Northland iwi leaders say the lack of Māori representation on district councils means Māori are not being heard. Ngāti Hine kaumātua Pita Tipene laments that local government legislation and processes are “shutting out our people”. Not for the first time, compulsory Māori seats have been touted as one possible answer.–Karl Du Fresne, Dom Post July 11 2019
Winston is right
By Roger Childs
The New Zealand First leader, who has some Maori blood, has pointed out that the existence of the seven Maori seats is an element of inequality which we should remove. We do not have special seats for Pacific Island people or citizens of Chinese, Indian, Korean or any other ethnicity.
When they were first set up early in the second half of the 19th century they were only intended to be a temporary expedient to provide representation for Maori people.
Elements of inequality
Four Maori seats were established by the Maori Representation Act back in 1867. It was well intentioned, but not designed to last indefinitely. From the start there were elements of inequality.
- On a population basis the Maori should have had at least 14 seats.
- Whereas all Maori males could vote, only European males who owned, leased or rented property above a certain value had the franchise.
However, from 1893 all men and women were able to vote regardless of ethnicity or wealth.
1985 Commission recommended abolition
In 1967 Maori were allowed to stand in general seats, but it wasn’t until 1975 that National Party candidates Ben Couch and Rex Austin made the breakthrough in winning the Wairarapa and Awarua parliamentary electorates respectively.
In the elections that followed more people with some Maori blood were elected in general seats. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in its 1986 Report recommended abolition of separate representation.
But it didn’t happen. By 2002 the number of separate Maori seats increased to seven.
Time for equality?
Currently we have situation which is probably in breach of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. People with even the smallest amount of Maori blood have a choice of being on the general or Maori role, as well as having the exclusive seven seats in parliament.
The dedicated seats were well justified 150 years ago, but are now past their used-by date. Today over 25 MPs have some Maori blood, including the Leader of the Opposition, and if party leaders feels there should be more, they can adjust their party lists accordingly.
The existing Maori electorates are huge and impractical: Te Tai Tonga covers the whole of the South Island, making it impossible for the elected member, Rino Tirikatene, to regularly keep in contact with his constituents.
Legislation requires iwi consultation – why?
Laws like the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act require local bodies to consult with iwi, but are there any good reasons why? Getting in touch with the Pasifika communities, Asian groups or Irish societies is not mandatory.
To base legislation on the fact that present day Maori have a small amount of blood from the early Polynesian immigrants is a weak argument. Does any other country require authorities to consult with people who are descended from the first inhabitants?
Much is written these days about honouring the Treaty and that is quite reasonable. But is has to be the 1840 Treaty, and not later versions like Hugh Kawharu’s 1989 translation where some of the original words like taonga were given different meanings. In the original Tiriti o Waitangi there were no “principles”, just Articles, and no reference to a “partnership” with the native peoples.
In fact, the Treaty didn’t mention Maori at all – the word, with a capital M, was not used until a few years later. Maori with a small ‘m’ was used and that meant normal or ordinary people. The 1840 document was in fact an agreement with all the ordinary people living in New Zealand.
Local body representation – the same for everyone?
Māori wards are about implementing the tino rangatiratanga provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi. We are a bicultural nation and we must ensure both Māori and Pākehā are represented in political decision-making. —John Shennan, Stuff, 17 April 2018
Wrong on two counts John – we are not a bicultural nation; we are one people with many ethnicities, and the tino rangitiratanga statement in the Treaty said nothing about separate Maori wards in local government.
As with parliament, there are many representatives on District Councils with some Maori blood, and the vast majority of voters are concerned about getting good people to represent them, regardless on their origins. The setting aside of separate wards exclusively for people with some Maori blood was overwhelmingly rejected when put to the vote in the Manawatu and Taranaki.
Most folks who regard themselves as Maori have predominantly non-Maori forebears. They, like the folk with Samoan, Tongan, Indian, Chinese, Irish, English, Dalmatian and other origins have similar concerns and interests as the rest of the population. Fundamentally, we are all Kiwis with the same needs – food and drink, housing, employment, education, shops, social services, transport, technology, leisure opportunities, entertainment etc … and no group should have special representation.
To provide separate, exclusive wards on Councils for Maori would be in breach of Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.