Goff gambles on fading goodwill

OPINION: John Key's plan to cement National's relationship with the Maori Party by repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act now looks like taking him down a path every bit as fraught and rocky as the one trod by Helen Clark.

There were two telling things about Phil Goff's nationhood speech: the gloves are clearly off in the battle with the Maori Party; and Labour is ready to draw a thick red line through the foreshore and seabed debate, Mark II.

The postcard accompanying Mr Goff's speech of a blazing red pohutukawa on a white sand beach shouted iwi/Kiwi loud enough to trigger a shudder through National's ranks.

Whether it resonates with the wider public in the way that Don Brash's 2004 assault on race relations did remains to be seen. But Prime Minister John Key's plan to cement National's relationship with the Maori Party by repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act now looks like taking him down a path every bit as fraught and rocky as the one trod by Helen Clark before him.

Mr Goff's battle cry over the beach being the birthright of every Kiwi has too familiar a ring for National not to recognise where it leads. It may be banking on voters seeing it as nothing more than a cynical ploy – but it had become a touchstone among senior Nats that Labour had neither the stomach, nor anything to gain, from risking the alienation of its own supporters by raking over the coals of the 2004 foreshore and seabed debate.

Back when Labour was still in hair shirt mode and rattling through its list of "sorrys" to the nation, that was probably the right assumption to make.

But Phil Goff's "if it ain't broke, why fix it" challenge to Mr Key over the existing law blows a big fat raspberry at any expectation that Labour would stay stuck in contrition mode.

Or that Mr Goff would balk at taking the same sort of risks as a one-time National leader whose party's poll ratings were also in the doldrums.

A speech evoking the 2004 debate is a high-stakes gamble for Mr Goff. But it is also a step he is said to have taken after sounding out his Maori MPs and wider caucus. Views had already hardened around the table that repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act was nothing more than a window dressing exercise for National and the Maori Party at Labour's expense – a gesture that was more symbolic than meaningful and designed largely to provide a nation-building platform for Mr Key.

Even that would not have been enough six months ago when the Maori Party's stocks were riding high. But Labour has clearly sniffed a shift in public sentiment over the relationship between National and its minor party ally.

It is calculating that the earlier goodwill toward National Party-Maori Party relations has been knocked by Hone Harawira's one-fingered salute to Pakeha New Zealand, and the Government's sweetheart deal for some big iwi corporates as the price of the Maori Party's support for its emissions trading scheme.

Labour had better be right. This is too bold a step for it to be anything other than Phil Goff's last chance saloon. If he has misjudged the public sentiment, then he will either cop a backlash or, worse for Labour, be ignored as irrelevant.

In either case, it would sign the eventual death warrant on his leadership.

But the move was made only after Mr Goff's earlier foray into similar territory with his condemnation of Mr Harawira's outburst against "white motherf...ers" and Mr Key's more conciliatory tone; he appears to have been emboldened by early feedback suggesting it had struck a chord.

In which case, National may be quietly thankful that it decided against putting a deadline on its repeal of the foreshore and seabed act. The temptation to quietly inform its Maori Party allies that it's time to stop for a cuppa will be high.

* * *

If so, it will be round one to Phil Goff. He may look to be channelling Don Brash and Winston Peters with his accusations of "shabby deals" and attack on John Key for reopening the wounds of the first foreshore and seabed debate, but the message is carefully pitched; it is an attack designed not just to drive a wedge between National and some of its socially conservative constituency by reviving the "tail wagging the dog" spectre, but between the Maori Party and its activist and blue-collar supporters.

The notion that the Maori Party is hostage to rich iwi corporates is a call to those supporters to return to their Labour roots. It is a battle cry over class, not race.

It is also a marker of how far Mr Goff has already shifted the party from the territory staked out by Helen Clark: his leadership is the pendulum swing away from the socially liberal policies that eventually helped turf Labour out. The recent hiring of former Alliance strategist John Pagani – respected for his street cunning by opponents and allies alike – only underscored the fact that he was ready to start taking some risks in moving the party there. The danger for Labour is that it burns bridges with the Maori Party.

But Mr Goff's speech has the hallmarks of one who has nothing to lose. The Maori Party has already cannibalised Labour's support in the Maori seats. Recent polls point to what would have been unthinkable a year ago – National is starting to eat into Labour support among Maori voters on the general roll as well.

The assumption is that bad blood won't stop the Maori Party talking turkey after the election, as it did with National.

And in the meantime, the cracks that have already begun to emerge within the Maori Party will only widen if National drags its heels over the Foreshore and Seabed Act repeal. That prospect may sit uneasily among some within Labour – there is disquiet over whether it will cop the backlash from Maoridom if the Maori Party tears itself apart. But not enough for it now to overcome political expediency.

Newest First

Oldest First

Ian McKinnon   #3   09:01 am Nov 30 2009

It is great to see that New Zealanders are awake to this man. He is the one who contemplated diluting the incest law and lowering the age of sexual consent. The poplace must remember these things, he is a disgrace.

mick   #2   06:24 pm Nov 29 2009

Most kiwis want good healthy relations between Maori and Pakeha. There is recognition of our differences and understanding of our commonalities. John Key seems to have a much better grasp of these than Phil Goff. As a long time pakeha Labour supporter, I despair at Goff's negativity towards the Maori Party. An olive branch would be more appropriate.

Fred   #1   12:27 pm Nov 29 2009

Goff's search for relevance is more like the flailings of a drowning man. Rather than tear apart the Maori party, his actions will likely result in a change in leadership for Labour.

Ad Feedback