Small but noisy
As the Hikoi grinds its way on to Parliament, the Maori Party claims that it has a key leadership role. But this is a group with a single focus: to speak with a strong, independent and united voice for Maori. They are just a small party with a loud voice having garnered only 3.08% of the popular vote in last year’s election. However, they have six seats in the House of Representatives courtesy of the undemocratic special Maori seats.
Their behaviour last week when the bill was introduced was appalling; doing a haka on the floor of the House of Representatives and tearing up copies of the bill were reprehensible. MPs opposed to David Seymour’s bill are entitled, in a democratic society, to have their opinions respected, but the same applies to people who support the proposed legislation.
As the leader of the ACT Party has pointed out many times this is a bill about establishing equality in New Zealand. Getting it through the First Reading is designed to see it sent to a Select Committee so that Kiwi citizens can express their views.
A key element of inequality is Parliamentary representation with special provision for Maori seats which are no longer justified.
The seven Maori seats are undemocratic
The existence of the seven Maori seats should be abolished. We do not have special seats for Pacific Island people or citizens of Chinese, Indian, Korean, English or any other ethnicity. For a number of years the National Party was committed to carrying out that abolition which had been recommended by the Electoral Commission in the 1980s, but then National’s leader John Key needed support from the Maori Party to form a workable government majority in Parliament.
Consequently the need to create a fair and equitable electoral system was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Maori Party MPs have shown their contempt for democracy over recent years and leader Rawiri Waititi has described it as “a tyranny of the majority”. An obvious reason for their attitude is that if the separate Maori electorates were abolished, their Party would win no seats in parliament.
When they were first set up on the second half of the 19th century the four special seats were only intended to be a temporary expedient to provide representation for Maori people. This allocation was appropriate at the time, when most Maori lived in remote villages, but there is no longer any justification for this separatist policy.
Electoral 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 by winning Wairarapa and Awarua respectively.
In the elections that followed more people with some Maori blood were elected in general seats. This prompted The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in its 1986 Report to recommend the abolition of separate representation. But as outlined above, it didn’t happen.
By 2002 the number of designated Maori seats had increased to seven and today there are 33 MPs in parliament with some Maori blood. The reality today is that there is clearly no longer any justification for a special allocation for people who are in fact part-Maori and mainly descended from colonists and settlers.
Time for equality
People with even the smallest amount of Maori blood have the choice of being on the general or Maori roll. However, for the 2023 election there was a major push for anyone calling themselves Maori to be on the latter.
The existing Maori electorates are huge: Te Tai Tonga covers the whole of the South Island, the Chatham Islands and parts of Wellington and Lower Hutt, making it impossible for the elected member, Takuta Ferris, to regularly keep in contact with his constituents.
The needs of Maori – for housing, health, education, higher incomes, welfare, roads, public transport, libraries, entertainment, sporting facilities etc … – are no different from other New Zealanders. However, despite this truism, Maori have many separatist institutions, as well as 7 special parliamentary seats, that don’t exist for other citizens.
Well looked after
People with some Maori blood are well catered for by various governments departments and have their own Maori Affairs Ministry (Te Puni Kōkiri). Meanwhile the Waitangi Tribunal, using taxpayer money, has handsomely rewarded iwi, who have brought claims of breaches to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Maori businesses and trusts which pay lower taxes than other commercial enterprises, have become extremely wealthy, often with the assistance of non-Maori business people and investment consultants. The present value of the Maori economy is estimated to be well over $70 billion.
All the special policies favouring Maori over other Kiwis are in breach of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Looking after a small minority who have some Maori blood
So does the Maori Party have a raison d’être?
Many would argue that they don’t, because their policies are aimed at continuing and extending special provisions for Maori. In Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi the Native peoples were guaranteed equal but not special rights.
Without the separate seats Te Pati Maori would have no elected representatives.
The Party website makes it abundantly clear that first and foremost they are interested in the future of those with some Maori blood and pays only lip service to the interests of the country where they live and enjoy citizenship.
The Māori Party believes that indigenous solutions can help unlock the wellbeing of our whānau, and our nation. Our policies and practices are derived from kaupapa tuku iho, and aim to provide for the wellbeing of all, recognising that we must improve the outcomes of whānau Māori if we are to be a truly diverse, happy and well nation. (Te Pāti Māori website)
There is no place for such a special interest party in New Zealand for Part-Maori people who are already generously catered for by the government, and courtesy the Waitangi Tribunal handouts and non-Maori advisors, have assets in the tens of billions.
The massive Hikoi which will assemble in parliament grounds today will serve no useful purpose, as its message is to oppose the Treaty Principles Bill and not allow democratic discussion through the select committee process from ordinary Kiwis.
Roger Childs is a writer and freelance journalist. He is a former history and geography teacher, who wrote or co-authored 10 school textbooks. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
Because TPM holds 7 seats, it is a valuable entity if negotiation is required to form a government after an election. In 2026, TPM may be Luxon's first choice as a coalition partner.... wait and see.
"He Iwi Tahi Tatou, we are now one people", said Captain William Hobson as each Maori chief signed the Treaty of Waitangi on February 6, 1840. How can we have partnerships and principles when we are one people? However, anything is possible when you are a politician. Both Labour and National have proved that! Yes, it is long past time to abolish the racist Maori seats and become one people. An open message to Rawiri Waititi: What sort of system would you have if we were to abolish democracy?
Kevan
So many agree but how to effect the change? Politicians seem unable - its going to take a revolution.
I like what Winston Peters said in his speech in parliament in reply to the hikoi and the disruptive haka when David Seymore tried to talk.
The outcome of The Voice referendum is an essential stake in the ground for registering the people's views. Radicals will mount strong pushback against this - but it cannot be cancelled. This step is vital for NZ as the push for tribal rule grows.
I suggest that the worst thing the (by definition) racist party has done is to organise such noisy protests that the quiet ‘middle New Zealand’ (you know, that vote) will now be asking themselves what’s going on? Why aren’t we ‘allowed’ to discuss this issue? Why was it okay before yet not now?
This morning I watched Q&A and two things were obvious:
1, The calm reasoning of David and the simple truth he spoke,
2. The fact that the first two assumptions by Debbie were wrong
Thereby making the argument that she based on them false.
a. The Maori were not indigenous hence cannot claim indigenous rights.
b.The Treaty quite clearly states the Maori ceded sovereignty.
We do not need a Bill. We simply need Truth.
Post a Comment