Sue Bradford: Where To for the Left?

AAAP

Originally delivered at Fightback forum – Grey Lynn – 7.00 – 9.00pm Friday 21 August 2015.

By Sue Bradford, Left Think Tank Project.

Audio:

Kia ora koutou,

Well friends, ‘Where to for the left? really is the question of our time, with thanks to Daphne, Bronwen and Fightback for organising this forum tonight.

I still often think of it as ‘What is to be done?’   I’ve been engaging pretty seriously with this over the last four years, partly through three years of PhD research and alongside that through my daily work with Auckland Action Against Poverty, Kotare Trust and now the left think tank project.  This question is for me, as it will be for all of us here I suspect, an acute conjunction of theory and praxis, of what we think theoretically should be happening, and what we are actually prepared to do, now, in Aotearoa 2015, to resist and confront neoliberal capitalism and build past it.

My research project was as much a study of the state of the NZ left between 2010 and 2013 as it was an exploration of questions around the absence of any substantive left think tank in this country.  After interviewing 51 left activists and academics and maintaining a field journal of three years of my own life on the left, then carefully analysing the resulting data, I came to two major conclusions.  The first was that there is a widespread call and recognition  of the need for the development of left wing think tanks or think tank like groups here, for a whole range of reasons, but key amongst them simply that the left needs to think more, and more deeply about we’re doing.

The second key finding, and the one that I hadn’t been expecting when I started out, was that an even bigger absence felt by many, especially those of us on the radical left, was the lack of any organisation, party or movement that we could call home, and where we might work together to achieve a shared vision for a better world. Of course, for members of existing parties like the Greens and Mana this isn’t necessarily an issue at all, and that’s fine.  However, there are many others of us, for whom the lack of a place and base which holds us together, and from which we can build, is a massive barrier to creating effective change – to building what I like to call effective radical left counter hegemony.

I’ve had the privilege of spending the last year talking in many different parts of Aotearoa about the think tank project – and about this question of the lack of a party or movement.

In every place I’ve been, there has been a real resonance among at least some of those present around this absence.  From the first meetings onwards I discovered that the yearning I’d uncovered for an ideological home and organising base exists far more widely than I’d realised, even by the end of my research.

I guess that this is one of the reasons I’m so optimistic about where we go from here.  There are far more of us out here on the radical left than most of us can comprehend simply based on knowledge of our own political and personal networks.  And more people approach me every week, mainly to join the think tank project but often enough to also express interest in the development of a party.

In some ways helping to work through ideas around the formation of a new party has become in fact the first project of the think tank itself.  While the think tank doesn’t visibly exist yet, it is already a network of some 400 people, and very soon we’ll be starting to make key decisions on things like our kaupapa, legal structure and the ever vexed question of what we should call ourselves.

We’ll also be talking about the relationship between our radical left think tank and the possible development of a party.  Building a party is a much bigger project – but both are essential, and I believe – all going well – there is likely to be a symbiotic and mutually beneficial relationship between them.

Meanwhile, it’s important that in all this hope and optimism I’m sensing and expressing here, that we do pay attention to what’s happened in the past. It’s good that Daphne is doing the  kind of detailed reflection outlined here tonight about some of the negatives which have bedevilled what I”ll call the sectarian left, in the past and even currently.  There is no way I’d ever want to go back to that, and we do need to face our shadows and shady histories as we build forward.

At the same time, it’s critical that we go past our histories, in consciousness of them, but with a clear focus on having the courage to start taking action in the here and now, and to not be so scared of repeating the past that we are immobilised by it.

There’s another danger I’ve noticed in recent times, when working particularly with younger activists, that sometimes people want everything we organise to be perfect from beginning to end.  Nothing we do, whether it’s a demo outside Sky City or a building an organisation from scratch will ever be perfect.  Everything we do is us practising – but of course that practising, is in fact life itself.  That’s why waiting for the revolution or waiting for utopia is such a hopeless occupation.  As  so many of us realise, we make our path by walking it, which means we need to give things a go, reflect on where we’ve gone right and wrong, and then do it all again – better, if we can. In the rehearsal are the seeds of the world we hope for.

Another debate that’s happening around our groups just now, and I think it’s happening in Fightback too, is around the question of who we on the radical left, however we define ourselves, see as our constituencies – and how we should work with them. I fear that this is a debate that can soak up much time without really getting anywhere if we keep focusing on ‘the people’ or ‘the workers’ – as the other.

We are the people.  The people we work with and for are the people.  When we’re bringing on new people as beneficiary advocates at Auckland Action Against Poverty,  one of the first conversations we have with them isn’t about the intricacies of welfare law and regulation but about how we talk about the people we work with.  Often our volunteers will quickly start using the word ‘client’ to describe the people who come to us for help with their issues at Work and Income.  We ban that word client because we see it as creating an artificial separation, making the person we’re helping the other, a less fortunate charitable case, rather than simply a fellow human being whom we’re assisting at that moment, and who may later on become another one of our advocates or may even join us on a street action.

The next question from the desperate volunteer is often ‘well if we can’t use the word client, what on earth can I call them?’ the answer is simply ‘people’ or ‘person’.  In our group we are mainly people who are or have been unemployed and/or on benefits for a long period at some time in our lives.  We are just people helping other people.

I think that this principle should apply just as strongly when some of us may in the near future engage in building a radical left extra parliamentary party.  It won’t work if we say – and even worse think – of groups of people as any kind of undifferentiated mass.  In fact, it is other people from all different backgrounds, ages, ethniticites and sectors with whom we will work to build a common kaupapa and a shared future.

Building organisation is a long slow process which happens person by person, in context, not in some random magical way.  Organising work, to be effective, takes care and time.

And we don’t only have our negative histories to look back on.  In fact all sorts of good work has happened in Aotearoa in recent decades, and I”d rather spend more time learning from experiences where groups have worked together respectfully and well in a common cause than from where the sect left has torn itself apart and treated each other like enemies.

I think some of the projects I’ve been involved with like the Unemployed Rights Centre and the Auckland Peoples Centres, the Building our own Future project in 1993-1994 and the still standing Kotare Trust have useful lessons for us. There is also much to be learned from the recent and current work of groups like Unite, FIRST Union and its offshoot migrant workers’ union Unemig, and the longterm mobilisation against the TPPA.  Mana has many learnings for us when we have finally the courage to discuss these together.

Beyond this, let’s lose our fear of doing things differently than they’ve been done before, and of working with people and types of people with whom we might not have worked before.

Let’s not get bogged down in infinitely split distinctions about whether it’s more important to work with this group of people or type of person than that.  Everyone I know on the radical left gets intersectionality these days – we do all understand, perhaps using different language, the connections between different struggles and different oppressions – so let’s not allow those arguments to divide us, unless the differences are acute.

At the same time, false unity or seeking false unity – can be a really dangerous path down which to walk. I know damn well that there’s no point my working with people from Labour and the social democratic left to set up a pan left think tank because the fundamental kaupapa which divides us too deep.

The idea that there can be a short cut to building a strong left by pulling together disparate left forces ranging from social democrats to the far left is foolish.  Such coalitions end in tears, but more importantly than that, each time a mongrelised coalition emerges it raises then dashes the hopes of another generation of activists.  It’s much better to build more slowly and be inclusive of all who agree to a well thought through kaupapa than to develop something that might briefly flare up, then be unsustainable into the future.

The worst thing that the left can do right now is panic because we’ve had years of an awful National-led government, and put all our energies into replacing it with an only slightly less awful Labour-led government.  Instead we should put everything we have into developing our own autonomous organisations capable of harnessing our collective energy and resources into building for a future against and beyond capitalism.

Audio: Where To For The Left (AKL event)

Panel discussion with Sue Bradford (Left Think Tank), Michael Treen (UNITE Union), Daphne Lawless (Fightback) and Jonathan King (Auckland Action Against Poverty)

Sue Bradford:

Mike Treen:

Daphne Lawless:

Discussion:

Blame capitalists, not foreigners: The need for internationalism in Aotearoa / New Zealand

road_in_new_zealand

by Ian Anderson and Thomas Inwod(Fightback).

Recent weeks in Aotearoa / New Zealand have seen further housing crisis controversy, triggered by Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford’s comments about people with “Chinese surnames” buying houses. Unfortunately many on the left have come to Twyford’s defence, for example John Minto in a recent Daily Blog article:

What we need is an outright ban on foreigners owning land or houses in New Zealand, a tough capital gains tax to drive local speculators and investors out of the housing market and a massive state house building programme to meet the housing quality and affordability crisis where it’s having its most devastating impact.”

Some strong progressive policies here are sullied by the racism of the opening line. The problem with Minto’s term “foreigners,” like Twyford’s “Chinese surnames,” is that they don’t distinguish between international investors and migrants.

Around 40% of homes are owned by non-occupants, and foreign buyers make up less than a quarter of that number (while ‘Chinese surnames’ are a very poor indicator, former Labour leader David Shearer’s estimate of 7-10% is higher than most official estimates). House prices and rents have skyrocketed, while real wages continue a thirty-year decline. Local profiteers are no better than ‘foreign’ profiteers; all forms of speculation, price-gouging, and private ownership must be restricted (see Housing: Foreign Ownership is not the Problem, Ian Anderson, Fightback; Chinese Are Not to Blame, A New Zealand Housing Crisis, Joshua O’Sullivan, ISO).

Restricting only ‘foreigners’ is not only a half-measure, it’s scapegoating a minority for economic problems, a truly dangerous path.

Some on the left have highlighted National’s history of racism to discredit accusations levelled at Labour. However, Labour has its own racist history – including both an active role in oppressing tangata whenua, and in scapegoating migrants. Last time they were in government, Labour deprived Māori of customary title to the foreshore and seabed, and oversaw the Urewera Raids of October 15th 2007. On the migration front, Labour oversaw the unjust detention of Ahmed Zaoui, among others. As far back as the 1920s, Labour campaigned for a “White New Zealand” policy.

National’s racist history does not excuse Labour’s racist history. Drivers behind racism in Aotearoa / New Zealand are deeper than any one party.

Aotearoa colonised by New Zealand

Capitalism was imposed in Aotearoa through colonisation, through the alienation of Māori land and labour. Colonisers imported a legal, political and economic infrastructure under the name ‘New Zealand.’ Despite contemporary attempts at nation-building through shedding the colonial flag, we still live with the legacy of that socio-economic origin.

Some say Aotearoa/NZ is facing neo-colonisation under the TPPA. We contend that Aotearoa continues to be colonised by New Zealand. Whereas Aotearoa is an indigenous Pacific nation, New Zealand is part of the imperialist Anglosphere – joining the US, the UK, and Australia in militarily and economically dominating poorer and browner nations.

Tangata whenua continue to fare the worst in all social stats. Treaty claims have cost only $0.9 billion, with much of this going to undemocratic iwi corporations rather than redistribution of land and resources, compared to a $1.6 billion bailout for South Canterbury Finance.

Solidarity with migrant workers

While oppression of tangata whenua is the original sin of New Zealand capitalism, scapegoating of Asian and Pacific migrants has also helped to divide the working-class. As comedian Raybon Kan argued in a recent piece for the NZ Herald:

“Historically, Chinese have never been welcome. From the gold miners and railway workers who weren’t allowed to bring women, to the Poll Tax, we’ve always been singled out for worse treatment.”

This is a divide-and-conquer strategy; capitalists draw the colour line to justify offering worse conditions, and white workers in turn accept the Faustian pact. The only effective way to combat this strategy is to stand with migrant workers.

This may sound like idealist rhetoric. To give a concrete example, in February 2007 management at bus company Go Wellington introduced new conditions to cut down drivers’ access to overtime. When a number of drivers quit over these changes, the company shopped around for cheaper labour in Fiji, expecting applicants to sign scab contracts. However, the migrant workers got wise and the majority signed up to the Tramways Union. When the company locked bus drivers out a year later, the majority were union, and public pressure resulted in a swift victory. As always, we’re stronger together.

Just as Pākehā workers must support Māori sovereignty for any chance of justice in this country, so locals must stand with migrant workers. In the case of housing, this requires distinguishing between international investors and economic migrants.

International investors

The problem with foreign capitalists is that they’re capitalists.  The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a major effort at entrenching international inequality, is an attack on workers. Currently under the TPPA, French conglomerate Veolia is attempting to sue the Egyptian government over loss of revenue from raising its minimum wage (Veolia also operates Auckland’s rail network).

Meanwhile, New Zealand and Australia are negotiating a less prominent trade agreement, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus). Pacific trade unions and NGOs support delaying PACER Plus. In the words of Solomon Islands opposition leader Manasseh Sogavare:

“As far as Solomon Islands is concerned, the arrangement would amount to opening up one-way traffic of trade benefits from here to Australia and New Zealand, which in any case is already in favour of these countries without the PLACER-PLUS arrangement.”

Financialisation over the last 30 years has benefited local capitalists – prominently merchant bankers Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite (speaking of ethnic surnames), who gained billions from the sale of telecommunications and rail infrastructure. National and Labour’s rich friends, both local and international, benefit from asset-stripping.

We oppose all privatisation, all commercialisation, all profiteering. Focus on ‘foreigners’ is a diversion. During the asset sales campaign, Fightback raised the slogan ‘Aotearoa is not for sale, to local or foreign capitalists.’

Sovereignty and internationalism

As Syriza’s electoral victory in Greece this year demonstrates, even if leftists win any kind of power at a national level, we will still face the combined weight of international capital. Both sides of the class war are international. Without working-class power on the ground, in communities and workplaces, control of a nation easily becomes co-opted into management of the status quo.

Moreover, in a globalised economy the need for struggles to be regional, rather than nationally isolated, is even greater. Solidarity and coordination throughout key regions lays the foundation for a sustained break from the status quo. While still facing many difficulties, relationships between Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia hint towards pan-regional approaches; sharing uneven resources like oil and doctors, and countering pressure from US imperialism.

During the great labour struggles of Aotearoa / New Zealand; the 1951 waterfront lockout, the 1913 and 1890 general strikes; Australian maritime unions were some of the key supporters of local militants, going to jail for their brothers and sisters across the Pacific. When Māori sovereignty activists re-occupied Bastion Point, Communist Party militants ensured union support. This history of solidarity, rather than the history of Yellow Peril scares, must be our inspiration.

Fightback stands for open borders, full rights for migrant workers, and self-determination for all Pasefika nations. We demand sovereignty, but the sovereignty of organised workers and communities; “rangatiratanga for the poor, powerless and dispossessed,” in MANA’s words. In the 2011 and 2014 General Elections, MANA stood for an expansion of state housing, recognition of Māori claims, opposition to imperialist agreements with the US, and rights for migrants. Scapegoating of ‘foreigners’ weakens this programme and prospects for liberation.

chinese sounding name 1

7 thoughts on Pride and the Act of Protesting

stonewall was an unpermitted action

By Kassie Hartendorp (Fightback Whanganui-a-Tara/Wellingt0n), originally published on her personal blog Guts Out.

These are some observations in the wake of the protests against a police presence in the Auckland Pride march, and the violence towards one of the protestors, Emmy, which took place afterwards. There have been amazing pieces written in a short space of time, and I encourage you to click on the links at the end if you would like more context.

1.  Everything is influenced by power, therefore everything is politics. The rationale of neo-liberal capitalism convinces us that this is not the case. Politics is something that happens in Parliament by people we ‘choose’ every three years to talk about politics. To say politics belong in a Pride march would almost be pointless because the two are inseparable. If a Pride march is already political, then saying anything otherwise is inaccurate, disingenuous and serves to silence, erase and dismiss those who actively discuss issues of power.

2.  If the Pride march is political, then why are people concerned about others ‘bringing politics’ into it? The politics are already there, they are just being more clearly revealed and discussed. The real issue is often that people do not want to be confronted with the issues that still affect marginalised groups, the fissures that can run deep among our communities and the many flaws in our (hetero/cis normative, white supermacist, patriarchal capitalist) system.

3. Whenever there is an interruption in the status quo, such as a protest, people will always find ways to discredit the interrupters. You will not be the first or the last to comment on ‘better ways’ the protester could have protested.  This is a normal reaction to challenges towards power.

4. Whenever there is physical violence at the hands of those in more power, against those who are powerless, people will find ways to justify why the powerless deserved it. You will not be the last to seek a reason for why a Māori transwoman deserved to have her arm broken by security guards – what she could have done to bring this on herself.

5.  Talking about ‘peace’ or the ‘peaceful right of protest’ in this context, will almost always favour those in more power. It usually assumes that the current state of existence for everyone is peaceful and ignores structural violence that takes place on varying levels to marginalised communities. Who decides what is peace and what is violence? Who determines what is an ‘overreaction‘ or what is ‘dangerous’?

6. When people act in protest – true conflicts and contradictions are revealed. Take note of where you stand.

To donate to Emmy directly:

https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/fundsforemmy#

More info:

https://storify.com/kamikazeballoon/police-brutality-at-auckland-pride-parade-2015

http://communistjewishgirl.tumblr.com/post/111651300078/auckland-pride-2015

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11406046

https://jenniferkateshields.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/notproud/

http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/its-raining-racism-and-transphobia-on.html?spref=fb

http://blog.squareplanetcomics.com/shame-on-auckland-pride-parade/

Plea from the Mattachine Society, an organisation of respectable homosexuals, on the occasion of the Stonewall riot and subsequent Gay Liberation actions.

Plea from the Mattachine Society, an organisation of respectable homosexuals, on the occasion of the Stonewall riot and subsequent Gay Liberation actions.

Living Outside The Rainbow: Queerness and the Housing Crisis

LGBT youth homelessness protest, USA

LGBT youth homelessness protest, USA

Fightback is running a series of articles on the housing crisis in Aotearoa/NZ.

Kassie Hartendorp (Whanganui-a-Tara/Wellington) explores the specific housing problems faced by queer youth.

When you start to peer past the rainbow flags and glitter shine of LGBTIQ ‘issues’, there are many more stories to be told that don’t end with a marriage certificate and picket fences. While more privileged people along the rainbow have been able to make gains, it’s easy to forget about those who are nowhere near that pot of gold, despite ‘heartwarming’ Youtube clips from rightwing politicians and banks showing their ‘diversity and inclusion’ with their rhinestone adorned cash machines. There have been important gains made, and each one through great struggle – but we are not at the final frontier yet.

One key issue that often gets swept under the rug is housing and homelessness. The very fact that housing continues to be a need for high numbers of people across the globe means, naturally, that it affects sex, sexuality and gender diverse people as well. But the nature of homelessness can look different for our communities, and have more complex factors taking place.

The NZ Government defines homelessness as “living situations where people have no other options to acquire safe and secure housing. This includes people who are:

without shelter

in temporary accommodation

sharing accommodation with a household

living in uninhabitable housing.

This definition goes further than the stereotype of people living on the street, and can encompass many forms of housing instability. Homelessness figures are difficult to record and track easily. Most people who are in transitional housing or are couchsurfing may not associate themselves with the label of ‘homeless’ which carries a heavy stigma – despite the fact that many have experienced it at some point in their lives. In 2009, the Housing Shareholders Advisory Group estimated that the ‘urban homeless’ or those sleeping rough, numbered less than 300 across the country, yet between 8,000 and 20,000 people were living in temporary accommodation unsuited for long term habitation. Within the past year, service providers say that homelessness is ‘on the rise’ with an Auckland Council report claiming that about 15,000 people in Auckland are “severely housing deprived.”

With housing being a key commodity often left to a profit driven market, it is hard to envision a world under capitalism that would not have high levels of poverty, poor health and homelessness. The gap between the rich and the poor, and reliance on a ‘user pays’ system that means paying for almost everything we need to survive, create exactly the kind of conditions that leave many without affordable, stable and secure accommodation. The causes of homelessness can be heavily linked to and influenced by poverty, mental health experiences, disabilities, addiction issues, emotional health and trauma, sexuality and gender, convictions and imprisonment, unemployment or low wages, a lack of affordable housing and are underpinned by the forces of colonisation, patriarchy, racism and capitalism.

This already shows a complicated snapshot of the context that homelessness takes place in – how does this look for people who are sex, sexuality and/or gender diverse? Figures from the USA show that 40% of homeless young people are LGBTIQ (despite being 10% of the population), yet here in Aotearoa, we don’t have statistics on the state of homelessness for our communities of any age range. Anecdotally, when our friends or whānau struggle to find housing, we often take them in and support each other, but this isn’t reflected on any national database.

Some of the key themes that play out in sex, sexuality and gender diverse homelessness are family breakdowns, discrimination (overt and covert) and isolation. It is a sadly normal occurrence for young people to come out and face family rejection, particularly when they are gender diverse. A common scenario exists where parents will only accept a young person back into their home if they commit to living as the gender they were assigned at birth. It is not a safe or healthy option to force someone to ‘go back in the closet’ or live as someone they are not, for the sake of shelter. Yet agencies such as WINZ have had trouble recognising this as a true ‘relationship breakdown’ in the past and have therefore refused youth payments for teenagers who cannot live in such an oppressive environment.

While poverty is almost always a key factor of general homelessness, a person of any socio-economic status can find themselves unwelcome or kicked out of a family home for their sexuality or gender identity. One of the people I spoke with, who has faced an abusive home life says:

I’m a migrant with rich parents who’s under 21. Is anyone going to think I’m genuinely in need? My parents are pulling the “please come home” act, refusing to give me access to my health insurance policy and telling me instead that if I’m ill they can nurse me back to health if I would only come home, and what am I meant to do?

When family and whānau become a site of pain and trauma for LGBTIQ people, often the only option becomes to find new homes and families that will validate the parts of them that are not accepted in their former home.

Homelessness doesn’t just affect young people, and there are further layers that add complexity to the issue such as race, disability and gender. With a shortage of accommodation in urban areas in particular, if you don’t look ‘normative’, you’re a person of colour, you have children or a disability – the chances are low that you will be the first pick of landlords, housing agencies or even most flatmates. Many gay or queer identifying people can downplay their sexuality, but if someone is ‘non-passing’ as a transgender flat-hunter, they are more likely to experience discrimination.

One interviewee based in Auckland currently shares a single bed with their girlfriend while staying in a person’s storage room. They’ve been told they need to leave soon to make way for another transgender person, with the plan to find a new flat with three other likeminded people. So far, they have had no success in finding a safe, affordable and secure flat to move into.

Nobody wants to rent to a bunch of visibly trans/queer disabled teenagers even if we weren’t fighting a housing market that’s totally against us at the moment? Forty people showing up to flat viewings, most of whom in suit and tie or with parents as guarantors (which, as queer babies most of us are estranged from ours, or they’re really poor) ….. I can’t hide how brown and neurodivergent I am, my girlfriend can’t really pass for a masculine cis dude any more as much as she tries… I’m scared. I don’t know what we’re going to do.”

Another interviewee who identifies as takataapui taahine and is identified by others as transgender, queer and Māori, says that homelessness is something they are “intimately acquainted with.” From crashing on sofas, staying in vans and squatting in old sheds and abandoned homes as a teenager, their housing stability as an adult started improving after becoming a sex worker, which helped clear their debt and provided an income that didn’t depend on seasonal opportunities. They state that:

Even now though, with my stable job working at an NGO, I am aware that my position is always precarious… I definitely see my expendability as intrinsically linked to being poor, brown, visibly not a heterosexual cis person. It’s indisputably also linked to disability, or directly because of discrimination against it…  My family have no money for me to fall back on. I’ve recently been kicked out of my house because my neighbor complained that my autistic son throws toys and fruit over the fence. I don’t imagine this situation unfolding in this way if I were a more wealthy, middle aged, white, cis, man or woman.

There are almost no safety nets for people who have intersecting battles and experiences, that don’t fit neatly into common ‘gay’ experience. While communities try hard to support each other, there are not many official options. In Wellington, there is already a shortage of temporary emergency accommodation and many of the services that do exist are run by faith-based organisations that have a chequered history with sexual and gender minorities. What is available for those that cannot viably utilise the Men’s Night Shelter or Women’s Boarding House due to their gender identity? How is the safety of LGBTIQ people guaranteed, particularly when they may be fleeing trauma, discrimination and violence in the first place?

Sandra Dickson, a longtime advocate for sexual violence prevention also notes that abusive domestic partnerships can become even more dangerous to those that do not have alternative housing options. Dickson says that the impact of ‘having no family of origin to return to because of homo/bi/transphobia and gender policing’ on people who experience intimate partner violence is under-discussed. Statistics from the UK show that same sex attracted people experience intimate partner violence at the same rate or higher than heterosexual people, bisexual women experience higher rates of sexual violence, and transgender people are most likely of all to experience any form of violence. Without the resources to quantify this information in Aotearoa, it’s difficult to piece together a formal picture on how domestic violence looks for LGBTIQ+ communities, let alone to begin to work on strategies for support and prevention.

He kokonga whare e kitea, he kokonga ngākau e kore e kitea”

The corners of a house can be seen, but not the corners of the heart.

Te Mahana, the Strategy to End Homelessness in Wellington, writes that “if the issue of homelessness is to be adequately addressed for Māori, it is vital that deeper needs such as spiritual, relationships and cultural connection must also be identified, considered and satisfied” and that the heart of the issue is “cultural dislocation and loss of cultural connection.” The link between colonisation, poverty and homelessness runs strong and is hard to address within a setting of profit driven capitalism and a collective historical amnesia regarding land theft and severe cultural grievances at the hands of colonisers.

The ability to find a safe and secure place to rest one’s head goes further than physical walls, it is about having a papakainga, turangawaewae and a place to physically and spiritually rest, settle and heal. Capitalism doesn’t, by nature, build us homes or papakainga. It doesn’t instinctively nurture us culturally, physically, emotionally, socially or spiritually – we have to fight to be seen as anything other than one-dimensional beings that must spend the majority of our time doing meaningless work to survive, rather than living, exploring, creating and re-generating ourselves, our families and our communities. Sara Fraser, Housing Research Assistant says that one of the things she has learnt whilst working in housing research is:

Providing people with good tenure of housing is a pathway to better health and this is as important in our queer communities as elsewhere. We are overrepresented in the suicide and mental health statistics; social housing is one avenue which provides secure tenure, but with the current government having a hands-off approach to housing, I don’t see how the statistics will drop.”

With the National Government’s plans to sell off state housing to NGOs, rather than focusing on building new homes, the housing crisis around Aotearoa doesn’t look set to ease in the near future. Creating safe, secure and stable housing for sexual and gender minorities isn’t compatible with a housing market that is highly competitive when non-normative bodies and existences are policed or discriminated against. A democratic, public housing solution must ensure both free universal access and specific kinds of support; ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’. When asked what safe and secure housing would like to an interviewee, they replied:

I imagine housing security for me personally, looks like living in a community where people care about each others’ well being, where a homeless person doesn’t exist because resources are shared, and where circumstances are recognised and we don’t imagine that we all exist from a zero sum starting point.“

Let’s continue to create more room for possibilities and imaginings as this, where we dream and demand of more than the narrow, and damaging options that are currently given to us. Let’s question the economic conditions that prioritise profits over quality of life, and let’s continue in creating true papakainga for our communities.

* Thank you to those who shared their stories, thoughts and research as contribution to this article. Arohanui to those who live this, and to those who dedicate their lives to supporting others through this.

** This article is used in reference to, inspired and shaped by Te Whare Tapa Wha, the Māori health model developed by Professor Mason Durie.

If you are sex or gender diverse (intersex or transgender) and currently needing emergency accommodation in Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara, feel free to contact the Temporary Emergency Accommodation Project at the 128 Radical Community Social Centre.