The Maori Seats
September 29th, 2005 at 6:55 pm by David FarrarJust to prove they are not all members of the borg, or vast left-wing conspiracy, two Public Address bloggers have been debating the Maori seats.
Keith Ng advocated they are a bad thing, with his main points being:
* overhang meant voters who had enough votes for four MPs ended up electing six
* Maori seats encouraged distortionary tactical voting
* Maori electorates are not really electorates, and the interests that these MPs represent are not geographical, but ethnic. They are list seats by another name, a kind of proto-proportional representation
* Maori are 15% of voters and do not need minority protection as this can be a significant voting bloc. However they do not vote as a bloc, so why have seats on the basis they do.
* Finally that the Maori seats assume that Maori have more politically in common with other Maori than with any Pakeha – that a rich, conservative, provincial Maori man has more in common with a poor, anarchist, urban Maori woman than he has with a rich, conservative, provincial Pakaha man and hence assumes that, fundamentally, our political interests stem from race.
I thought the most interesting observation from Keith is that the seats are not really geographic seats but in effect a different form of list seat.
Then Che Tibby (he’s a guy by the way!) responds to Keith. He however makes a number of mistakes in his points.
Firstly he says the South Island is an gerrymander as it always get 16 seats. This is not a gerrymander as it does not give South Islanders more MPs per capita, it merely uses the SI population as a starting point to decide the total no of MPs.
Then he says that the electoral population used to determine seat sizes is based on the number of people registered on the roll. This is incorrect. It is based on the total population, including children under 18. This is very significant.
Thirdly he says as the population of the North Island grows, the number of Electorate seats, both Māori and General, increases. Again not quite correct. It is not if the NI population grows, it is whether it grows faster than the SI population.
Che says Māori electorates have essentially the same number of voters as general seats. No they do not. Because it is based on total population, they have far far less voters, because Maori have a much higher proportion of under 18 year olds. I think it is a real issue that seats are based on the total population, not the adult population. So the fewer number of voters per Maori seat is not just based on low turnout, but on the way the electoral populations is defined.
Bizarrely Che argues the seats are not a racial gerrymander because Keith Ng could enrol in them if he wanted to. Well yes he could, and one can enrol a dog as a voter also, but that doesn’t mean that by law he is not meant to be enrolled in a Maori seats as he doesn’t have a Maori great great great grandparent. They are by law reserved to New Zealanders who have some Maori ancestry.
Keith Ng has responded. He quotes Graeme Edgeler as saying Maori are 18% not 15% of the population. Well Stats NZ estimates as at 31 December 2004 Maori population was 622,400 out of 4,062,500 which is 15.3% so not sure where 18% comes from. However amongst adults 18 and older there are only 360,300 Maori out of 2,995,640 adult NZers which is 12.0%.
So worth noting there are 21/122 MPs who are Maori, or 17.2% of Parliament, and this is off a voting base of only 12.0%. Now personally I have absolutely no issues with Maori being over-represented in Parliament, as I don’t believe in quotas. I’m far more worried about over-representation from professional unionists! But it does underscore the point that any notion of needing the Maori seats because Maori are under-represented is not borne out by the facts.
Keith responds to claims that his problem is with overhang, not with the Maori seats. He points out that having voluntary opt-in seats – such as the Maori seats – *encourages* overhangs and almost amounts to DIY-gerrymandering. Follow the links to see his reasoning, as it is too eloquent to summarise here 
September 29th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I agree, the Maori seats should go, as one day they will. What I object to is how National wants to get rid of them, by making it a simple vote in Parliament, and sooner rather than later. They’ll go one day, but that day may be 50 years away, it can take that long for issues like this to be resolved (how long have iwi waited to resolve land grabs in the 1860s?). And when they go, they’ll need Maori concurrance, otherwise the shit will hit the fan (and of course, it’ll all be the fault of the bloody Horis!).
You might say ‘The Maoris will never get rid of those seats’. Not under current circumstances maybe, but when a majority of our population has Maori blood in it (as I think it will one day) then there’ll be no need for them.
Doing the right thing is only half the issue. Doing it the right way at the right pace is the other half. Let’s not rush this ‘mainstream’ NZ stuff too soon eh?!
Vote:September 29th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Hear Hear Mr Ng. Keith has comprehensively laid out the case for the abolition of the Maori seats. The case is clear, simple and compelling.
Vote:September 29th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Tane W.:
I really find the “method” argument rather fatuous. After all they were established by a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives, which is called a legislature because… well, it’s empowered to legislate.
I’m also one of those tiresome Maori on the general role, and I find it rather obnoxious to be told my vote doesn’t really count.
Vote:September 29th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
The easiest way for New Zealanders to get rid of them is stop enrolling in the General Roll and Enroll in the Maori one instead.
To be Maori these days one only needs to identify with being Maori as here are no genetic testing, no blood ratio test (eg 1/4 Maori, 1/4 Samoan, 1/5 White New Zealander) used.
If such a test was to be used I wonder how many Maoris there would actually be?
Vote:September 29th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
David, I obtained the figure of 18% (17.96%) from the Electoral Office webpage. (http://www.elections.org.nz/electorates/reviewing_electorates.html)
Based on the 2001 census – the North Island electorate population is 2,497,249;
The South Island electorate population is 868,923;
The Maori electoral population is 371,913.
This gives a total population for New Zealand at the last census of 3738085. At the last census the total Maori population was 671,696. This is 17.96%.
Of course the census figures and actual figures differ, however at the last census 17.96% of people in New Zealand identified as Maori.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 1:40 am
I am intrigued as to where that EC figure of 671,696 comes from because Stats NZ say the census figure is 526,000 for the usually resident population. There can be different definitions of Maori, but the 526,000 figure is the one almost universally used.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 2:32 am
On a therotical level I’m not for seperate representation but for good prtactical reasons I am.
The sad reality is that ethnic groups find it remarkably easy to start killing each other. Even after many years of relative peace savagery can rear its ugly head – take Yugoslavia for example. Ethnic groups need to feel some form of autonomy if they exist within a mixed cultural setting.
One of the difficulties Iraq faces is establishing the political means of co-exitance after one group has lost its position of power and privilege.
I wasn’t particularly impressed with the scare mongering by some liberals on this issue before the election but that doesn’t sway me from believing that the Maori sats still serve the purpose of creating teh basis for ethnic co-existance. At least for the time being.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 6:54 am
Because it is based on total population, they have far far less voters, because Maori have a much higher proportion of under 18 year olds. I think it is a real issue that seats are based on the total population, not the adult population. So the fewer number of voters per Maori seat is not just based on low turnout, but on the way the electoral populations is defined.
How the worm has turned! Back in the 1940s it was the National Party that wanted electorate populations to be based on total population, not voting age, because rural electorates had higher fertility rates, and greater proportion under 21 (as it was then).
MPs represent everyone in their electorate, even the ones under 18. People under age 18 are still citizens, though obviously they lack all the privileges of citizenship. That is the core of the argument for basing electorate size on total population.
This should be an issue which we don’t approach with an eye to partisan advantage.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 7:57 am
Evan, from my reading DPF does not argued that basing electorates on the the population of people of all ages is wrong, merely that it is wrong to say that electorates have equivelant numbers of people who vote.
DPF does say it is very significant – well it is, but that’s not really the sort of value judgement you’re opposing either.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Sock Thief:
Excuse me? Are you seriously arguing that if the Maori seats are abolished South Auckland will be Sarajevo by lunchtime?
First, I think you should be very careful about generalising about New Zealand from the very specific (and toxic) social, political and historical contexts of the Balkans or the Middle East.
If my memory serves, the ban on Maori enroling in general seats was repealed in the 1940′s (again with a simple majority of mostly white legislators) and there is no racial purity test required to get onto the Maori roll.
It’s also been one of the small ironies of this argument that both the loony left and the rabid right seem to accept the premise of the old joke: “Sir, the natives are revolting! I know they are, but what are doing with those spears?” I wouldn’t go as far as saying this is an unsubtle appeal to racist anxieties, but it’s damn close.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 10:06 am
To be Maori these days one only needs to identify with being Maori as here are no genetic testing, no blood ratio test (eg 1/4 Maori, 1/4 Samoan, 1/5 White New Zealander) used.
To be on the Maori Roll, you have to be a descendent of a NZ Maori (or, in practical terms, make a declaration that you are one). Other definitions are used for other purposes.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Another thing to bear in mind is that many, maybe even a majority of those counting themeselves Maori for the purpose of voting on the Maori roll or participating in racially funded government programs, actually have a significant, sometimes overriding bloodline stemming from other cultures. In many cases the ancestry of these people bears only a small fraction of Maori. Tariana Turia has native North American Indian ancestry, Mark Solomon from Ngai Tahu bears a good Jewish name, Sharples is about as English a last name as you can get. I wonder why some of these people do not identify as readily with other aspects of their cultural identity as they seem to do with the Maori side? And given this, why are we continuing to fund seperate Maori parliamentary seats?
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
The chief value of the Maori seats is that they act as a brake on the efforts of rightwing fundamentalists to hijack the machinery of government. Long may they stay in Parliament.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Michael – What a moronic comment. What a democratic thought, we’re held hostage by a minority. Very comforting.
And ‘fundamentalist right-wingers’ want to dismantle the machinery of government, not hijack it. If you want to talk about hijacking government, how about using a position in government to get next to free labour? To buy cheap houses off desperate people? Enroll people not qualified into New Zealand schools? Rout immigration processes?
Oh no wait, that
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Hi Errol,
You said:
“To be on the Maori Roll, you have to be a descendent of a NZ Maori (or, in practical terms, make a declaration that you are one). Other definitions are used for other purposes.”
The problem with it is interpretation. For exmaple I’m as white as they come and to the best of my knowledge have 0% Maori Blood in me. Yet my Father grew up near the local Marai, and spent a lot of time with one of the elder Maori woman who called him her “White Son”. To this day he is still considered family.
Now I ask the question Do I have Maori Anncestory? By pure genetics nope, By Family and Tribal custom Yes.
When I have worked in other government departments the qualifier was “Does that person identify themselves as being X culture” and if the answer is yes then thats what we had to record which is why you have at least one person in Thames who would only speak to us in Maori, but is enthically recorded as Celtic (due to his scottish ancestory).
As a result the Maori roll is a joke because any one ccan sign onto it. The ony way to make it mean something real is actually put a level of measure on it and as soon as you do that the excluded groups will be jumping up and down screaming “Racist”.
Vote:September 30th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I’m with the people who don’t see the Maori seats (let alone their performance in the recent election) as being much of a problem…..
Changing the subject ever so slightly, did anyone else watch Willie Jackson on _Close Up_ on TV 1 tonight discussing the Donna Awatere-Hauata case? If I understood him, Jackson said that talented, well-connected maori (possibly with lots of mana) *shouldn’t* go to jail but untalented, not-especially well-connected maori (possibly with relatively little mana) *should*, i.e., for the same crime, and that to seek a system of justice based on rules impartially administered and applied (regardless of mana) was racist, or incompatible with or insensitive to maori values, or something.
I found this immensely depressing. If I’ve understood Jackson correctly and if what he says is correct then we can see the outlines of a larger conflict over the very idea of a legal system in NZ than I’d realized before. The deepest problem with “one law”in that case wouldn’t be the one-ness, rather it’d be the legality period that’s objectionable. If legality itself is racist, anti-thetical in some sense to maori-ness then what?
What did everyone else make of this?
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 1:08 am
Hi Craig,
it’s certainly hard to agrue for ethnic representation without falling into the traps you outline. There is at heart an aspect to the Maori seats that is non-democratic and patronising. I can well understand the view that having Maori seats in effect continues a process of infantisation of Maori that early Eurpean settllers were want to do.
But I still believe it is worth while viewing this issue in the context of ethnic disputes in general. I don’t believe that NZ is likely to disintegrate in the manner of Yugoslavia but there are similar dynmics invloved. Looking at what has happened there and in Iraq, I can’t help but think that some form of seperate ethic representation is a vital aspect of getting those people to stop killing each other. And thanks to the US and UK they have the opportunity to negotiate such constitutional arrangements.
The New Zaland sitution is both different and similar. In that there are similarities, I’m prepared to see seperate ethnic representation as a necessary evil. Humans can be a very nasty species and sometimes compromises on principles are better than stcking to absolutes.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 8:36 am
As a result the Maori roll is a joke because any one ccan sign onto it.
Does anyone else share your interpretation of the law? Most importantly, does the Chief Electoral Officer? Has this point ever been tested in court? I assume not.
Until someone has their place on the Maori Roll on this basis confirmed by the Courts, it would be helpful if you didn’t state your opinions as facts.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 7:58 am
Whatever the virtues of the Maori seats, they are problematic because they cause a lower turnout of Maori voters. Potential Maori Seat voters have to go through an awfully complicated process. They have to decide which electoral roll to be on every 5 years. Remember what roll they are on at election time, which can be years after having made the decision (there is no opportunity to change your mind at election time). Depending on where they live the act of voting is more complicated than voting in a general seat. Then if MMP is half as complicated as some people make out, they’ve got to remember how the two vote thing works. If they slip up at any point in this process, particularly the enrolment bit, then they can’t vote. This means that fewer Maori enrol and vote, which doesn’t sound like a good thing to me.
Vote:October 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
“The chief value of the Maori seats is that they act as a brake on the efforts of rightwing fundamentalists to hijack the machinery of government. Long may they stay in Parliament.”
Of course, we shouldn’t have a brake for left-wing fundamentalists, either. Imagine if say, each vote for Labour counted as two votes. Is that democratic? Hardly. The purpose of the Maori seats was to solve problems that don’t exist today, such as the property ownership issues. Those no longer exist and hence there is no need to segregrate based on race. I could go into a much bigger argument about it but it’s pretty simple really.
Vote:October 10th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Why is it ok to represent only 1 race of people in parliament? I mean democratically aren’t you supposed to represent everyone? One of the fundamentals of democracy is majority rule.
Do Australians consider themselves aboriginal or European? No they are Australian.
Hi I’m a Maori party MP, You’re not Maori, You didn’t vote for any Maori electorate members, and I’m not ever going to do anything with any thought or consideration of you, or anyone else in the majority of this country. I act only in the interest of people of my race, yet you can never call me a racist.
Vote:October 10th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
That one is pretty simple. Maori seats can only be voted for by Maori, so they are representing their constituency. It’s racist, but it’s not undemocratic.
The list MPs are different – if they got in they should represent their voters. Which are *probably* mostly maori, wouldn’t you think?
Perhaps you’re being obtuse, but consider that the Green party are not obliged to represent the anti-green people in this country, similarly with the maori party.
Vote: