Pita Sharples shows the meaning of mana

August 25, 2009

As an average middle-aged pakeha, I have over the years occasionally used the word mana without fully understanding the depth of its meaning. But now I think I get it.

I have had a quiet admiration for Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples for some years now, since I heard him interviewed at length on the radio sometime in the 90s I believe. After hearing so much waffle and political posturing from so many people in the New Zealand political scene for so long, I remember feeling refreshed by the straightforward, respectful and generous-spirited way he spoke.

My appreciation of him has grown since he entered parliament. No insincere and manipulative soundbites from his lips, just basic common sense and respect for his audience. When others block the path of his beliefs and convictions, he smiles (humbly, not through gritted teeth) and gently replies that he’s disappointed but will continue to work for a better deal for the people he represents.

I have written before of my unhappiness with populist, kneejerk posturing of many politicians and leaders – how their reactive attitude to social problems more often than not makes those problems worse or produces other unintended, negative consequences. The more I look and listen, the more convinced I am that real leaders should model their attitudes on Sharples’ generous spirit.

The events of the past week, around the issue of Maori representation within the leadership of the new Auckland city, show starkly the contrast of attitudes, and lead me to the conclusion that Sharples displays what mana must be. And that Rodney Hide will never be able to claim any of that priceless substance.

I’m not going to set Peter on a pedestal and worship him (even if think he’d make a better prime minister than all the alternatives on offer at present). I’m sure he’s a fallible human just like the rest of us. But I draw inspiration from his mana, and take comfort that such leaders with such qualities can still exist and survive in this fractious, conflicted and self-serving country.

To me, Peter demonstrates humility and determination, intelligence and humour, and a touch of the “common man”. When his convictions are thwarted, he tells the truth (he’s disappointed), he avoids slagging his opponents (he respects that they have a point of view to), and he keeps going (there is more than one way to skin a cat).

[As I write, I remember an incident during, I think, the 2005 elections (I hope I’ve got this right) when his electorate workers and those of his main opponent John Tamihere were defacing each others’ billboards. Other aspiring politicians may have worked themselves up into a lather and started a media campaign of reprisal, but Pita Sharples just smiled, shrugged his shoulders, said his team would do whatever it was they were doing, and apologised to his rival. At least, that’s how it came across on telly.]

Mana is something that Rodney Hide does not have and I suspect never will have. No matter how much we may applaud people who stick to their beliefs and ideology, democracy would be under severe strain – perhaps even unworkable – if all politicians used threats of non-cooperation whenever they don’t get their way. Throwing the toys out of the cot may make Hide feel better, or more powerful, or more ideologically pure, but it is hardly a mana-enhancing response to political disagreements.

3 Comments | Maori issues, Politics, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

How much time will automated passport processing really save?

August 21, 2009

I may have been just plain lucky in the past but . . . . I can’t see what the fuss is about re making the trans-Tasman border faster and easier to cross.

I appreciate that, just as electronic ticketing has sped up most check-in procedures, so the inevitable move to electronic passport scanning will save a few minutes each trip. But will it produce huge efficiencies? I don’t see it.

Instead of having to queue at the immigration booth when arriving on each side of the Tasman, we’ll queue for our turn at a passport scanning machine, try to work out how to use it, and then perhaps queue again in the “manual system” if you’re unlucky enough (as I was recently) to see the machine complain about something in your passport.

Those cheerleading the automation of border crossings talk enthusiastically of saving huge amounts of time in queues. One local newspaper columnist I read recently embellished his tale of a tiring trip to Melbourne with groans about struggling through countless arrival queues. Ahem …. there are two of them, unless you count the duty-free shop checkout (not compulsory) or are unlucky enough to get a full luggage frisking.

As I said, perhaps I’ve just been lucky. But I do an Australian trip on average once a year, and I did three return trips within as many months on family matters around the start of this year. That’s six queuing adventures – and not one of them took more than 15 minutes total from arriving in the immigration lounge to leaving the terminal building. In general, most of that time was spent waiting for luggage to emerge – which passport machines will not help.

And it’s been several years since I’ve had to wait longer than five minutes to move from the public departure area through immigration and security to the departure gate lounge. Is this a good reason in itself to pay millions for automated border processes? Yes, the move to this type of technology is inevitable, but please don’t over-egg it by assuring us that huge hunks of time will be saved for travellers.

One really good result of this advance, however, could be that the ridiculous rules about checking in at least two hours before departure can be significantly relaxed. A 6am departure for Brisbane is painful enough, but having to check in before 4am is irritatingly absurd. We can all easily manage half-hour check-ins for domestic flights, and I’m positive that one hour for international flights will be easy for everyone.

I’ll become a fan of automated passport clearance if the two-hour check-in rule is halved.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

‘Entitlement’ should work both ways

August 3, 2009

I wasn’t going to comment on the current row about politicians’ expense accounts, because the money itself doesn’t bother me much. But one aspect of this debate is starting to annoy me.

One word that is being used by politicians and their supporters, far more than usual, is ‘entitlement’. It’s become this week’s buzzword. It’s fine for Roger Douglas and other long-serving ex-MPs to travel around the world first class with their families for almost nothing thanks to taxpayers, because he’s ‘entitled’ to do so. He said so! The rules say so!

Several cabinet ministers gain more taxpayer money in expenses a week to run or rent out their own Wellington places of residence than I get in total each fortnight. But that’s OK – they’re ‘entitled’ to it. John Key said so!

Entitlement to expense payments is not a human right or a gift from above. It is bestowed by laws or agreed rules. Those laws and rules are created by parliament and MPs. So politicians create for themselves their entitlements.

They also create or endorse entitlements for the people whom they govern or represent. That’s the way our western societies work. Our laws and regulations prescribe who is entitled to what, in both the public and private sectors.

Up until very recently, certain beneficiaries have been entitled, according to the rules, to allowances to help fund training for jobs that will get them off their benefit. Now that rule has been changed so these people are no longer ‘entitled’.

Who changed the rules (and without consultation)? The politicians. What was their argument that these payments should no longer be made (and justification for making public the amounts paid to vocal opponents)? That they are not ‘entitled’ to them.

So the logic comes down to these two rules:

1. If you are a politician and set the rules, you make and retain the entitlements that suit you, and you rebuff any criticism by saying you’re ‘entitled’. Your entitlements are set in concrete, and you justify them with hubris.

2. If you’re a citizen who once had a legal entitlement but no longer have it because politicians changed the rules, then your request or argument for continued entitlement is rubbished and criticised because you are ‘not entitled’ to the payment. Your entitlements are subject to the whim and latest ideology of the politicians.

I’m annoyed for two reasons: first, it’s an unfair and hypocritical double standard; second, the politicians think we the public are stupid enough to fall for it. Well I’m not!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(August 4) Shortly after I posted this article, John Key announced a review of MP’s entitlements, particularly for Wellington accommodation. This is refreshing news. If the amended rules are based on fair recompense for real, unavoidable expenses then I’ll be happy. But I’ll never respect any rule that allows Roger Douglas to swan around the world using my money to support his arrogant self-entitlement.

1 Comment | Politics, social work | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong