Tino Rangatiratanga: What’s it got to do with Pākehā?

grant brookes

Talk by Grant Brookes, 7 April 2014 – No.4 in Fightback’s weekly “Introduction to Marxism” series

Perhaps more than the first three topics in Fightback’s “Introduction to Marxism” series, this one is loaded with questions.

Most people probably had some idea about why a socialist group like Fightback supports trade unions, for instance, or what capitalism and socialism are. But what has Tino Rangatiratanga got to do with Pākehā? Nothing? Something? What? It’s a bit less obvious.

For this reason, I’d like to start a discussion on this topic through an FAQ format, with an initial set of questions and some answers. After this, people may feel free to open up with their own questions, and their own answers. [Read more…]

Interview: Sue Bolton, Socialist Councillor for Moreland (Australia)

sue bolton

Sue Bolton is a longtime socialist activist and the Victorian convenor of Socialist Alliance. She was elected to the Moreland Council, which covers the inner northern suburbs of Melbourne, in 2012. She will be a featured speaker at the Fightback conference in Wellington in May. She was interviewed for Fightback by Bronwen Beechey.

Fightback:There is a debate in the socialist movement about whether socialists should participate in “bourgeois” elections. Obviously you think they should, why do you think it’s a good idea?

SB: I think it is important for socialists to stand for election for several reasons: it gives you a forum for putting a socialist viewpoint on a wide range of issues, not just issues where there are campaigns. In Australia at the moment, campaigns tend to focus on moral issues such as human rights or environmental issues but there are few campaigns around economic issues. Elections give an opportunity to socialists to put an alternative to neoliberalism.

Elections are also a good discipline for socialists because you have to translate your general socialist slogans into concrete policies

It is a good way of building the party and also a socialist or socialist-leaning milieu or base in an area.

Fightback: Do you think that your election was due to the issues that you campaigned around, or your profile as a long-time activist in the area, or both?

SB: I think it was both. There are people who know me from the union movement, including picket lines, the refugee rights movement, the Middle East Solidarity group and the climate movement.

Some of the residents who didn’t know me or Socialist Alliance voted for me because we campaigned to put community need first, not developer greed.

Fightback: What were the issues you campaigned around?

SB: We took up a mix of local and broader issues. A central issue we campaigned on was opposition to developer greed, for developers to bear the cost of providing amenities, for mandatory height limits and more green spaces.

We called for a campaigning council that would campaign for more public transport, against the sell -off of public housing and for ethical investment.

We campaigned for expanded bike paths, solar power and against gas-fired power generation.

We campaigned for a council that helps its residents with cost of living pressures, including that residents not be pushed out of their home because they can’t afford rates and that rates shouldn’t be increased above the level of inflation. This is because rates are not an equitable means of funding local government services. A pensioner or an unemployed person could be living in a house which has risen in value because of gentrification, but they can’t afford massive rates even though their house has risen in value.

We also campaigned for regular ward accountability meetings.

Fightback: What has been your experience working in the council? Is it a hostile environment, or do you have supporters there? Have you any formal or informal links with other socialist or left councillors?

SB: The council is very conservative with a Liberal Party councillor, a Democratic Labor Party councillor, two Greens councillors, six ALP councillors and me. Then there is the council bureaucracy which is also very conservative.

The council meetings aren’t necessarily hostile. It’s more that the council bureaucracy and the other councillors are trying to take you on the same path as them, which is a neoliberal path. The problem is more one of co-option rather than direct hostility, although that exists as well.

Due to the pressure of campaigns, we haven’t been collaborating as closely as we would like to. I get more opportunities to collaborate with Sam Wainwright [from the Fremantle, WA Council] because he is also a member of Socialist Alliance. I am also involved in a campaign that involves a number of members of [Socialist Party member  and Yarra Council councillor] Steve Jolly’s party, the campaign against the East West Link  [a proposed 18 kilometre tolled freeway system including two 12-metre tunnels, running through Melbourne’s inner suburbs .]

Fightback: How has the Abbott government affected Australian politics at a national and a local level, particularly its impact on working people, the poor and oppressed groups?

SB: The worst aspect is the Abbott government’s use of sharp racism, in particular against refugees, to hide its attacks on working class living standards. The government is appealing to the more conservative section of the working class in order to rule.

At the same time, it is attacking unions by attacking corruption in unions. Unfortunately, a couple of real examples of corruption have been uncovered. These have undermined workers’ confidence in unions, which in turn has made the unions more scared about responding with industrial action. Most industrial action is illegal, so the only way of responding to the attacks is with “illegal” industrial action. It is necessary to take industrial action regardless of whether it is legal or not, but most unions are avoiding taking any industrial action that might be deemed “illegal”. It’s also the case that if unionists or unions refuse to pay fines for taking industrial action, the law allows the government to sequester the fine from individual’s or union’s bank accounts.

The government has succeeded in demoralising people because people can’t see a fightback coming yet.

Fightback: Do you think the recent “Marches in March” against the Abbott government represent a new phase of opposition to neoliberal policies?

SB: The marches were fantastic, especially given that the union movement hasn’t mobilised its members against the Abbott government yet. The size and number of marches undercuts the government’s argument that it has a mandate for its cuts. Around 100,000 people marched against the government at March in March. The dominant issue that people brought homemade placards about was the government’s inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, followed by climate/environment issues, then many other issues.

Fightback: Some on the left argue that the best strategy to beat right-wing governments is to vote for Labour parties as the “lesser evil,” or that Labour can be transformed from within. What is your response to those arguments?

SB: The left has tried to reform Labor from within ever since the ALP was formed. It’s never worked. The only times that Labor governments have ever carried out any progressive reforms are when there has been a strong communist/left movement outside the ALP. In fact, I would argue that the ALP doesn’t just play a reactionary role when in government; it also has a damaging effect on unions. The ALP is always influencing unions to not put forward their interests strongly; it is influencing unions not to take industrial action. Unions’ affiliation with the ALP is a vehicle for the capitalists to influence the unions. Unions have very little ability to influence the ALP to adopt pro-worker policies, despite their affiliation.

Fightback: As a member of Socialist Alliance, what is your perception of the recent breakdown of unity talks between SA and Socialist Alternative? Do you think there are still possibilities for greater unity on the Left?

SB: I think there were different conceptions of what sort of organisation we each wanted to build. There were some differences which would have needed to be explored before unity could have been possible, but there was never an opportunity to do that before the unity talks broke down.

However, there’s always another struggle and another day. There will be opportunities in the future for left unity but these opportunities will probably arise as a result of new political developments.

Fightback: As a long-time feminist, do you think that there are still difficulties for women participating in mainstream political bodies such as councils? Have you experienced sexism from other council members, or from the community?

SB: There have definitely been sexist attitudes exhibited by a couple of male councillors. On Moreland council six of the eleven councillors are women. I might have experienced more sexist attitudes if the numbers were different. The problem is more that the council and councillors are good on women’s rights issues on paper but in practice they only pay lip-service.

The real issues of sexism come about at a much earlier stage and are more to do with women’s ability to participate in society because they face family violence, are living in poverty on single parents pension or a low paid job as a single parent, don’t have the money to access expensive childcare or other services, or have low self-esteem.

You can also see a certain sexist approach with the murder of a local Brunswick woman by a male stranger on the street towards the end of 2012, which resulted in a big Reclaim the Night march of several thousand people. The council turned this issue into a law and order issue, rather than dealing with it as an issue of violence against women. The biggest source of violence against women is from intimate partners in the home.

Fightback: Some left-wing councillors and former councillors have commented that the relatively privileged role of a councillor (getting free passes to events, socialising with business people, etc) can influence progressive councillors and distance them from their constituents. How do you stay accountable to the community?

SB: That can certainly happen. You have to be very conscious about what you’re on the council for. Unlike state and federal government, councils are portrayed as being a “team” where party politics and an oppositional approach don’t apply. This is all part of trying to recruit all councillors to “respectable” neoliberal politics.

It’s important to be aware of the fact that many of the councillors and council officers regard residents as pests, and use language to cover up the pro-business outlook such as talking about all the “stakeholders” as having equal interests. This is a way of legitimising giving more say to businesses and developers than to residents.

The accountability is mainly via reportbacks on council activities on Facebook and the blog site (http://www.suesmorelandreport.org). In addition to this, I report back to Socialist Alliance meetings and we initiated Moreland Socialists for anyone who is left-wing and wants to support our council position. We have organised some ward meetings, but we want to get more regular with these.

WGTN event: Pakeha in the Struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga

Pakeha in the Struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga

Next in Fightback’s weekly ‘Introduction to Marxism’ series, Mondays 6pm at 19 Tory St.

This topic raises many questions. What is Tino Rangatiratanga? Why would Pākehā get involved – and why on earth would Māori allow them to? Come along for a discussion.
Presented by Grant Brookes, Fightback.
BYO questions.

6pm, Monday 7th April
19 Tory St, Wellington

[Facebook event]

Stop the TPPA: Wellington protest report

tppa day of action

By Joe McClure, Fightback (Wellington).

On the afternoon of Saturday March 29, protests took place around New Zealand, against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) currently going through Parliament.

In Wellington, this consisted of a march from Cuba St, to the steps of Parliament. Around 200 people gathered at the Bucket Fountain in Cuba St from 1:00pm, listening to representatives from CTU, Victoria University economics department, and the Mana party, who discussed what the agreement’s about and who it favours.

Protestors marched from Cuba St to Parliament, chanting slogans including ‘TPPA?  No way!  We’re gonna fight it all the way!’ and ‘Whose streets? Our streets!’

Outside parliament, security staff were blocking access to the designated assembly area, where the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) had arranged for a PA system to be set up, so marchers gathered in the grassy area next to that section instead.

Mana leader Hone Harawira addressed those present, emphasizing the unequal advantage the TPPA provides to member states, and punitive effects on non-members, and reminding voters to take a stand for fair treatment of all trading partners, rather than supporting the secret negotiations that have characterised TPPA planning stages.

Protestors from Parihaka in Taranaki also attended, encouraging marchers to reject the intended agreement, before switching to Maori protest songs as the crowd gradually dissipated.

Why do we oppose the TPPA?
The TPPA effects both trade between countries, and the operations of multinational companies within countries. It overrides internal legislation if a signatory introduces legislation that hurts the economic interests of another country. For example, plain packaging of cigarettes could be overturned as it undermines the profits of tobacco companies, or environmental legislation annulled if it adversely affects an oil corporation (thus making it harder to stop projects like deep sea oil drilling).  The agreement involves reducing trade tariffs by 90% by 2009, and completely removing tariffs by 2015.  It would entitle US drugs corporations to override Pharmac regulating the sale of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand, and enable parties to the agreement to protect intellectual property violations in other countries party to the agreement.

Such measure will benefit multinational corporations (such as Fonterra in NZ), but will hurt working class people in signatory states. It will make it harder for people to fight and win legislative changes that protect working class communities, and instead strengthen the hands of corporations in their drive for greater profit.

Blurred lines: Representation versus social commentary

toga party sexism

This article was submitted to Fightback by UC Femsoc member Sionainn Byrnes.

As a sixth-year student at the University of Canterbury, I often find myself wondering whether I am completely out of touch with reality. Whether years of socialization within the Ivory Tower have caused me to unreasonably textualize everything I see – I am an English student, after all – and thus take critical issue with it accordingly. However, the absolute, and might I say absolutely justified furore that has emerged in the wake of the UCSA’s most recent attempt to do justice to the student services levy (which has now risen to $725.00!) has led me to believe otherwise – has, in fact, bolstered my belief that the ‘student mass’ is not only more discerning, but more ‘cultured’ than would be implied by countless articles about burning couches.

Though I have never attended a Toga Party, I am socially aware enough to know that said Toga Party is effectively a keystone within the annual debauchery that is O-Week. I have no issue with this event occurring – I’ll admit that I love to don a poorly-constructed costume – and yet this year I, and many others, have been left red-faced, not by the Toga Party itself, but by the manner in which our student representative body – the University of Canterbury Students’ Association – has chosen to frame and promote this event.

The poster for the 2014 UC Toga Party features an almighty Zeus, appropriately phallic lightning bolt in hand, grinding against a twerking Medusa – tongue out, foam-fingered, Miley-style. It is a decidedly blatant reference to the ‘twerking incident’ that occurred at the 2013 VMA awards, no less to the soundtrack of Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’. Now, I am of a feminist persuasion wherein I would like to refrain from commenting on the so-called moral implications of Miley Cyrus’ overt sexualism – Dog forbid a woman should appear to be a sexual creature! (Random sarcastic aside: Because we all know that one woman’s actions invariably speak for all women!) What I would like to focus on, however, are the implications of a poster that appears to make light of, and exploit for capital gain, a song that glamourizes and condones non-consensual – even violent – sexual activity.

‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned from over 20 universities in the UK alone. Hear that! Its deeply misogynistic lyrics have sufficiently turned off that many ‘learned institutions’, whose purported goal it is to educate citizens about (obviously amongst other unfortunately neoliberal things) the political dynamics and power structures that underline normative social discourse, that it is actually not allowed to be associated with the official events organised by these universities. And yet the UCSA, which we may as well call the UC given its lack of financial independence and thus spine, sees fit to use this imagery and these ideas in order to promote an event that, for many first-years, heralds the beginning, and overall tone, of what it means to be a student. How’s that for world-class, Rodd.

Putting aside the very grave fact that, within a week of this advertising being made public, two men were jailed for a sexual assault that occurred within the UC halls – in itself something that should have immediately compelled the UCSA to pause for thought – there are essentially two fundamental points of contention that underscore this whole issue: 1) that the kind of culture reflected and engendered by this poster was deemed appropriate under the UCSA’s self-imposed standard of “responsible and ethical decision-making”, and 2) that because the UCSA has been rendered impotent – in effect if not in actual practice – by a neoliberal rhetoric that ensures it functions according to the values of investment and gain, it is actually incapable of representing the interests of students where they breach those of a standard business model: it would appear that sex (even the non-consensual type) sells.

This inability to adequately represent diversity and/or anything that exists outside of the dictates of legitimate top-down, bottom-line discourse is nothing new, of course. The sustained erosion of local democracy within Christchurch has become a constant bane to those who are struggling to reclaim some sort of narrative identity: to those committed to envisioning and enacting a more egalitarian society. Which brings me back to representation. Does this poster represent survivors of sexual abuse? Does it represent adult students? Does it represent the $40, 000+ student loans of those individuals, who, like myself, are attempting to democratise the luxury of education in order to create new spaces for creative and radical dialogue and action – or to at least trying to make that luxury work in tangible terms for our wider communities. Does it represent the 200+ members of UC FemSoc who, despite paying their student services levies, were made to jump through hoops in the process of obtaining affiliation as a society? Similarly, does it represent the students whose entire degrees have had to be restructured as a result of ever more draconian (and disproportionately arts-based) budget cuts? (You’ll have to excuse my repetition here). Does it represent the lecturers who are often picketing outside Council Chambers? And does it represent those potential students that the UC so eagerly wants to engage? The answer is no, because in the UCSA’s own words, this poster is not representation – it is ‘social commentary’. And that is the other blurred line we should be worried about.

You’ll notice that I mentioned UC FemSoc above. For me this is one of those gleaming silver linings. UC FemSoc is an inclusive, intersectional feminist society that aims to create a forum for feminist discussion and activism. I am proud to say that as a group we host public lectures, screen documentaries, and have launched a killer zine entitled ‘What She Said’ which brings together articles, artwork, poetry, and resource reviews all aimed at promoting and expressing the creative and diverse experiences and voices of women, non-binary individuals, and those who generally oppose the limiting social constructs of male and female and all that that entails. With the support of academic staff, students, and local communities, UC FemSoc is actively part of a larger movement, one that is attempting to reinstate the role of representation within our universities because social commentary just isn’t enough.