Kiwiblog

No Right Turn alerted me to this private members bill drawn from the ballot. He supports the intent, but not the details of the bill. I have problems with both.

The bill basically forces every city council, district council and regional council to have one or more Maori wards – reserved for voters of Maori descent.

I think such a move would be appalling, and push us towards a Fiji style country, and set back race relations massively.

I also think it shows how dangerous it can be when the debate keeps shifting down this path.

At a national level, we have had the Maori seats since 1867. They were well intentioned, allowing Maori who owned property communally to vote – a right limited then to property owners.

In an ideal world the seats would have been abolished in 1879 when the property requirement was abolished. It is somewhat shameful that up until 1976, Maori were not even allowed to vote on the general roll.

I regard it as a shame that the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish the Maori seats (and in exchange have a lower threshold for Maori parties) was not implemented. Have race based seats is just not something that long-term I think is likely to create a more harmonious New Zealand.

However I do generally accept the proposition that regardless of the lack of a principled rationale for race based seats, that trying to unilaterally abolish them would be an act that would in itself be disharmonious and create a huge backlash. There is a huge difference between not creating something, and taking something away. Hence I don’t think it is wise to try and abolish the Maori parliamentary seats, unless one could get widespread agreement from Maori to it.

But having said that, I think it is important that the Maori parliamentary seats be seen as a historic exception, and not the rule. However we are in some danger of ending up there.

In 1998 Tuariki Delamere sponsored a bill to allow the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to create a Maori ward or wards.The argument was that it was only for that one Council which had special needs, and the parliamentary seats was a precedent. And people thought well, why not allow it.

It was not supported by National, but in 2001 Labour passed it as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001.

The exception then became an option for all, and Labour passed the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002 which allowed any Council to establish Maori wards either on their own initiative or by referendum, which can be  upon petition by 5% of electors.

So a historical anomaly became a one off example in one Council, and then became an option for all Councils.

And it didn’t stop there. The Royal Commission on Auckland recommended that the new Auckland Council have three Maori seats, regardless of whether or not the people of Auckland wanted them. Labour demanded that the Government create Maori seats for Auckland, rather than even leave it to Auckland to decide. So again, the debate shifted from should they even be allowed, to should it be created without consultation.

And then finally we have the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill by Te Uroroa Flavell, which would impose Maori wards on every council in New Zealand, dividing every single authority up into Maori and non Maori.

Now it is all well intentioned, and supporters will claim the means justify the ends. But again I don’t think we want to end up like Fiji with race dividing voters electorally.

So I fully expect Flavell’s bill to be voted down. No doubt the Greens will vote for it. I suspect Labour would love to vote for it, but they may vote against it on the basis of its flaws (beyond the principled opposition to it). NRT describes these:

Currently councils can establish Māori wards, and if they do, their number is determined by the number of people on the Māori roll in that district. Flavell’s bill would change this to being determined by the number of people of Māori descent. However, voting in those wards would still be limited to the 60% of Māori on the Māori roll. Which means that those wards will be systematically undersized, and those Māori systematically over-represented.

This would be a huge gerrymander. Basically voters in the Maori wards would have twice as much power as those in other wards. NRT also fisks the justification from Flavell:

Flavell’s justification for this change is that

This change is made because 40% of the Māori population is under 18 years and is therefore excluded under the current formula.

But this is simply incorrect. The current formula uses the definitions from the Electoral Act 1993, which specifically includes people under 18. So those people would already be represented (though unable to vote)

Incidentally I believe electorate populations should be based on the adult population, not the total population – but that is a debate for another day.

NRT concludes:

I don’t think this is an attempt at a stitch-up; rather its likely a mistake born of not reading the law closely enough. But the result is a deeply flawed bill. Fortunately, those flaws can be resolved at select committee.

The mistake can be easily resolved. But I don’t think the bill should proceed. Generally I support most bills going to a select committee, but this bill seeks to move in a direction which I so strongly disagree with, that I don’t think it should even get past first reading.

Incidentally under this proposed law, four local authorities would be forced to have the majority of their seats elected from Maori wards. Think about the level of resentment that would cause amongst non-Maori? I don’t mean the resentment would come from having a majority of Maori on a local authority. I, for one, would not care a damn if the majority of Wellington City Council was Maori. I would object though if the majority had been elected from wards which I am banned from being eligible to enrol in, because of my lack of the right genes.

It is a pity that the debate on this bill will now be whether or not Maori seats on Council should be compulsory or voluntary. In fact the debate should be about whether Labour should have ever created them at all in 2001.

Tags: Local Body Politics, Maori, Te Ururoa Flavell

The Herald reports on the organisational leadership of the Maori Party:

Maori Party president Whatarangi Winiata’s plans to retire from the post today appear to have been scuttled after several people within the party asked him to stay on.

Dr Winiata had announced his intention to stand down at today’s annual general meeting in Auckland.

He is two years through his three-year term, but had proposed resigning to allow his successor two years in the position before the next election.

Asked if he had changed his mind, he said he had been approached about it and would stay on if the membership decided it was the best option.

He would wait to hear what the meeting wanted before deciding.

The party’s co-president, retired Maori Land Court judge Heta Kenneth Kingston, was tipped to succeed him.

Dr Winiata has led the party wing of the Maori Party since it was formed in 2004 and having him stay on will help the party’s stability.

The party also has a challenge ahead with its parliamentary leadership. At the 2014 election, Turia will be 70, and Sharples 73. I would expect both will retire at that election.

That means they need to have their successors in place at the 2011 election, and they may struggle to find people of matching profile and mana nationally.

The most high profile current MP is Hone Harawira, but Hone is not seeking leadership and would be an unlikely one. Some say his wife Hilda would be an excellent Leader, but is Parliament ready for two Harawiras?

Te Ururoa Flavell is considered able to potentially step up if he lifts his profile in the next few years. But even if that happens, the Maori Party will still need a new female co-leader and unless they pick up the final two seats off Labour, no way to get them into Parliament in 2011.

Claire Trevett also has a very insightful article on the two current co-leaders and their strengths and weaknesses.

Tags: Hone Harawira, Maori Party, Pita Sharples, Tariana Turia, Te Ururoa Flavell

The Herald reports:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is set to reverse her decision to retire at the next election and instead stay on to advance her political agenda.

Mrs Turia confirmed yesterday that she was “seriously reconsidering” her decision and discussing it with her family.

She announced her retirement at the last election, saying she would step down at the end of this term.

This is not totally surprising, nor unwelcome. As the Herald notes:

The Herald understands Mrs Turia’s goal is to see her whanau ora policy embedded.

Whanau ora would bring together funding from various Government departments – health, education, justice, housing, social welfare – and funnel it directly to families in need of state assistance, rather than separately through different bureaucracies.

Mrs Turia is raising her 8-year-old grandchild, so the pressure of working in Parliament is a consideration.

If she stays on, it will resolve the Maori Party’s leadership dilemma, with no clear successor in its ranks.

The lack of a clear successor is a real issue for the Maori Party.

By 2014, one would expect both Sharples and Turia to retire. Turia will be 70 and Sharples 73.

The three other Maori Party MPs are all good constituent MPs, but neither Flavell or Katene (at this stage) have a national profile. Hone Harawira does, but I imagine he would agree leadership would be too stifling to him.

So how does the Maori Party get into Parliament, a couple of MPs who can take over in 2014? They are most unlikely to get any List MPs in 2011. And I don’t expect any retirements from the three other constituency MPs.

Hence they need to get their future leaders to either enter in 2011 by winning one or both of the two Maori seats they do not hold. If Derek Fox finally won Ikaroa-Rawhiti, he would be a logical contender. Mind you he will be 64 in 2011 and 67 in 2014.

The other option is that you look for the future leaders to replace Turia and Sharples in their own seats. This means however they go straight into the leadership as new MPs, which could be challenging.

Tags: Derek Fox, Hone Harawira, Maori Party, Pita Sharples, Rahui Katene, Tariana Turia, Te Ururoa Flavell

Labour won the party vote easily in all seven Maori seats. Their party vote ranged from 45% to 57%, and the Maori Party ranged from 21% to 34%. Waiariki was closest with an 11% gap and Ikaroa-Rawhiti had a 31% gap.

In 2005 Labour ranged from 49% to 58% and Maori Party from 18% to 31% so not much change on the party vote.

National in 2005 got from 2.7% to 7.4% in the Maori seats. In 2008 it was from 5.5% to 10.9% so a very small improvement there.

The electorate votes we start from Te Taik Tokerau in the North. Hone Harawira won it by 3,600 in 2005 over Dover Samuels. This time he has a 5,500 majority.

Pita Sharples evicted John Tamihere from Tamaki Makaurau by 2,100 in 2005 and holds it over Louisa Wall by a massve 6,300.

In Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell won by 2,900 in 2005. In 2008 he doubles that to 6,000.

Nanaia Mahuta held onto Tainui by 1,860. The boundary changes to Hauraki-Waikato did not favour her, so she did well to hold on by 1,046.

In Te Tai Hauauru, Tariana Turia won by 5,000 in 2005 and this time he rmajority is almost 7,000.

The big battle was in Ikaroa-Rawhiti. Parekura held off Atareta Poananga by 1,932 in 2005, and Poananga’s former partner, Derek Fox, challenged in 2008. But Fox fell short by 1,609.

Finally in the South, Te Tai Tonga was held by Mahara Okeroa in 2005 by 2,500. New Maori Party candidate Rahui Katene beat him by 684 votes in 2008.

Tags: Atareta Poananga, Derek Fox, Election 2008, Hauraki-Waikato, Hone Harawira, Ikaroa-Rawhiti, Labour, Mahara Okeroa, Maori Party, Maori Seats, Nanaia Mahuta, National, Parekura Horomia, Pita Sharples, Rahui Katene, Tamaki Makaurau, Tariana Turia, Te Tai Hauauru, Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Tonga, Te Ururoa Flavell, Waiariki

The Dom Post reveals that Tommy Gear is the NZ First staff member who pressured Te Ururoa Flavell to vote for Winston.

We always wondered what Mr Gear does for his taxpayer funded salary. Now we know – it is to lobby MPs not to find Winston guilty.

Tags: Privileges Committee, Te Ururoa Flavell, Tommy Gear, Winston First