OPINION: Julia Suryakusuma, the author of Julia’s Jihad, tries to untangle the contradictions of press freedom in Indonesia with the unrelenting stranglehold on West Papua amid controversy over the continuing detention of two French journalists.

When you are a journalist, you know that following your journalistic instincts sometimes means big trouble.

That’s why a slew of films have been made on this topic, including: The Killing Fields (1984) a drama about the civil war in Cambodia; The China Syndrome (1979), an American thriller about the dangers of nuclear power; and Veronica Guerin, a 2003 biographical Irish film about the drug trade in Dublin.

These three films were all based on true stories.

The characters of Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor), Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterson), Kimberly Wells (Jane Fonda), Richard Adams (Michael Douglas) and the eponymous character of Veronica Guerin (Cate Blanchett), all risked their lives in their pursuit of the truth — the ultimate aim of investigative journalism. For that Guerin also paid the ultimate price: She was murdered in 1996.

I reckon a film entitled Live from Papua could also be made about the two French journalists, Valentine Bourrat and Thomas Dandois, who have been detained in Papua since August 6 this year. They were arrested while filming the conditions in which the local population lives.

The trouble was, they were there on tourist visas.

So when the authorities caught them not long after they arrived, it would have been pretty easy to hit them with immigration violations and deport them.

A clear-cut case, huh?

Still detained

So how come two months later they are still being detained, especially after they admitted they were working without press visas and have apologised? It turns out that because Bourrat and Dandois had contacted local pro-independence activists, seeking to film their demands, they are facing the possibility of subversion charges.

If brought to trial, they could face up to five years in jail and a fine of up to Rp 500 million (US$41,000). Heavy stuff.

The Alliance of Indonesian Journalists (AJI) has condemned the detention of the two French journalists. They say that it adds to the long list of the failures of the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono when it comes to press freedom in Indonesia.

There is certainly precedent for this sort of thing.

In 2010, another French journalist, Baudoein Koening, was also kicked out.

Unlike Bourrat and Dandois, he was legit: He came with a press visa. His crime was filming a peaceful student demonstration in favor of autonomy.

According to Endy M. Bayuni, former editor-in-chief of The Jakarta Post, it has always been very difficult to get permission to go to Papua as a journalist.

‘Go slow’

Even when international news agencies like Agence France-Press (AFP), Reuters or Associated Press (AP) journalists apply, it can take more than a year to get a visa.

This “go slow” approach enables the government to deny there is a ban on foreign journalists visiting Papua.

Tourists on the other hand, can travel freely in Papua. No wonder so many journalists come to Indonesia using a tourist visa. They just have to be careful not to get caught.

Bourrat and Dandois were unlucky. They came at a time when tension and violence were at a peak, with five separatist rebels shot dead in an exchange of gunfire with the Indonesian military just a few days earlier.

The political transition was another factor, with local military authorities exploiting the gap between the end of the Yudhoyono administration and the start of that of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo.

Benjamin Ismail, head of the Asia-Pacific desk of the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RWB) has a take on this.

“For the local authorities it might be the last opportunity to send a big message internationally not only to foreign journalists but also to human-rights activists, NGOs and even the UN, as they have tried to send inspectors in the region,” says Ismail.

Foreigner blackout

The reality is that there has been a foreign-media blackout imposed on Papua whereby the central government has restricted the access of journalists, activists, researchers, diplomats and aid workers ever since it was annexed by Indonesia in 1963.

Yet this has not prevented Papua’s separatist movement from becoming well known. Activists are jailed for raising the banned separatist flag, and security forces are heavy-handed, engaging in abuse, violence and even torture.

Despite Papua’s vast natural wealth, most Papuans live in extreme poverty. Is it any wonder they are resentful and want independence?

Indonesia ranks 132 on the RWB press freedom index, lower than Thailand (at 130), and Brunei (at 117). Ismail says that Indonesia’s rank would be much higher if Papua were excluded. They do that for Hong Kong (60) and Taiwan (50), which rank much higher than China (175).

Ismail points out that in 2006 Indonesia ratified the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. It therefore must be implemented as part of Indonesian law.

The covenant says you cannot discriminate regarding the entry of foreign journalists, especially to sensitive regions where there are allegations of human-rights abuse.

Ah well, it certainly isn’t the first time Indonesia has ratified an international convention and then not applied it domestically.

After his expulsion, Koening wrote of his experience: “Why does Indonesian democracy stop at Papua?” (The Guardian, June 9, 2010).

The answer is that since its annexation, Papua was basically set up as a colony. This has been the case under every single Indonesian government since 1963.

Will things change with Jokowi? While campaigning in Papua, our incoming president stated that the region’s development was a priority program for his Cabinet and he was committed to implementing it immediately after his inauguration on Oct. 20. He also promised to open Papua to journalists.

Will it finally be possible then, to shoot Live from Papua?

Source: The Jakarta Post

The Electoral Commission has declared the official results for the 2014 General Election.

Main points:

• The number of seats in Parliament will be 121.

• The National Party has lost one list seat compared to election night, and now has 60 seats in total.

• The Green Party has gained one list seat compared to election night, and now has 14 seats in total.

• There are no changes to the number of seats held on election night by other parties.

• All electorate candidates leading on election night have been confirmed as winning their seats.

• The turnout as a percentage of enrolled electors is 77.9 percent (2011 – 74.2 percent).

• The final enrolment rate is 92.6 percent (2011 – 93.7 percent)

Details of the official results are available from www.electionresults.govt.nz

Background

The official results for the General Election held on 20 September 2014 have been determined in accordance with the requirements of the electoral legislation.

The scrutiny of the rolls has been completed and the master roll for each electorate has been prepared.

All votes counted on election night have been recounted and balanced and special votes have been checked for eligibility before being counted. This has been done in the presence of Justices of the Peace and any scrutineers appointed by candidates.

Comprehensive audit checks have also been completed at the national level to ensure the results are accurate.

The results are subject to any applications for judicial recounts.

Composition of Parliament

The size of Parliament will be 121 seats. The additional seat is because United Future won one electorate seat but was not entitled to any seats under the party vote.

There are 2 changes compared to election night.

The National Party has a total of 60 seats, one less than on election night.

The Green Party has a total of 14 seats, one more than on election night.

There are no changes to the number of seats held by other parties on election night.

All electorate candidates leading on election night have been confirmed as winning their seats.

Successful Candidates (electorate and list)

The names of the 121 successful candidates (electorate and list) are shown in alphabetical order under their parties click here

The winning electorate candidates and their majorities click here.

Detailed Results for each Electorate

Detailed results for each electorate are available from www.electionresults.govt.nz.

Turnout and Special Votes

The number of voters as a percentage of enrolled voters was 77.9 percent. Turnout for each electorate is shown in Attachment B.

Special votes totalled 330,985 or 13.5 percent of total votes

Declaration and Judicial Recounts

The official results were declared by Gazette Notice today. Any applications for a judicial recount must be filed with a District Court no later than Wednesday 8 October 2014. 

Next Steps for the Parliamentary Election

If there are no applications for recounts, on Thursday 9 October 2014 the Electoral Commission will return the writ to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, allocate list seats in the presence of party scrutineers and declare by Gazette Notice the election of list members of Parliament.

If there are applications for judicial recounts the return of the writ and the election of list members will be delayed until any recounts are complete.

Further Statistics

Detailed information including allocation of list seats, polling place information and special vote statistics, is expected to be available, subject to recounts, in the week commencing 13 October 2014 at www.electionresults.org.nz.

As Pacific voters we should seriously consider getting ourselves united into a force to be reckoned with. It’s pretty simple really: unite as a group, work together to get everyone to polling booths, and get them to cast their votes.

By Tuifa’asisina Mea’ole Keil

My last column, ‘3 More Years Hard Labour’ certainly got some people’s attention. A number of readers contacted me direct and we had some great constructive discussions about the issues raised.

What was even better was that some of the callers were Papalagi. And this is the reason why that was great.

At a number of recent community meetings I’ve been to, I have seen one too many of our Pacific people behave badly in them. In short, these Pacific individuals sometimes lose their cool and get emotional when issues debated start getting to the sensitive bits. They end up raising their voices accompanied by some aggressive postulations and finger pointing. They can be an intimidating sight. Don’t get me wrong, these situations we can handle and sort out ourselves however, the non-Pacific islanders in the room get quite uncomfortable with that type of behaviour and worse, it gets in the way of an open debate which leads to recommendations and solutions.

So to have a number of papalagi call and challenge my reasoning in last week’s column was therefore quite refreshing and as a result of it, I learnt quite a lot about what was bothering Papalagi people about us Pacific islanders in the lead up and during the recent election.

The main issue the Papalagi callers had about us PIs is this, that we claim the safe Labour seats full of our people but we do not deliver the voters. I countered that a Pacific MP had the highest party vote total. But two of the callers replied, “have a look at the turnout and compare it to 2011 results”.

It forced me to revisit the numbers and found myself mildly “amused”. Amused in that my Papalagi callers were right. But on the other hand, I was alarmed at the voting trend, especially over the last three General Elections.

Since Labour’s win in 2005, the Labour Party has been losing ground steadily. A trend that forecasted if things stay the same Labour would end up losing by record numbers as that would be the result of the low voter trend from 2005. Lo and behold, the worst Labour result in over 92 years is what happened two weeks ago – so we are not surprised.

This weekend, the Electoral Commission will announce the official 2014 general election results. I believe it is best we leave the more detailed comments until then. However, we do have enough data to provide a preview.

Before I begin, I must point out that Pacific islanders traditionally voting for Labour, does not necessarily mean they will vote for Labour. More correctly, as the Papalagi hypothesise, Pacific islanders will vote Labour, but they are terrible at turning up to cast their votes.

It’s a known fact is that Pacific islanders who do make it to the Polling Booth, historically would give their two ticks to Labour. But an increasing number of Pacific voters are not casting their votes. Even worse, more and more of them do not bother to enrol and vote.

So how should Pacific islanders respond to this voting apathy? Or is it unfair that the Papalagi single us out for blame when an estimated 38 per cent of New Zealanders did not bother to vote or enrol as well.

Well, let’s look at it from another angle. Will this reasoning put us Pacific islanders in a position to advocate against child poverty, better housing, home ownership, better schools, jobs, and other issues that we want the government to address? Or will this throwaway line send the message to the Government that we do not mind if the Government does nothing about the issues affecting us deeply?

Is that what we’re saying? Because the trend is likely to continue as young Pacific islanders have the same poor voting record.

With that in mind, let us conduct a critical analyses in the famous historical Labour fortresses of Maungakiekie, Manukau East, Mangere, Manurewa, and Mana, (the 5 Ms). When a comparison of the party votes for the 2011 and 2014 general elections is made, we find, based on the preliminary 2014 results that Labour lost 14,607 party votes.

A closer look reveals that Manukau East with first timer Jenny Salesa lost 4,330 party votes. While in Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu I’iga, lost 2,516 party votes for National. Labour also lost 2,436. The Greens lost 700, while NZ First and Conservatives recorded minor increases. So where did National, Labour and the Green’s lost votes went? And herein is proof – that in 2014, we had 5,187 people who decided not to cast their vote.

Mangere which had on the day the highest party vote count of 15,100 (but down by 2,860 on 2011) only had a 70 per cent voter turnout. An estimated 12,579 voters in Mangere did not bother to vote.

Of note, National has sent a clear signal/challenge it is confident to take the fight to the South Auckland Electorates. One cannot ignore the bold public displays National put on earlier in the year that caught Labour napping.

We could go on about how and what to compare from the general results, but I can assure you the results are not pretty to look at apart from a few highlights like Hutt South and Dunedin North.

By now, those that know me would say I had to sing about my home electorate Hutt South. But as a former campaigner one thing that gives you the best chance of a winning result is the campaign’s ability to recruit and retain volunteers.

There are so many things/activities/targets you have to achieve in order to win, and 90% PLUS of it has to do with volunteers. And that is what Hutt South did very well.

If one has a look at the Christchurch East by election last year, Labour’s Poto Williams (LAB) won with record breaking results.

Poto’s campaign manager was the seasoned veteran, Jim Anderton.

Anderton with the old school street by street, door by door, face to face campaign tactic, was ably supported by a campaign committee.

A great combination of experience and new high tech, which they had at their disposal, a huge volunteer army from across the country and on the ground that helped via phone calling, travelled at their own expense to be part of the campaign.

The Labour MPs too pulled their weight. I was part of the Labour campaign then, although I am now no longer a member of the Labour Party, Poto’s campaign is how winning campaigns are run.

I believe Poto’s win is the best byelection result on record in terms of voter turn out.

The volunteer army were great and they helped and picked up all sorts of skills from the campaign trainers/co-ordinators. We were thrilled that these volunteers from all over the country had on the ground live situation training which would have been a great asset to Labour in the General Election.

However that was not meant to be. And Labour must now wonder at what could have been.

One of my observations during the election is when I visited Pacific neighbourhoods, two things stood out, the boarded-up state houses, and the lack of enthusiasm by Pacific community leaders to help get our people registered and to the voting booth.

During the General Election campaign it became clear that PIs were like the people of God in the Old Testament, wandering in the wilderness. It also became clear that the community leaders, and this includes MPs and candidates, were not providing the needed leadership.

In a sense, one could say, no one wanted to step forward to play the role of Moses. Even worse Pacific MPs/candidates fear of their Party machinery did not want the role of Moses. The lesson we learn about Moses is when you don’t obey your boss you get to do all the hard work but you do not get a share of the rewards.

The next three years is critical to us all. With National having the majority to govern alone, we may well see the National Party of the 70s and 90s re-incarnated.

I am not a voice in the wilderness, but I am calling our people out. That if we persist with this voting pattern, then we are setting ourselves up for periods of wins and losses. That when a particular party is in government, our issues are addressed. And when another party is in government then we bear the brunt of whatever their social policies that does not include us as their constituency brings.

So what would change for us if we participate in General elections with high voter turnouts and visible community leadership? The answer is simple: we set ourselves up to win all the time.

How do you know that Tuifa’asisina I hear some of you say.

Well the classic example of that win-win by turning out to vote is Grey Power NZ.

Whether it’s Labour or National governments, they know that Grey Power turns out 98 per cent of the time and so they are force to be reckoned with and they have to be listened to.

The evidence of this power is that the Gold Card has survived the threats by National to cut its benefits because National or Labour or whoever is in government cannot afford to be offside with Grey Power.

As we anticipate what fate others will decide for us, can we start talking amongst ourselves and start getting a disciplined strong voice to speak for us?

I am not asking someone to be Moses, we all know that did not end well for Moses. But as Pacific voters we should seriously consider getting ourselves united into a force to be reckoned with. It’s pretty simple really: unite as a group, work together to get everyone to polling booths, and get them to cast their votes.

Voting is a proven winner.

By Poto Williams

The Labour Party Pacific caucus has welcomed Jenny Salesa of Manukau East and Carmel Sepuloni of Kelston, successful MP’s in the recent General Election and reflects the high calibre pacific candidates that contested including those who were unsuccessful, Jerome Mika, Lemalu Herman Retzlaff and Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki

Salesa and Sepuloni join Poto Williams (Chch East), Kris Faafoi (Mana) and the head of the caucus Su’a William Sio (Māngere) that provides not only a good representation across Pacific nations but coverage across the country as well.

While final counts are yet to be confirmed, the National party only have 2 Pacific MP’s, Peseta Sam Lotu Iiga and Alfred Ngaro, while Fia Turner waits to see if she is successful on the list.

Sepuloni returns to Parliament where she can renew her commitment to improving educational and health outcomes for marginalised and vulnerable groups. Salesa brings a strong sense of advocacy for a fair and just society as well as opportunities for all New Zealanders with a wealth of public sector experience and a strong background in community contribution.

The head of the Pacific caucus Sua William Sio is excited with the team and its prospects. “its historic and it’s a step in the right direction. Its a new beginning which is a step towards achieving our ultimate dreams and aspirations. Making sure we have good people at the very top”.

The members of the 51^st Parliament will be sworn in 20^th October 2014.

“It would be disingenuous for John Key to claim he wants to solve child poverty when he won’t release the real extent of harm his welfare reforms are causing.” Metiria Turei

The Government needs to start reporting the effects of welfare reforms on children, the Green Party said today.

A report released today by the Child Poverty Action Group notes that the Ministry of Social Development is providing no reporting on how children are impacted by benefit penalties and sanctions, which can see income support halved.

“Halving a family’s income is likely to have a very negative impact on children but the Government isn’t even looking into the effects of their policy on kids,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

“If John Key is serious about tackling child poverty, he needs to come clean on how children are affected by his welfare reforms.

“It would be disingenuous for John Key to claim he wants to solve child poverty when he won’t release the real extent of harm his welfare reforms are causing.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to prove that cutting incomes to the poorest families will have a negative impact on kids. That is less money for the basics like food, health and clothes.

“We know the number of children living in poverty has gone up in the last six years, under National, with over 205,000 children now living in severe poverty.

“You don’t solve child poverty by cutting incomes to the poorest kids.

“The Green Party’s School Hubs policy is a great way to bring social services to children and families and ensuring that they are able to access health care and meals.

“The Green Party has a plan to help solve child poverty in this country and we once again call on John Key to engage on a cross party level to help the children of New Zealand,” said Mrs Turei.

A recent (repeat) migrant, also voted for Annette King because after an absence of 25 years, had to rely on the advice of a cousin who said she was a good MP and after reading a column by Sir Bob Jones who listed her qualities in suggesting she should take over as leader for Labour weeks before the elections.

By Alan Ah Mu

It’s important to vote so go vote.

That was the message which popped up before the screening of Lucy in the movie theatre, a newspaper, on Samoa Capital Radio and Tuifa’asisina Meaole Keil’s articles in Pacific Guardians – to go with greater appreciation of how society works and the need to take part in it that comes with advancing age.

The word is too few Pacific Islanders vote but since too much is at stake and influenced by the reminders mentioned, we did it.  We voted.

Labour would lose badly the polls said and so it proved, despite the two in our household we gave them their electorate and party votes.

One, a casual worker in the service industry, voted for Annette King and couldn’t decide which party to go for so ticked Labour on impulse.

The choice of party wasn’t pre-planned unlike the choice of candidate.

The other Labour voter is a schoolgirl who followed to the voting booth a fellow Samoan school mate whose sister was an election official of sorts who showed them how to vote.

Both the worker and student voters are recent migrants from Samoa.

A longer resident of New Zealand by two years in our household voted for the Greens both ways impressed by their stress on equality.

All bothered to register and vote because of my urgings to do so, based on the determination to take part, in turn prompted by a realisation that politicians won’t listen to you unless you vote – and the reminders mentioned above.

Even popped into King’s office and got the registration forms for all of us on a walk to the supermarket nearby.

The staffer who handed over the forms said something like, “Stand beside them and make sure they fill them in.”

Knew what she meant.

All manner of things can prevent the filling in of forms and voting.  Like tiredness from work and study, an emotional upset of some sort, a visitor, a programme on TV, a rugby game, etc., etc.

In anticipation of such possibilities got the group to vote on the Monday before deadline.

Anyway as a recent (repeat) migrant, also voted for King because after an absence of 25 years, had to rely on the advice of a cousin who said she was a good MP and after reading a column by Sir Bob Jones who listed her qualities in suggesting she should take over as leader for Labour weeks before the elections.

Certain National would win looked around for another party to vote for and settled on the Maori Party after listening to Te Ururoa Flavell on TV say their priority was Maori interests – and that they had to partner up with whoever is in Government to be listened to.

His practical approach appealed, and something Samoans and possibly other Pacific Islanders might want to follow; in other words form our own political party so our concerns aren’t lost in the list of other priorities in the other parties.

Felt no connection to the other parties and achieved only a slight understanding of what they all stood for.

A female relative did not say who she voted for – only shrieked a dislike and distrust of David Cunliffe because of the shape his face.

Distrust him for a different reason: he comes across as someone whose ambition to be leader seems stronger than a desire to serve.

In any case comments by a nephew who was a party official reinforced a belief that took hold years ago while a Wellington resident the first time – 1970s – late 90s – which is that Labour officials tend to tell you what is best for you and won’t listen when you try to tell them otherwise.

It is an arrogance that in another area, aid to Samoa, has seen millions upon millions of dollars wasted by donor countries like New Zealand.

The only citizens who did not abandon Labour these elections were Maori and Pacific Islanders, analyst Fa’amatuainu Tino Pereira said on Samoa Capital Radio.

Indeed a Samoan man told the station he has always voted Labour since he arrived from Samoa 45 years ago.

Other sources say such loyalty may be on the slide.

One man told Samoa Capital Radio his children voted for Conservatives.

On the other hand a friend in an Auckland electorate emailed to say, “Labour has to realise that they are no longer the party of choice for PIs. They have stuffed PIs for too long and (it’s) time for PIs to get organised and have their own Party.”

“For the Party vote I opted for NZ First ‘coz I believe PIs will get a better deal from Winston and (gave my) electorate vote for the Labour candidate.”

He says National has a “white is right” attitude.

Don’t know about that.

But it’s something to look out for in the days ahead.

Now that we’ve voted and seen the results, sad though they may be, the whole political thing has become more interesting.

By Alan Ah Mu

As the Wellington Lions capitulated in the ITM cup, the Wellington Samoans ended the rugby season jubilant.

In the last game of the year they wrecked Manawatu Development’s trip to Porirua Park by beating them 42-24 last Saturday.

That win hoisted the team to second place in the Hurricane’s Region tournament.

Eventual winners Wellington Development beat Wellington Samoans earlier in the tournament but the boys rallied to record wins over other rivals Hawkes Bay Development and Manawatu Development yesterday.

Coach Logan Tauiliili was a happy man.

It was the second week his side had played well after their win over Hawkes Bay Development the previous week.

After going through the Rugby Festival tournament winless, his boys came close to winning the Hurricanes tournament in their first year of taking part.

“And that’s pretty good for us,” Tauiliili said after the game yesterday.

“I’m proud of them, they did very well,” he said.

The win ended a season which started badly in the Rugby Festival tournament.

Wellington Samoans struggled to maintain a stable side as players moved out to represent other teams like Wellington Lions.

“It was hard to get continuity,” Tauiliili said.

Talent was no problem.

“As you can see here we can play.”

Wellington Lions and other age group teams of the region take first pick of players – and that’s how Wellington Samoan Rugby Union (WSRU) wants it to be.

Wellington Samoans is all about developing players for higher honours.

Yesterday in a post-game speech, WSRU president To’omata Frank Collins told the players he did not want to see them back in the team next year.

Next year he wants to see them on television playing in the NPC, To’omata said.

“That’s the use of this thing (Wellington Samoans team),” he said.

“Don’t come here to loaf and look for a wife.”

At 2:30pm today, embattled Labour leader David Cunliffe will face media and make a public announcement about his future.

But for me, it’s been a six month wait to put pen to paper and write about this General Election.

Granted it looks as if the dust will take a wee bit longer to settle, but believe this is the right time to share a personal view of the elections, provide a part explanation for such a disastrous Labour result, and what hope is there for us Pacific islanders moving forward.

But first up, a big congratulation to all successful Pacific Island candidates who are now elected Members of Parliament. This 51^st term of New Zealand’s parliament will see seven, possibly eight, Pacific islanders in the Legislative Assembly. An historic feat since Taito Phillip Field became our first Labour MP 21 years ago.

As in any war, there will be casualties, whether by enemy or friendly fire. And in this 2014 elections, Leaufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor became a friendly fire casualty when the NZ First party decided to drop her down from eight, to 16 on their list. It was a drop 5-places too far to see the return of the unconventional lady from the Samoan village of Safa’atoa Lefaga.

There were also the also-rans like: Herman Retzlaff, (Lab), Anahila Suisuiki, (Lab), Jerome Mika (Lab), Mataroa Paroro (NZ First) and others who gave it their all.

While Misa Fia Turner, currently sitting on the borderline, could well make it into parliament if special votes go National’s way. But more on Misa Fia later in our column.

It’s now a week after the elections, Pacific islanders will be celebrating this historic milestone – and rightly so. At the same time, it gives us pause to reflect and assess the calibre and strength of our voice in parliament truly is, from a Labour perspective and ask ourserlves: What can the Labour Party achieve with five Pacific MPs in Parliament?

How important are we, as Pacific MPs, and our Pacific vote to the Labour Party?

Being in opposition for a further three years, is it going to be more of the same to 2017? Or is this a sign of better things to come?

To better understand, one has to reflect upon our history; about how Pacific Islanders got a voice in the Labour Party, it gives us reference points to see that the signs to a disasterous 2014 results was actually not a surprise.

For instance, back in 2012 I started seeing signs of a bad omen. The subtle and concerning signal for me was Labour not moving assertively to reaffirm its historical connection with Pacific communities, more significantly, with us Samoans.

Why this jolted me was it was so out of sync with what Labour did in 2002. In 2002, to commemorate the 40^th Anniversary of Samoa’s Independence, Helen Clark, then Prime Minister went to Samoa to deliver an apology on behalf of New Zealand. She formally and publically apologised for the inept actions of its Colonial administration that resulted in the Influenza epidemic that killed off more than 20 per cent of our population; and the shooting and killing of Mau leader Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III and eleven Mau supporters on 28 December 1929.

Yet, just a mere ten years later, in 2012, Labour decided not to do anything to commemorate Samoa’s Golden Jubilee Independence Celebration for which those Samoans in the Mau Movement gave their lives.

To me, it pointed towards a disconnect between Labour and us Samoans, and from the looks of things, a growing disconnect heading to the 2014 elections.

Further evidence of these concerns is the generation that grew up under New Zealand’s Colonial administration and their children are ageing, but their descendants have little to no knowledge of the historical connection with Labour. They do not know the story and Labour’s intimate and significant role in Samoa’s independence movement.

This younger generation also has a higher proportion in mixed marriages, thus bringing in other relationships that are not necessarily part of the mainstream Pacific psyche which means the historical connection becomes even more diluted.

Another event in 2013 that pointed to a growing disconnect was the Christchurch East by-election.

Poto Williams’ (of Cook Island descent) milestone achievement in winning the by election is of huge historical significance. Yet in celebrating her victory, both the Labour Leader and President failed to mention in their speeches that Ms Williams is the first eveer Pacific electoral MP for the South Island; and the first female Cook Islander to be an elected MP in New Zealand parliament. Also of note was the public ommission by both Leader and President to thank the Samoan Community and its leadership for uniting behind Poto’s campaign. Cunliffe it seemed had forgotten the Pacific contribution in his eagerness to become attractive to middle income voters.

By February 2014, I could see that Labour was totally focused on pursuing middle income voters, and willing to sacrifice Pacific and low income voters if that was the price. Historically, you win middle income NZ, you win the general election, so fair enough, but what concerned me more was that Labour was operating on a “we cannot do anything for our people because we are in the opposition” line.

This mantra toed by our Pacific spokesperson was something that I took not as a defeatist Labour attitude, but more alarmingly, one of surrender way before the election.

What then became a real concern was Labour’s leadership taking Pacific voters for granted. I could see that Pacific voters were given the choice to vote on “tribal” lines instead of voting on issues, as was the case in the 2005 election which Labour won.

To be fair, there were those in high places of the Labour Party that shared my concerns and took seriously my warning of a likely scenario where Pacific voters would vote Labour with their Electorate vote; but gave their party vote to another party. I called this “skimming” the party vote.

As it turned out, the 2014 results showed that other than Mangere, all Labour Electorate MPs did not have a high party vote return for Labour. In short, the very middle income voter the Labour leadership was desperately after, were not inspired to give their vote to Labour. It did not help that, once again, about a million voters decided not to cast their votes. That is also another gross indictment on leader David Cunliffe’s who at the 2013 Labour Conference made a bold promise that “Labour will campaign to inspire the missing 800,000 voters in 2011 to come out and vote for Labour”.

2013 was to be General Election 2014 preparation year for Labour but it was wasted trying to sort out its leadership problems.

Meantime, Pacific leaders who supported Cunliffe became concerned that he was at the heart of all the undermining of Phil Goff and David Shearer. This did not bode well…an ill omen. This was very much part of the Samoan psyche that arises from the proverb “O le ala i le pule o le tautua” (The pathway way to leadership is through service). Cunliffe did not serve them well, therefore he does not deserve to lead.

Not long after Cunliffe became leader he went onto make one public gaff and blunder after another which further reinforced the belief in Pacific leaders (and it appears it also affected “mainstream” New Zealanders), that Cunliffe is someone who’s jinxed.

During the campaign, Pacific voters, as expected, did not get the message from Labour. Also noticeable was a smaller than usual army of volunteers for which Labour is renowned for, helping out. Pacific voters love a conversation that develops a narrative that leads to pathways for action/understanding. Labour left this too late and literally opened the door for others to compete for our people’s attention. In short, Labour found themselves trying to convince their own people to keep the faith instead of attracting new voters.

In essence, the Labour campaign became just a high visibility smile and wave without much of a physical street by street, door by door impact needed to get voters out.

The election results also point to MPs not on the list, but have returned to Parliament by winning their electorates. This surely is not a good omen for Labour.

Furthermore no one is stepping forward to take responsibility for the historic loss. How long will this take to sort out?

And so that begs the question: where to from here? Where has our Labour Party gone?

Labour suffering its second worst defeat in history and with Su’a Viliamu coming back to Parliament with the best performance of any Labour MP/Candidate, likely to keep the Pacific Spokesperson role, does not bode well for our people.

For he to say that we (Labour) just cannot do anything until we are in power is outright surrender. It gives the Government and other opposition parties an open invitation to do whatever they want to our people?

The Greens have been successful in opposition, they have influenced some of the Government’s plans with their own over the past six years, so why can’t Labour?

It is why I do not buy this surrender line from Labour mainly because it has opened the door to other parties to make inroads into the Pacific vote.

Labour does not appear to understand that South Auckland is not the start and end of all things Pacific. Only 30 per cent of Pacific islanders live in South Auckland. In total 40 per cent of Pacific islanders live in the wider Auckland Region and 60 per cent are spread thoughout the country.

Pacific people outside of Auckland are starting to assert themselves as a separate identity with the right to voice their own concerns. Christchurch is a prime example of this and they do not, and will not take on Labour’s surrender position.

I admire the leadership our people in Christchurch are showing. With everything lost and with everything to win, they are now working together to give voice to our people in the Christchurch rebuild, contributing constructively to nation building. Surely our people deserve Labour’s support in their fight? Or should they wait around in their cold damp rental houses earning minimum wages if they have a job, until Labour wins?

One elderly Samoan in Otara said, “I must admit that when we had the Labour candidate at our church conference, he correctly told us about the ‘crap life’ we’re living. Yet he doesn’t need to tell us about it because we’re the experts because we’re living neck deep in the crap. He certainly doesn’t live in it. What we needed him to tell us was a solution and what his Party will do to help us out of this mess.”

This is why the surrender position from Labour has driven some of our community leaders to look at making arrangements with National.

As another community leader puts it, “If Labour is waiting until they win to help us, then what choice do we now have? We are defenceless so we have to do something. I feel like a prisoner trying to make the best deal with my jailer.”

Pacific leaders who are traditionally Labour have to be concerned with the never ending leadership battles in the party. Our people are sick of the blame, defeatist attitudes and genuine lack of leadership and understanding about what Labour constituents want.

This current position from Labour has seen not just Pacific voters placing an each way bet of ‘Electoral Vote Labour’, but ‘Party Vote for another Party’. I have been proven wrong to think that this voting pattern would only apply to Pacific voters. It seems like the majority of voters took an each way bet on Labour hence the significant migration of Party vote to NZ First, National and the Greens.

Peseta Sam Lotu-I’iga, most likely will stay on as Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. So we are likely to see him support proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act (ERA) aimed at further casualizing jobs and keeping wages low.

Peseta goes on about all the success of the ‘Rock Star’ economy that National created from the ashes of the Global Financial Collapse. But he completely ignores the fact that most Pacific people are employed in vulnerable jobs.

The kind of jobs that as soon as there is a whiff of a recession, are the first to go. The very jobs that will see little to no pay rises during the recovery period, even when it goes into the “rock star” phase. The more Peseta goes on about the rock star economy, he must remember that most of his people do not see any rock star pay rises nor new rock star jobs.

Pacific unemployment is still double that of the national unemployment figure. So definitely no rock star, just Pacific hardship on the rocks again for another three years.

Child Poverty is a major problem among our people, and the Government appears to be setting up another task force/advisory group to come up with ways to combat Child Poverty. Another classic John Key talk fest on the way I say.

On Sunday, 21st September, Tangata Pasifika’s Marama Papau did an excellent job interviewing all the newly elected Pacific MPs.

If you watch the episode, you make up your own mind as to what the future holds for us Pacific islanders.

For me, I’ll bet my money on Labour Pacific MPs, Jenny Salesa, Carmel Sepuloni and Poto Williams. These women do not look defeated, they definitely do not look like waving a white flag. These women look like they are ready to step into the ring and fight.

If Labour chooses Su’a William Sio to be their Pacific Spokesperson again, our people will not only be serving three years of hard labour under National, but also three years in maximum security under Labour.

It is very plausible that a possible scenario after 2017 we will have a fourth National government.

Already I can see that happening with National making in-roads into the Pacific vote. Labour must come up with a fresh approach. If it’s more of the same then this arrogance will set off a seismic shift in the Pacific vote.

The Greens and New Zealand First are now definitely on Pacific voters’ radar. Continue with the “we cannot do anything because we are in opposition” line opens the door for these parties to give our people hope.

Hope propels people to take action. Hope is a powerful positive self-motivating driver that will get people out to fight for their families and communities.

Until this happens we are seeing National looking to winning a 4th term and Labour’s electorate strongholds are definitely in their sights.

Now back to Misa Fia Turner. If she doesn’t get in through special votes, I’ll wager that a sitting National MP will retire after the first 12-months to allow Misa Fia into parliament.

That move will allow National to establish a beach-head at Mangere two years out from the 2017 elections. For me personally, I never would have thought Labour would lose its historic connection with Samoa, let alone open itself for a beach-head from National, of all parties, to set-up in one of its strongest electorate forts.

For now Pacific islanders have been sentenced to another three years of hard labour. What we need to decide is whether we make peace with our “jailers” or do we rise from despair and inspire one another with hope.

If we do not stand-up then more hardship and pain will come our way. We have always kept silent and respectful in Aotearoa. And just look around at where our respect and hard work has gotten us?

We must take a look at ourselves and find the courage and hope to keep going.
We will never surrender!
We will never give up!
We shall fight in the hope that we and our children are the ones that shall rise up from poverty.
We shall fight for work to be paid fairly.
We shall fight for life where working hard is a life well lived.
We shall fight for a life that is lived in dignity.
We shall fight for a life that is not reliant on welfare.

 

 

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) today signed a contract with Downer New Zealand Ltd to carry out the rebuild of the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre in South Auckland.

The plan to rebuild the centre was approved by the Government as part of the Refugee Resettlement Strategy in 2013. The Strategy is aimed at delivering better outcomes for refugees being resettled in New Zealand, including increasing the number of refugees in paid employment, increasing their educational achievement and also reducing their long-term dependency on welfare services.

INZ General Manager Settlement, Protection and Attraction Steve McGill says the centre plays a crucial role in helping refugees adapt to their new life in New Zealand but the current facility has exceeded its economic life.

“Improving the centre will help achieve the goals of the Refugee Resettlement Strategy by helping improve the experience of refugees and asylum seekers during their six week stay at Mangere when they first enter New Zealand and help to better prepare them for New Zealand life and their move into the community,” Mr McGill says.  “The current facility accommodates up to 160 individuals who typically spend six weeks onsite where they receive a range of services including improved orientation, English language classes, health screening and mental health support to help refugees resettle.

“A preliminary design for a new and improved facility can accommodate up to 196 beds,” Mr McGill says.

“The build of the new centre will be staged to enable business-as-usual operations to continue during the construction period. The arrangement is aimed at seeing all of the new buildings being operational at the refugee centre in late 2016,” Mr McGill says.

The rebuild project will resolve the existing facility limitations by:
•         contracting with the private sector to design and construct a new centre;
•         consolidating the administration and communal areas at the centre into a new, purpose-built administration block which meets the requirements of a centralised reception programme;
•         providing new, purpose-built accommodation blocks; and
•         re-orientating the onsite buildings to make better use of the available land and provide additional capacity if required .

Source: Immigration New Zealand