If you're saying the same kinds of things as Paul Henry, you should probably stop talking

Remember when Paul Henry wasn't sure if our Governor General was enough of a New Zealander? He wanted someone who "looked" and "sounded" "more of a New Zealander" than Anand Satyanand.

Remember when New Zealand Police prosecuted New Zealand citizens as overstayers because their names sounded Polynesian or they looked brown, even though most overstayers were from the UK and Australia?

Well, we have the latest installment of You're Not A Real New Zealander Unless You're White, from the party that brought us the dawn raids, with Phil Twyford able to tell from last names whether or not people belong here.  This time it's Chinese people that are targeted, and as Keith Ng has already pointed out, Winston Peters couldn't have said it better.

Whiteness is like a magic card that gets you into all the best places.  Sure, it impacts on people differently, but it makes any other area of your life where you might be missing out easier, automatically.

I lived in the UK for 12 years, courtesy of a Scottish grandmother and a friendly (to me) immigration system.  I was always at home there - despite not being from there - until I opened my mouth and my kiwi vowels pierced the stiff upper lips of those nearby.  Whiteness travels well, even for bogan queer girls.

Someone with a "Chinese" last name might have been here since 1860.  When will they be allowed to say they belong?  When will Phil Twyford be ok with them becoming a homeowner?

Alongside the vicious racist dog whistling of Twyford, there's the complete idiocy of blaming the lack of housing in Auckland on an ethnic minority, rather than on the greed of those profiteering from our ridiculous, out-dated property laws.  You know who should be an easy target, Labour, when it comes to Auckland housing being inequitable?  You know who you should be able to ask questions about, when we have some New Zealanders living in housing so awful it's making them sick, or so cold it's killing them?

People making sure there's no such thing as a capital gains tax, while they rake in their dosh each week from multiple, million dollar properties, just because our economic systems make it possible.  It's not racist dog whistling you need, it's whistle blowing on the Richwhites. 

Wanted: Health Minister who reads their own research

Content note: discussions of transphobia and it's impacts, focussed on the recent political discussions about trans* healthcare.

There's so much to find troubling about National calling life-saving healthcare for trans* people "nutty" and Labour leadership failing to stand behind regional conferences voting to have funded gender reassignment surgery on the table.

For our health minister to be so poorly educated about trans* healthcare needs is horrifying.  It's increasingly obvious that transphobia, transmisogyny, gender policing and the institutionalised discrimination and stigma that people from marginalised genders experience kills.  It kills by making employment and housing less accessible.  It kills through people seeking solace in drugs and alcohol.  It kills through increasing vulnerability to being targeted for intimate partner and sexual violence.  It kills through creating a climate where violence towards trans people is invisible, enabled and lethal.  It kills through people being unable to contemplate going on living.

The Ministry of Health fund our best research into trans* needs so far, the Youth 2000 research where thousands of secondary school students are asked questions about their experiences.  Seems our Health Minister didn't bother to read the trans* section - 20% of our beautiful trans* secondary school students attempted suicide in the previous 12 months.  That compares with 4% of other kids.  40% of trans* young people had "significant depressive symptoms" and half had self-harmed in the previous 12 months.

But the Labour leadership rush from the possibility of championing trans* rights to life-saving healthcare is equally disgraceful.  Andrew Little's happy with his gender.  David Shearer didn't know what gender reassignment surgery was.  Stuart Nash says the issue isn't important to the people in New Zealand.  I'll save special disdain for every(gay)man Grant Robertson though - he doesn't feel strongly about life-saving surgery apparently.  Must be nice to be that kind of Rainbow champion.

(In the queer press Grant Robertson is "absolutely committed" to the best possible trans* healthcare services.  I guess he thinks queer people are stupid.)

As usual, public debate about a socially contested issue - where there is real ignorance, I suspect, amongst the majority of the general cis public - is an opportunity for social change.  If at an incredibly hurtful cost for trans* and gender diverse peeps, as well as pain for those of us who love them.  And Jan Logie has stepped up to the gender diverse plate, not for the first time, to show us what a real Rainbow champion looks like.

She's pulled together an LGBTI rights MP group to educate, provide leadership and push for changes in legislation.  Beyond Marriage Equality.

So, improving access to life-saving trans* healthcare, including hormones, counselling and surgery.  Stopping once and for all state sanctioned (and funded) genital mutilation of babies and children in the name of gender policing.  Creating increasing space for queer people of colour to create and determine spaces which are culturally appropriate for them.  Providing inclusive and positive information about sexuality, sex, gender, relationships and all kinds of bodies to every young person in Aotearoa.  Naming biphobia as a real thing, leaving bi people with the highest rates of mental health difficulties, sexual violence and intimate partner violence of all sexualities.  Dealing with the homelessness risks for queer young people.  For starters.

First though: Writing the job description for the next Health Minister - whether they come from National or Labour - and making sure "understanding the health needs of the most vulnerable" is bullet point number one.

Guestie: Why I'm voting for Grant Robertson

Thanks to Rebecca Matthews for this guest post putting the case for Grant Robertson.  Rebecca is the convenor of Unions Wellington and, amongst many other things, has recently been campaigning for pay equity, 26 For Babies (extending paid parental leave), and abortion law reform.

I remember well the NZUSA conference when I first met Grant Robertson. I was a fresh-faced, Doc Marten wearing Women's Rights Officer. He was president of the Otago students, with those weird 90s big glasses still sported by Deirdre off Coro. As I recall it, student presidents were meeting with then Minister of Education, Lockwood Smith. But Grant, as representative of those students who had were facing off against the police and been put in harm's way, just couldn't stomach the sit-down pleasantries with the architect of our user pays system.

The Grant I met then had principles that transcended the political expediency of the moment. And he still does, which is why he has my vote for Labour Party leader.

Fast forward many years, and the owly glasses have been updated, and those Docs have been dumped (but I don't know, should I get some more?). Grant has been in New York representing NZ on the world stage, and I have put in a few more years of service for the student movement as researcher for NZUSA.

I get an invite to a big education announcement from then Prime Minister Helen Clark. I don't expect too much, to be honest. I'd been working on a claim to the Human Rights Commission about the fact that through interest payments women paid much more for our qualifications, so thought, maybe some tinkering around with interest rates?

The announcement that Labour were scrapping all interest on student loans, period, came as a shock, in a good way obviously. The announcement went way beyond Labour's previous tinkering around the edges of user pays, and was in no small part Grant's achievement, behind the scenes. To knock out in one punch the worst aspect of the loans scheme to me was the greatest political achievement of anyone from my generation so far. It speaks to the vision, effectiveness, and politics of Grant as a person and the great leader Grant will be.

The campaign for Labour leader is being kept very clean so far, and this is A Good Thing. But comparing the candidates also needs to take place if we are to make an informed decision. Shane Jones to me represents a past, worst, age and his comments about geldings and the like don't even bear thinking about. Of course, its really Robertson v Cunliffe.

Why do I favour Grant over Cunliffe? Yes, I know him and trust him and have seen him engage in politics in a way I respect for over 20 years. But how do I compare him to Cunliffe to influence others?

I guess I don't believe in The One, when it comes to political leadership. I don't think that a  strong man, a demagogue, or any of those things is what Labour needs right now. Of course, the leader should be a fluent speaker, and effective in the media and in the house. Grant has all these qualities as much as David Cunliffe. Grant is very progressive and there seems to be no basis to claims that Cunliffe is the more leftwing candidate, despite a lot of internet rhetoric to the contrary. 

What Grant Robertson has that I have never seen in David Cunliffe  is an  inclusive approach to leadership. Grant takes people with him. He's about empowering communities and local decision making. He really does represent a new generation of leadership. I can easily see a Robertson/Ardern (and I want Jacinda there at the helm too, she deserves it and is a real talent) . team leading Labour for ten years. Not in a Helen Clark, take no prisoners style. But in a way that allows all the leaders in the party to grow and flourish, and be empowered. And as leaders in a Labour/Green government, that will provide modern, progressive leadership to deal to the growing crisis of inequality.

This feminist (and unionist) is voting for Grant Robertson for Labour leader, and is proud of it.

i'll be voting for david cunliffe

it's time to select a labour party leader once again.  a not entirely unpredictable happenstance, given that the person chosen by caucus had little experience as an MP and not much experience of party politics.

at the end of 2011, i wrote mildly in support of david cunliffe, & more in the context of my support for nanaia mahuta as deputy.  in that post, i predicted that the writers in the political blogosphere who were vociferously supporting mr shearer's leadership bid would soon turn against him, and it only took a few months for that to happen.

i still don't know mr shearer particularly well, in that i've had very little personal interaction with him.  his public utterances never did give me much of a clue as regards his underlying values and philosophies.  that he was clearly out of his depth was pretty obvious, and it was obvious at the time that he & mr cunliffe were touring the country in december 2011.  listening to the two speak & answer questions side by side, there was no doubt that mr shearer was nowhere near ready to take on the role.

i didn't speak out too strongly about that at the time.  mostly because i didn't think it mattered: the vote was to be taken by caucus after all.  this time around, the party membership has a say, whether they vote directly or through their union delegates.  and this time around, i feel much more strongly about the issue.

i'm still very disappointed that none of the women MPs have put their names forward.  perhaps they don't have a chance of winning, but then neither does shane jones & that hasn't stopped him.  it would not only give them valuable experience, but would also give them the opportunity to connect more closely with the membership.  it's part of the process of developing leadership skills, and the fact that there is no woman in the race is still a major issue for the party.

so we are left with the three who have put their names forward.  shane jones was prepared to turn on his own party membership, particularly those who care about the representation of women, so it would be pretty odd for him to be asking support from that membership for his leadership bid.  if he represents the "red-blooded male" sector of the party, it would be interesting to know why that positioning seems to involve a pretty confrontational approach towards many women party members.  does he see being that kind of male as being incompatible with being supportive of the aspirations of women?   i've yet to hear him say much about issues of equity & equality, particularly as it comes to gender.

in terms of capturing the maori vote, i'm not in a position to say too much about that.  ms mahuta has signed mr cunliffe's nomination form, so she is clearly not supporting mr jones.  there is this from morgan godfrey who is supporting mr cunliffe, and i'll be keeping an eye on what the writers at maui street have to say.  i'd love to see a maori person as leader of the labour party & prime minister of the country, but mr jones is a person that i can't support.

in a labour leader, i'm looking for someone who actually recognises that when labour has won the government benches, it's on the back of the women's vote.  i'd like to see a leader who has both the courage and the good sense to appeal directly to women.  mr obama clearly did that in his last campaign, both in his speech to the democrat convention and in his televised debates against the opponent whose name already escapes me.  mr obama deliberately used female pronouns and talked to issues that were of importance to women.  he also spoke directly to people of colour.  he wasn't side-tracked by the right-wing dismissal of "identity politics" (a way to deflect from the fact that the republicans weren't prepared to give due attention to marginalised groups).  and it showed in the demographic breakdown of voting results.

so is grant robertson the person who can do this: is he prepared to fight for the women's vote instead of focusing on "waitakere man"?  can he relate to and articulate a vision for people of colour?  as someone who belongs to a community that is also marginalised, he is capable of empathising.  but i'm not so sure that he is capable of listening.

he was prepared to act as a deputy to a leader (mr shearer) who would not commit to standing up against racists, but instead kept talking about a "broad church".  a leader who wasn't prepared to discipline MPs who were not only publicly dismissive and pretty nasty about fellow MPs and the aspirations of women, but who actually promoted those MPs.  perhaps, for the sake of public unity, mr robertson was quiet in public but vociferous behind closed doors.  it's entirely possible, and i'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

but there comes a point where we expect people in leadership positions to stand up and be counted.  and to respond positively and constructively when members take the trouble to put forward their serious concerns.  if he was listening, it didn't come across that way.

which leaves mr cunliffe.  referring back to my post which i linked to above, i was impressed that he had the strength of character to take on ms mahuta as his deputy and the ability to recognise her talents.

not only in this but in other ways, he has shown himself to be a secure male who isn't threatened by women and is willing to support their aspirations.  this is something we saw in people like michael cullen, steve maharey and many other men in the 5th labour government, who happily supported the introduction of paid parental leave, childcare subsidies, pay equity legislation and much more.  men who were advocates and champions of policy that positively impacts the lives of so many women.

this time around, i get a vote in who gets to be a leader.  my vote will be going to david cunliffe and i'll be advocating for him as much as i'm able to within the time pressures i'm currently facing.  it's not just about policy regarding women, which i've focused on in this post, but about the ability to articulate a vision and to take on powerful elites.  the willingness to make some fundamental changes and to challenge long-standing narratives that serve to increase inequality.  maybe he won't be able to do all of those things, but i certainly think he is much more likely to do so than the other two.  and after a pretty long stretch of time, i do feel some hope that the party i joined in 2003 will stand for strong progressive values once again.

so if you're a labour party member, i'm asking you to vote for david cunliffe.

Why Do Women MPs Oppose Quotas for Women?

This a guest post by Dr Morgan Healey. Morgan completed her PhD through the University of Limerick, Ireland, in 2009 focussing on Irish women politicians and their experiences of gendered political spaces.

Reading the news (and in particular social media) yesterday I was incredibly disheartened to see statements from both men and women MPs discounting the potential Labour party policy calling for temporary special measures to ensure a 50:50 gender representation in the Caucus by 2017. It is a laudable goal for Labour and one that all political parties should strive for. But the misogynist discussion that followed the announcement of the policy showed exactly what women MPs have to face within the political party machinery when it comes to fighting for selection and running a successful campaign. The sophistry of equal opportunity for women and the idea that ‘good’ women candidates do not require any additional support because they will get elected on merit must be contested if this debate is to move forward.

The construction of politics as ‘jobs for the boys’ has created myriad barriers to women entering politics. Research by feminist political scientists and theorists has attempted to grapple with the gendering of political tenets, such as the abstract individual, the social contract and those dealing with the systemic limitations of not being selected to run, facing a political party system that prioritises ‘proven’ men politicians, rewarding them with safe, winnable seats (or a high number on the list), and so on. If women do manage to succeed, and make their way through the myriad gates that block their inclusion to win a seat and enter Parliament, the discrimination continues. Women with children face non-family friendly working hours, for example, being away from home for three nights a week, needing a relatively high and stable income to afford child care and perhaps assistance in the home (with the assumption still that if they are married their husbands will also be in paid work).

What is insidious about all of this is the tightrope women politicians are forced to walk between trying to belong (i.e. be the ‘same’ as the men politicians) and at the same time using their gender to promote a ‘different’ way of doing politics – one that simultaneously or strategically sets them apart for the sea of men. It is within this context that I want to unpick some of the unhelpful comments made by women MPs themselves, and argue that acts of belonging to the political gendered norm (read men) are being played out in these comments. Specifically, arguments against the proposal seem to be focus on notions of merit vs special treatment, with the latter providing a dangerous precedent whereby a woman’s gender can be used and named to detract from an already tenuous attempt at belonging.

I have a bit of experience when it comes to women in politics.. My PhD thesis, “The Naturalised Politician: How Irish Women Politicians Construct their Political Subjectivities”, examined the lived experiences of then-serving women politicians in both the lower and upper house of Parliament (known as the Oireachtas in Irish). I used a poststructural feminist framework to investigate how the women I interviewed understood and articulated their own gendered political subject positions as politicians, so please excuse some modest use of this frame and some of the associated language below. While I won’t attempt to provide a wholesale summary of my thesis, I do want to return to one of the overarching themes that came across when I interviewed the women – that is, a muted sense of belonging – and how I think this is playing out in relation to the current political storm over temporary special measures.

So what does ‘belonging’ mean and require of women in politics? And how does it play out?  Academic theorists like Breda Gray (2002), Ruth McElroy (2002), Anne-Marie Fortier (1999), and Elspeth Probyn (1996) have used notions of belonging to deconstruct how identities or processes of identification are produced. They argue that individuals, groups, or nations are constructed along dichotomous relations of insider/outsider, and that these are often produced along racial, ethnic and gender lines. As Anne-Marie Fortier (2002) argues, the social and historical practices which mark out terrains of belonging or commonalities amongst groups delineates the dynamics by which people/groups fit into the norm. My argument is that an important element of women politicians’ ability to belong to the ‘gendered spaces’ of politics is conditional upon their ability to show they too can ‘fit in’. If we assume that being a politician is an example of Fortier’s ‘group identity’ and argue that through the gendering of this category as ‘man’ certain terrains of belonging are marked out, then women’s ability to belong and be considered legitimate politicians will be based on their ability to approximate the male norms of politics.