David Farrar: A balanced and an unbalanced article

Two articles give a useful contrast in balance. Both seek to be neutral explainer articles.

This one in the Herald on Social Investment covers the pros and cons nicely. It links to critical pieces and talks about aspects that failed and aspects that are more promising.

Then we have the Stuff article which says it is about explaining Maori Wards. I don’t think it means to be biased, but the total absence of any of the principled arguments from opponents means it is. I suspect it is because they have never been reported in almost any medium.

Some extracts:

Aotearoa never even noticed as nearly two-thirds of its councils adopted Māori wards, but that quiet revolution could be set for a very public execution.

They did notice. They just had their right to have any say in it removed by Labour.

Unlike every other type of ward, Māori wards could be overturned by community-initiated votes (also called referendums, or polls).

There is no mention of the view of opponents that wards based on racial ancestry are fundamentally different to wards based on geography. You can change where you live but can’t change your ancestors.

Geographic wards or constituencies exist in almost every democratic form of Government, and have been around for hundreds of years.

A decision on whether or not to a specific geographic ward is routine. A decision on whether to introduce a race based ward is a significant constitutional change, and opponents argue one the public should get to decide, not politicians.

Now you may not agree with my view, but that is the view of many who are opposed, and it is never given a mention in the story,. They accept the framing of the left/proponents entirely that there is no difference between the two type of wards.

If a Council wanted to introduce a gender based ward, would that be no different? Or an age based ward? A religious ward?

The article quotes Professor Meihana Durie (Ngāti Kauwhata), a long-time campaigner for Māori wards in Manawatū and Kaihautū for Māori Laws and Philosophy at Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Dr Carwyn Jones. No opponents are quoted. The latter said:

Fundamental rights like equality and non-discrimination ‒ giving voice to under-represented communities ‒ is something all democracies recognise as important, he said.

No mention of the fact that after the 2019 local body elections, we actually had Māori Councillors slightly over-represented to their shoe of the adult population – 14% to 12%. The removing of the public in having a say, now means Māori Councillors are massively over-represented at 21%. So there is no under-representation.

Also note 75% of Maori members were not elected in Maori wards, so if there were no wards, there would still be around 16% of members who are Maori.

The actual under-represent ted communities are Asian NZera and Pacific NZers.

There’s nothing fundamentally different about Māori wards ‒ they ensure people who haven’t been “well-served or well-heard” can be involved.

That’s his view, and it should be in the article. But the total failure to give voice to a different view, means this is not an explainer – it is advocacy.

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.