public alignment.

As you may have gathered from reading my previous posts, I am of the centre-left in the political spectrum, as are the majority of Samoans here in Niu Sila.  The Labour political party, which occupies the centre-left, has had a traditionally large faithful Samoan following.  The majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) of Samoan or Pacific descent are from the Labour ranks.  The trade union movements which represented many Samoan / Pacific peoples are closely aligned with Labour.  Many Labour (and other centre left parties) MPs in the past were great advocates for Pacific peoples during the 1970s and 1980s.  The centre left always appeared to champion the less well off, the disadvantaged and the politically marginalised.

Therefore it’s no surprise that many if not the majority of Samoans are Labour or other centre-left supporters.  But the potential for Michael Jones to put his hand up for National may test the political allegiances with ethnic/cultural affiliations.

This isn’t the first Pacific person to be a candidate for the conservative centre right party.  In fact, there is currently a Samoan MP who won the Aukilani / Auckland seat off Labour in Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.  But before him there was Anae Arthur Anae who was a list MP for National a while back.  And there were countless other Samoan and Pacific candidates, such as Enosa Auvaa who stood for National in Manurewa (Aukilani Saute / South Auckland), Asenati Lole Taylor who stood against Peseta in Maungakiekie for the New Zealand First Party etc.

However the difference between the successful Peseta and the potential of Michael Jones as a candidate is Jones can win in Aukilani Saute.  Peseta was born in Samoa and raised in Mangere, but his background and public profile differs to Michael Jones.  Peseta was educated at Auckland Grammar School (one of the top boys public schools) and went on to the Iunivesite o Aukilani / University of Auckland to attain B.Com./LL.B. and M.Com.(Hons) degrees.  He also holds an MBA from the University of Cambridge (Queens College).

He is also currently an Auckland City Councillor (Tamaki-Maungakiekie ward) where he was Chairman of the City Development Committee.  He has also worked as a solicitor for Russell McVeagh, a financial analyst for Bankers Trust (London) and as an executive consultant for Macquarie Bank (Sydney). 

That’s not to say that Michael Jones does not have a similar success story, in fact he also graduated from the Iunivesite o Aukilani with B.A., M.A. and a BPlan.  But what the public knows of Jones is that he was born in Aukilani and grew up in Te Atatu South, a suburb in Aukilani Sisifo / West Auckland, that he was a Samoan All Black, and a proud Christian.  Not only did he play for Niu Sila in Rugby, he also played for the Manu Samoa, and was coach until recently.

Both stories are of great successes.  But Jones has the public profile that Peseta didn’t have.  Every Samoan father knew that if their son aspired to be an All Black then Michael Jones was the perfect role-model of how to be a Samoan All Black.  Every Samoan mother wanted their son to be respectful and humble as Jones, and koaga e loloku (regularly go to church).

To tell you the truth, if Jones was a candidate in my electorate next election, I’d vote for him too.  On the political spectrum he isn’t too far off from where many Samoans are.  He has strong Christian conservative convictions but a heart for social justice.  He just believes that National is the vehicle that will best deliver those aspirations, while for a long time many Samoans believed Labour was the best vehicle.

Getting Jones on board would be a smart move for National.

I think Samoans in any political party have to battle the mainstream thinkings within their own organisations, and for Jones it will be no different.  If he gets his teeth into policy and truly makes a change for the better of our people within the National party heirarchy, then he will need to battle the ‘far’ right in the party.  And the same for Labour Samoan MPs.  Towing the party line can cause many a headache for Samoan MPs.  That’s why the Maori MP, Tariana Turia broke away from Labour and created the Maori party who is now in Government with National.

And that illustrates the position Samoans are in.  While we naturally gravitate towards the centre-left / Labour, there are times when we just don’t agree with the centre-left / Labour and would comfortably side with a centre-right approach to matters, or at least form a political stance that is in opposition to the centre-left / Labour.

Former Labour MP Samoan Taito Philip Field opposed the Civil Union law (allowing for same-sex relationships to be recognised under law as having similar rights to a married hetro-secual couple) and the legalising of prostitution.  I’m sure if Jones was an MP at that time, he too would have rallied against those laws.

And there in lies the danger for Labour.  Just as they have miscalculated the Maori vote, they may too have taken for granted the Pacific vote.  The more liberal elements in the centre-left should take heed, that Samoans are very conservative peoples.  A Jones candidate could cement a relationship between Samoans and the centre-right.  The success of the Maori party may push Pacific candidates and voters to argue Labour and the centre-left may not always be the way.

Well that’s all for now.  Those are my musings over the potential of a Michael Jones candidate for National, which may be at odds with the traditional allying of Samoan voters with Labour, but shows we are just as capable to support our own on the centre right.  This could also be just the wake up call for Labour to take us seriously, and not taken for granted.

In Samoa, if you want to swim at a beach you have to ask the village for permission, and sometimes a small fee.  If you want to take a photo of a historic landmark (lava ruins etc), you also have to ask permission and/or pay a small fee.  If you want to climb the banyan trees of Falealupo, you have to pay a fee.  If you want to see the Taga blow holes and have coconuts blown up 25 metres into the air, you have to pay a fee.  If you want to go to Aganoa surf beach in Sa’aga, you have to pay a fee.  If you want to relax on in the beach fales on Saleapaga, you have to pay a fee.

The village is the ultimate authority (although after the creation of the modern State of Samoa the boundaries are unclear).  This is because after you’ve had your little swim, after you’ve snapped your photo’s to take home to show your friends, after you’ve had your little snooze on the beach, it is the village that looks after and maintains the area.  It is the village that lives there day in and day out.  It is the village that reaps the benefit, and pays for the costs. 

The village has total authority, and total responsibility.

Here in Niu Sila however, the imposition of the British constitutional make-up, legal structure and civil governance has whittled away Maori customary authority over their lands and beaches.  For centuries non-Maori individuals and the State alienated much of the land, to the point where only less than 5% of land is still Maori land.

However, it wasn’t until a Court of Appeal decision earlier this decade that Pakeha New Zealanders assumed the foreshore and seabed was vested in the Crown / State of New Zealand.  The Court said Maori customary title may still exist for some tribes as it had never been extinguished by the Crown.

In a knee jerk reaction Pakeha were up in arms at the prospect of losing access to the beaches.  The then Labour Government immediately passed a law extinguishing any Maori customary title in the foreshore and seabed and vesting it in the Crown.  Leading up to the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, there were protests by Maori against another confiscation of their rights, and protests by Pakeha about the possibility of not being able access to the beaches of Niu Sila.

Nevermind extremely wealthy people already owned coastline restricting public access and were not affected by the new law.  Nevermind that companies such as ports have already been given exclusive title to seabed, but no-one kicked up a fuss then.  Nevermind that the Court believed it was unlikely many Maori would be successful in claiming an unbroken exercising of customary title over the foreshore and seabed.  Nevermind that there were clear examples of Maori co-managing foreshore and seabeds with local authorities.  Nevermind that farmers owned great tracts of land which hindered public access to beaches than any potential Maori ownership of foreshores would have.

From that debacle grew the Maori Political Party.  Six years on, the Maori Party is in coalition with the governing National Party.  As part of the coalition agreement, National promised an independent review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.  The independent panel released their report yesterday recommending the Government repeal the legislation and find a better solution, including co-managing of foreshore and seabeds; and a mixture of Court process and Crown negotiations for Maori claimants (things many Maori had argued for to begin with).

Polynesian concepts of ownership do not equate to that of the European concepts.  The Polynesian concept included guardianship which encapsulates ideas of responsibility as well as authority.  European concepts are of commodities that can be bought and sold, changed amongst different people - no ancestral links, no need have responsibility to it and therefore no need to exert authority.  Currently, there are popular inner-city artificial beaches in Auckland (in the affluent areas of St Heliers and Mission Bay) that needs to have truckloads of sand dumped on it every 5 years or so.  The sand comes from a beach north of Auckland where the local iwi say their ancestors were buried.  The council didn’t care and allowed the sand to be taken for the rich yuppies in Auckland.

Samoans and many other Polynesians are lucky to still have that authority and responsibility over their lands.  But for Maori (and Hawaiians) European laws and customs have taken precedent over Polynesian laws and customs.

If National is brave enough to take on the recommendations of the independent panel, this could be another victory won for Maori in trying to defend their rights in a European setting.

Congratulations Maori Party!

The difference between private and public schools here in Niu Sila / New Zealand are probably not so pronounced as in other countries, well from a student’s perception anyway.  There are some very good public schools that many people mistake for private schools, and some private (church) schools that are worse than public schools.  But nevertheless, in general, there is a difference between private and public schools.

The usual stereotypes of rich little snobs having the luxury to choose to go to private schools, and poor grubby children of working class homes dependant on public schools, is not too far off the truth.  The rich can afford to and do send their kids to private schools, whereas the working class poor cannot choose and must send their kids to public schools, therefore totally reliant on the willingness (or unwillingness) of the Government of the day to resource and support the local school.

I started off this article saying the difference is not so pronounced here in Niu Sila, but that’s because we have a history of the belief in an egalitarian society, with decades of public funding into health and education.  It was very much built of the Kiwi idea of everyone being able to “have a fair go”.  Of course, with the lurch to the far right in the last half century, cuts in health and education have exacerbated the difference between the services offered by private hospitals and schools compared to public ones, as right wing neo-liberal free marketeers cut back the “fair go” State.

In that same vein, the Education Minister Anne Tolley said the Government had demonstrated its commitment to education in private schools through a $1.68 billion injection, from this years Budget, of frontline funding that will direct large amounts of money towards areas such as improving school buildings, boosting funding for children with special needs and running high-speed broadband internet through most schools.

Executive director of the Independent Schools of New Zealand Deborah James said “[Independent schools] bring a choice in education, not all schools suit all children so it’s wonderful in a democracy that families can choose an education that best suits the needs of their child.”

Unfortunately, what the Government and Mrs James fail to mention is this ‘choice’ really means rich people’s choice.  Unless your child was one of the lucky fortunate few who gained a scholarship to a private school, or you can afford the thousands of dollars in fees let alone uniform, stationary, sporting and other extra-curricular costs, then you don’t really have a “choice”.

And what support is given by the Government to the schools that parent’s with no “choice” have to depend on?

President of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association Kate Gainsford was concerned to see funding cuts of $35.779 million for professional development, $6.005 million for school support programmes and $11.701 million for curriculum support programmes.

The Government said private schools will receive their first Government funding injection in a decade the $35 million allowing them to keep their fees at a more affordable level for parents (ie rich parents).  And I believe that’s at the expense of underfunding the public schools making it less affordable for them to provide quality education for the poor parents.

My younger brother was fortunate enough to get a scholarship to allow him to pay for his fees at a private school, while my sister went to one of the top public schools in central Aukilani.  While there was not much difference in the educational achievements between the two (similar) schools, once either schools were compared to our local high school you could see how well resourced, the quality of teaching, the academic and pastoral care given, the range of options for sporting, cultural and extra curricular activities, were available at the private schools.

While I was studying at Uni, I part-time worked at the Equal Opportunities office.  The statistics I came across were really bad.  The majority of enrolments to the Uni from school leavers came from the top decile (rich) schools.  Even worse for Pacific and Maori students who lived in areas that had low decile (poor) schools, nearly half those at form 5 (third to last year at high school) drop out before they even get to form 7 (last year at high school).  That’s 50% of our younger generation not even making it to the starting line of trying to get into tertiary education.

Of course there are a myriad of reasons, but a lot of it has to do with the under funding, under resourcing (which affect quality of teaching, administration, range of subjects available etc) of those low decile schools which are largely public schools.

The previous Government implemented policies that did see some change in those statistics, by for example providing more funding for public schools.  Universities have also had for years quota systems for disadvantaged groups.  The previous Government strengthened those approaches by providing supplementary grants.  The result being an increase of tertiary participation by people from those disadvantaged groups.

The quota’s are a very contentious issue which I’ll leave for another blog, but it is undeniable that the current Government’s recent funding announcements will see a reversal of that trend.

Before the previous Governments policies, public schools were complaining that private schools were poaching the most talented students from public schools, thereby concentrating the brightest and talented students at the rich schools and then reflected in schooling results.  Of course the private schools said they were providing “choice”.  The previous Government reintroduced zoning which required schools to take in every student within their zone before offering any available spaces to students outside the zone.

The consequences were many of the public schools retained their talented and brightest students, improving the schools results.  Anecdotally, the richer schools have also been losing on the rugby field with first fifteen teams losing for the first time in school history, to poorer public school teams.  Retaining talent in public schools.

It’s not as clear cut, as I probably make it out to be in this article, on the pro’s and con’s of private and public schools.  But there is certainly truth in the fact that private schools don’t provide choice for every parent, just the rich ones.

Melissa Lee, of Korean descent, is a sitting list Member of Parliament (MP) for National.  She is also contesting in the Auckland electorate of Mauga Alapati / Mt Albert by-election. 

In a previous post I stated that Mauga Alapati has been a Labour Party strong hold and was previously represented by the former Palemia / Prime Minister (PM) of Niu Sila / New Zealand, Helen Clark.  I also said National has played the media to portray some sort of battle is going on in the by-election, talking up National’s prospects of winning the seat for themselves.

While a month is a long time in politics, a few things have occured in the last couple of days which may suggest that the media spin was in fact all just hot air, and Mauga Alapati will always be a Labour seat.

Firstly, Ms Lee was brought in by the National Party heirarchy, removing the previous candidate, and the contender for the seat at previous elections, evangelical Hillsborough Baptist Church pastor Ravi Musuku.  While the right has been hard at trying to make this by-election of national importance, they have taken out the strongest local element in the battle: Ravi. 

Ravi did very well in the previous election, cutting down Labour’s party vote.  With the personal support of Ms Clark up for grabs, Ravi as a local would have at least gained a lot of that vote.  Ravi was a tireless community grassroots campaigner.  People knew who he was.  He not only was of Asian descent but also pastored a church at the centre of Auckland centrals bible belt suburbs.

Ms Lee seemed like she’d have to start from scratch.  She appeared to have support amongst some Asian residents and business owners, but you can’t expect Ravi’s supporters to fall in line after the years of toiling within the electorate.  Ms Lee needed to show a bit more than her ethnicity.

Secondly, the National Government announced they would build a motorway straight through the electorate, enraging residents.  Not that it hasn’t been planned for, but rather the option chosen by the Government would mean over 300 houses would be lost, an important waterway destroyed, and park lands erased off the map of Auckland.  Ms Lee’s support for the motorway put her at odds with many voters expressing anger through the media.

This put Ms Lee further back in the race, with commentators realising this was and still is a Labour safe seat, judging from the public outcry.

Lastly, Ms Lee’s comments at a community debate seems to illustrate the slippery slope she and National may have to face in this by-election.  The comment: that a new motorway could stop criminals coming from Aukilani Saute / South Auckland.

If National did have a chance, it would’ve had to win over a lot of Labour voters.  Such comments would scare them away.  Ms Lee apologised:

“If South Auckland people (find) my comments offensive, I apologise. It wasn’t about them. It was about criminals. By nature, people are travelling from one town to another. If we actually have a motorway, those people who might possibly be driving through and committing crime in Mt Albert might be diverted off.”

What a load of bull!  As one commentator said, why hasn’t Ms Lee then advocated for a brick wall to be built on the North Western motorway to stop criminals from Aukilani Sisifo / West Auckland?  Why hasn’t she suggested blowing up the Auckland Harbour bridge to stop the Asian kidnappers from the North Shore?  Criminals are everywhere.

If you’ve been reading my blog, you’d know I am a proud South Aucklander, born and bred.  And so, I’m not going to launch into another of my tirades about defending Aukilani Saute, but to say I am truly worried when we have current MP’s who think like that.  Aukilani Saute deserves better.  We, the people of Aukilani Saute need to be respected.

She already had to counter the effects of her Government announcing of the motorway without her needing to dig herself a deeper hole with stupid comments.  I mean it’s politically naive not only to say discriminatory remarks infront of a liberal working class audience (who booed her at the meeting when she made the comments), but it’s also stupid at the practical level!

Does she really think a motorway will stop criminals (where ever they are from?) coming into the neighbourhood?   Does she really think that criminals will think: “damn there’s no turn off into Mt Albert, lets not bother”? 

Ms Lee said she was just expressing a view told to her by a Police officer.  But Auckland Police don’t back her up stating:

“Criminals travel just like anyone else in the country.  Where they choose to get on and off (motorways) is their choice.”

The voters of Mauga Alapati have a choice too… hopefully they’ve seen enough to not choose Ms Lee.