This won’t happen of course and I doubt if any major party would be strong enough to endorse a Maori leader.

MMP has seen the emergence of Maori leaders, but if a Maori gets too close to treasury seats, FPP will return in two shakes of a rabbits tail.

Actually I’m getting kind of tied of hearing “I want” from that end of the political spectrum.

Please define “Identify as Maori strongly”

Are we to assume that Maori on the general role are less authentically Maori than those that are not?

[DPF: Not authentic but generally those on the Maori roll identify as being Maori ahead of being a New Zelanders, while those on the general roll are more New Zealanders who happen to have some Maori ancestry but it is not a big thing for them. Not for all people, but on average]

Helen Clark for example was well versed in her complete pursuit for NZ Socialism, John Key should have taken notes: clearly he didn’t.

And of course the headline DPF used is well within the tradition that the newspapers are establishing at their cost. Nowhere did the poll ask if any Maori wanted Goff sacked. All they indicated was that he was not a preferred leader.

At least stick to the facts or risk the same sort of criticism that gets leveled at the reporters and newspapers by many of the bloggers on your own blog.

“The architects of the MMP system counselled against retaining the separate Maori seats under MMP. The Electoral Commission on the Electoral System promoted MMP as the preferred proportional system to replace FPP, but recommended against retaining the four permanent Maori seats.15 However, Maori opposed that recommendation and the seats were instead tagged to the Maori electoral option, which enabled their number to increase progressively. The seats were increased to five in 1996, to six in 1999 and to seven 2002. Retaining the seats will have two effects: it will inflate the parliamentary representation of Maori beyond their relative population base, and it will create a permanent “overhang” that will eventually skew MMP proportionality.

A study I published on the Maori seats concluded that their retention could not be justified under the MMP electoral system. The introduction of MMP eclipsed what belated justification the seats had acquired last century. They were introduced in 1867 for a period of five years to enable the Native Land Court to convert communal Maori land holding into individualised Crown-derived estates. The Colonial Office refused to make any exception in the colonies to the property qualification that conferred the right to vote under English law.18 The Maori Representation Act 1867 conferred on Maori a temporary adult male franchise. The Act established four Maori electorates – three in the North Island and one in the South and Stewart Islands – which were declared to remain in force until October 1872. However, the Act’s sunset clause significantly underestimated the task of individualising Maori land tenure and the Maori Representation Act Amendment and Continuance Act 1972 extended the life of the 1867 Act until October 1877. During this period, the Native Land Court continued to struggle with the task of individualising Maori land holding, and in 1876 Parliament extended the life of the 1867 Act indefinitely. By default, the Maori seats became a permanent feature of the electoral landscape. Alan Ward wryly commented that separate Maori representation “stumbled into being”.

The separate Maori seats secure electoral privilege based on race or ethnicity. They are thus fundamentally at odds with Western democratic values, which espouse the elemental principle of “one person, one vote, one value”. This elemental principle rails against electoral privilege, based on ethically unjustifiable distinctions (colour, race, ethnicity, sex, marital status etc)…

Statistics from the 2005 elections indicate a rapid narrowing of the representational deficit of Maori under the list system. Twenty-two members elected in 2005 were of Maori descent, representing 19.0 percent of Parliament’s membership (121 members owing to an “overhang” of one member at the 2005 election). Fifteen were list members and seven held the Maori seats. Maori represented 14.0 percent of the national population, which yielded a 5.0 percent higher parliamentary representation for Maori than their relative national population. If the seven Maori seats were subtracted, the 15 list seats Maori hold would represent 12.4 percent of parliament’s membership (1.6 percent below the relative national population). On these statistics, it is predicted that any Maori representational deficit will be eliminated following the 2008 elections. Abolition of the separate Maori seats would increase Maori voting power in the general seats and would return greater numbers of Maori in Parliament….

The inflated representation of the Maori Party through overhang would also give the party disproportionate leverage in coalition talks. The influence of the minor parties on the configuration of government has been a recurring criticism of the MMP system.

Calls to retain the Maori seats in 1993 should have been vigorously resisted. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System advanced principled argument for their abolition but was silenced by Maori leaders, who held the ear of government. We may have entered upon an era when strategic vote-splitting between the Maori and Labour parties will make overhang a permanent feature of MMP.”

Labour should beware of any “advice” National offers because of its “polling”.

Is this what you are after Bob R?

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/nzcpl/files/MMP/Session%203%20Joseph.pdf

They all sit there and let Neville Key bow down to the apartheid party and not one of the bastards is prepared to say enough is enough.

More Kiwi’s off to Aussie.

Up from 33% to 51% I see. Thats quite a leap, any ideas on why this is?

[DPF: It is a smallish sample of 300, but that does not explain all of it. Maori on general roll tend to not identify as Maori strongly, so it might be they like something Labour said since November on the economic front]

Can someone explain why these seats haven’t been abolished? Shouldn’t they be removed under MMP, with the proviso that they would be reinstated under First Past the Post?

Also, can anyone provide a copy of Phillip Joseph’s legal opinion on this?

I’m not sure whether to laugh, cackle or gloat.