Apartheid claim 'insulting'

Tariana Turia Photo/File

Electioneering for 2014 is under way and politicians have begun jostling for position - some courting the media continuously and others making empty promises they know they will not be able to keep. Others will make outrageous accusations and statements to ensure they get more than their share of media attention.

None more so than the consummate politician Winston Peters, who took a stab at the Maori Party and Whanau Ora at Ratana Pa this year, labelling Whanau Ora as an "apartheid policy".

Late last year, the world mourned the loss of Nelson Mandela - a name synonymous with the anti-apartheid movement.

A fighter for human rights and justice for all in South Africa, Mandela became an international hero. His lengthy incarceration highlighted to the world the cruel and degrading segregation policies which deliberately gave white people the best resources, better access to health services, housing, the nicest side of the street to walk on, the best education - and their freedom and dignity.

In stark contrast, the black population were barely treated as human. Instead, they were made to carry passes, were bullied and threatened by authorities and forced to live in shanty towns.

Thousands of black people died in police custody after being tortured and many were unjustly imprisoned. These conditions were all condoned by the system of apartheid. This rightly outraged millions around the world, and New Zealanders vehemently opposed the Springbok tour of 1981 in opposition to apartheid.

So when Mr Peters made the outrageous statement at Ratana that Whanau Ora is a separatist policy akin to apartheid - I felt compelled to respond and justified in reminding all politicians of our moral and ethical responsibilities in our use of language.

For the record, the crime of apartheid, as stated by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is defined as inhumane acts of crimes against humanity, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other.

How then, does this crime against humanity apply to Whanau Ora? Mr Peters failed to reveal any similarities in his statements at Ratana. He also labelled the Maori Party goals and vision as "sociological objectives which are of no interest to Maoridom at all".

Yet more than 33,000 people have benefited from Whanau Ora since its implementation - including people in Mr Peters' own tribal area in the north. many of whom have been practising Whanau Ora for decades. It just shows how out of touch Mr Peters is with his own people and with the reality of ordinary New Zealanders.

Whanau Ora is about empowering and enabling families to set their own priorities, to focus on outcomes. It is about self-determination, not segregation. It is about restoring self-belief in families so that they can take care of themselves - it is not about taking away human dignity. It is about the government and its agencies enabling whanau to do for themselves and become less reliant on agencies - not about government domination and persecution where citizens live in a climate of fear, as was the case in apartheid South Africa.

Mr Peters has chosen his words deliberately to stir up negative feelings among those who do not understand what Whanau Ora is all about - or what self-determination is all about - but who do understand what apartheid is. It is more than mischievous. It is highly irresponsible. And it is nothing but insulting to all those millions of people who suffered under apartheid.

The Maori Party has worked hard to bring about respect for difference. We have been able to work constructively in a difficult environment. We would not have been able to secure $1.2 billion for Whanau Ora, rheumatic fever, insulating homes, trades and cadetships, enabling lives for those who live with disability, preventing family violence, Pasifika health, marae and community hubs, housing, te reo Maori and education and reducing poverty without being in coalition.

For those who say we are too close to National, I would ask: In the years that Labour governed prior to the formation of the Maori Party, what did they achieve for Maori? What difference did they make in the lives of our people?

Our party president, Naida Glavich, rightly says: "The days of standing outside the fence to haka are over."

We will not make a difference unless we are in government, and we make no apology for the investment we have negotiated for a stronger future for all our people.