Forty-two councils are set to hold pivotal referenda on the future of local body Maori seats in October, yet few New Zealanders appear to grasp just how high the stakes actually are.
Proponents of Maori sovereignty understand the gravity: losing these seats would deal a crushing blow to their push for control over local councils.
More critically, it could jeopardise their race-based parliamentary seats and their He Puapua plan to dominate “Aotearoa” by 2040.
Race-based council seats had a controversial origin.
Unlike the Parliamentary Maori seats, which were established in 1867 as a temporary measure to give Maori men the right to vote, local body Maori seats are a relatively new invention.
They were introduced in the early 2000s around the time Helen Clark’s Labour-led Government was reforming the 1976 Local Elections and Polls Act to modernise and streamline council elections.
During that period, Parliament had also been considering a Private Members Bill promoted by the Green Party’s Rod Donald to introduce proportional voting into local government to increase council diversity.
As a result, the Single Transferable Vote was included as an option in the Government’s Local Electoral Bill, to enable councils to switch between First Past the Post voting and STV, but because this changed the electoral system, a legal safeguard was required.
Under New Zealand’s democratic conventions, voting systems are deemed to be of such constitutional significance that they are afforded special protection in law. These safeguards, to ensure electoral changes can only be undertaken with the express approval of voters, are to prevent those in power from manipulating the voting system for their own advantage.
In central government, the democratic safeguard comes in the form of entrenched electoral law provisions, which means they can only be changed through a supermajority vote in Parliament of 75 percent of MPs, or through a nation-wide binding referendum.
In comparison, the democratic safeguard in local government is petition rights: if a council alters the voting system without a community mandate, then, if five percent of electors support a petition challenging the decision, the council must hold a binding referendum of voters.
Accordingly, the 2001 Local Electoral Act not only included the STV voting option, but the petition right safeguard as well.
Another Bill making its way through Parliament at the time was the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill. This Local Bill, introduced by Labour MP Mita Ririnui, created dedicated Maori seats on the council.
During the first reading of the Bill, then Alliance MP Willie Jackson told the House: “In 1998, despite Maori being 28 percent of the population, Maori had no representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. That would suggest the system has failed Maori, big time. That is not a system that caters for all New Zealanders. It is a system that caters for Pakeha New Zealanders.”
The truth of the matter was revealed by local electorate MP, National’s Max Bradford: “If we look over the history of recent elections in the Bay of Plenty, we see that there has been no difficulty for Maori to find representation on the regional council. From 1989 to 1991, there were two Maori out of 12 representatives. From 1992 to 1995 there was one. I do not think any other Maori stood. In the third triennium, 1995 to 1998, there were no Maori representatives, but I am not sure anybody stood. In the present triennium there are two Maori out of 11 representatives.
“Those who argue that Maori find it difficult to get representation because there are no separate Maori seats, deny the facts. The facts are this. Those who choose to stand for representation in the area have been welcome. I know that each of those people who has been elected found it easy.”
In other words, the real reason Maori did not have representation on the Regional Council at the time in question is that no Maori candidates had put their name forward for election!
The Bill was therefore introduced under false pretences.
Max Bradford outlined its sinister implications: “The one thing this bill is not is an innocent little local bill. It is a bill that will have a profound impact not just in the Bay of Plenty but right throughout the country. What it seeks to do is establish a new basis of voting and representation that we do not have in the present law.”
ACT MP Ken Shirley was more forthright: “What this bill is all about is institutionalised separatism. There is another name for that - apartheid. What we have is, effectively, a stalking horse to impart separatism to local government throughout this country. This is a very dangerous pathway. This inevitably leads to polarisation of both accountability and responsibility. The members elected off the Maori roll will feel beholden to Maori. Therefore, this measure will inevitably promote more strident separatist issues, as those members respond to the Maori roll rather than to what is in the collective general interest of the electorate at large.”
Ken Shirley was critical of the lack of leadership of Regional Council members, who opposed the Bill in private, but ‘buckled’ under pressure from iwi: “They have been caught by a very carefully crafted agenda.”
That “very carefully crafted agenda” continues to this day.
Even though the Bill was based on the lie that it was too difficult for Maori to get elected to the council, it was nevertheless voted into law.
And, as Ken Shirley warned, it was indeed a stalking horse for Maori wards across the country – as he pointed out in a debate on the Bill introducing them in 2002: “The bill proposes race-based electoral rolls for local government. That is apartheid. The bill will prove to be socially divisive, but the Labour Government is determined to drive it through. We knew that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act was the stalking horse for this measure. The Government denied it at the time, but here is the proof.”
How prophetic Ken Shirley’s words were.
Because the creation of Maori wards required the introduction of the Maori electoral roll, it too was a measure that would alter the voting system. As a result, the same petition right safeguard that had been applied for STV voting in the law, was also applied to Maori wards.
This democratic safeguard was not needed for any other ward changes undertaken by councils, because none of the others alter the voting system.
By 2020, 24 councils had attempted to introduce Maori wards against the wishes of their communities. Only in Wairoa in 2016 had Maori seats been supported in the mandatory referendum - although, as the Mayor later explained, they were not really needed.
Nor were they ‘needed’ to increase Maori representation in local government since by 2019, 13.5 percent of all elected Councillors were Maori – the same as the 13.7 percent of Maori in the adult population.
When Jacinda Ardern’s majority Labour Government swept into office in 2020 armed with their He Puapua agenda for the tribal control of New Zealand, they moved swiftly to abolish the Maori ward petition right safeguard.
Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta claimed it discriminated against Maori because it only applied to Maori wards. That was a lie. She also claimed Maori were under-represented in local government. That too, was a lie.
With the democratic safeguard removed, powerful tribal advocates and left-wing activists within local councils took the opportunity to introduce Maori wards without any mandate from voters. As a result, the number of Maori seats after the 2022 election exploded, with Maori membership on councils escalating to 21.6 percent – resulting in a significant over-representation of Maori in local government.
Furthermore, with powerful Maori advisory groups already well established in local authorities, Maori seats gave tribal interests a controlling influence within many councils.
In 2024, the Coalition restored the democratic right of electors, by reversing Nanaia Mahuta’s deception and re-introducing the petition-right safeguard. All councils that had established Maori wards without obtaining a mandate from voters were given the choice of either disestablishing them or holding a binding referendum at the election.
The only council resolving to abolish their Maori ward was the Kaipara District Council.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Frank Newman, a former local body councillor and political strategist, interviewed the Mayor of Kaipara Craig Jepson to assess whether the Maori seat had provided benefits to the community:
“The Maori seats have become radicalised. Our Maori ward councillor continually disrupted and undermined our council. Although she took an oath to work in the best interests of all people, she clearly put the interests of Maori first, at the expense of everyone else.
“It has also cost ratepayers a lot of money because the council has had to respond to frivolous Code of Conduct complaints and legal challenges to our decisions, asserting we have breached our Treaty obligations.
“The simple fact is the Kaipara District Council is not the Crown and does not have duties as a signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi. Our council meets its obligations to Maori as required by the Local Government Act. We facilitate participation by Maori in local decision-making processes, but while doing so, we ensure our decision-making entails equal rights for all communities and people of the district.”
Come October, the future of local government Maori seats will rest where it should have remained: in the hands of voters.
Although the battle has yet to be waged, it is clear the campaign of lies perpetuated by Nania Mahuta and the Ardern Labour Government, will resurface to justify their retention.
How far that truth reaches into the debate remains to be seen.
The left-wing bias in the mainstream media is already evident and there is no doubt they will pitch a one-sided narrative.
It will be up to people power to counter that media bias and rally support for what we all believe in: open and fair democracy where everyone is treated equally and given the same opportunity.
Here are some facts: Maori are not underrepresented in local councils - or in Parliament. They are over-represented.
Maori also gain substantial influence on Councils through ad-hoc standing committees and special “relationship” agreements that guarantee priority status.
In fact, the list of special rights for Maori in local government is endless - including Mana Whakahono a Rohe Agreements with councils, statutory obligations for Maori engagement, Maori representation on committees and boards, Maori advisory roles and co-governance arrangements, special procurement rules for Maori businesses, along with continuous opportunities to be involved in decisions relating to roading and other infrastructure projects with oversight and monitoring roles.
To suggest Maori do not have influence on councils is plainly absurd - even without having a free pass to the top-table.
Even the justification that sharing sovereignty is a Treaty right is a lie: the historical record clearly demonstrates sovereignty was ceded “absolutely and without reservation”.
It is also a legal fact that local authorities are not the Crown and therefore do not have Treaty of Waitangi obligations.
But let’s not underestimate the significance of the 42 council referendums (see below for the full list of councils).
Should the vote be to retain the Maori wards, then it is inevitable that the country’s remaining councils will follow suit as opponents will be much less willing to go through the onerous task of gathering signatures to challenge the decision.
The consequences would then become increasingly sinister as tribal totalitarianism takes hold.
It’s easy to blame the Government for not doing enough to stop the tribal takeover of New Zealand. But the outcome of these Maori Seat referenda is on us.
This is our opportunity to rally around our friends and family, to use our mailing lists and social media to impress on everyone that a “no vote” in each of those 42 referenda is vital for the democratic future of New Zealand. And don’t forget, anyone owning property is entitled to vote in every area where rates are paid - more details can be found HERE.
*The 42 councils holding a Maori Seat referendum at the 2025 elections are:
- Central Hawke’s Bay District Council
- Far North District Council
- Gisborne District Council
- Hamilton City Council
- Hastings District Council
- Hauraki District Council
- Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
- Horizons Regional Council (Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Council)
- Horowhenua District Council
- Hutt City Council
- Kapiti Coast District Council
- Kawerau District Council
- Manawatu District Council
- Masterton District Council
- Marlborough District Council
- Matamata-Piako District Council
- Napier City Council
- Nelson City Council
- New Plymouth District Council
- Northland Regional Council
- Otorohanga District Council
- Porirua City Council
- Palmerston North City Council
- Rangitikei District Council
- Rotorua District Council
- Ruapehu District Council
- South Taranaki District Council
- South Wairarapa District Council
- Stratford District Council
- Taranaki Regional Council
- Tararua District Council
- Tasman District Council
- Taupo District Council
- Thames-Coromandel District Council
- Waikato District Council
- Waipa District Council
- Wellington City Council
- Wellington Regional Council
- Western Bay of Plenty District Council
- Whakatane District Council
- Whanganui District Council
- Whangarei District Council
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Do you believe local body Maori Seats have become radicalised?
9 comments:
Learning that at least some MPs recognised maori cunning and fore saw the implications of separatist maori representation has somewhat restored my faith in human ability. If the situation could be adequately brought to public notice the maori wards would be effectively crushed. Except in maori areas, where not necessary anyway. But how? No extensive balanced objective discussion will appear repeatedly on RNZ or TVNZ. (the only messages endlessly repeated are pro maori and often not true ie colonists initiated banning maori at schools.) For reasons uncertain the private msm steadfastly plug the separatist maori line. Very many of the population nowadays are more disconnected from public affairs than 100 years ago when near all accessed newspapers, and persons socialised. An advertising campaign could be effective but very expensive. And many media would likely refuse. Meanwhile the pro maori argument will almost certainly be endlessly repeated by presenters and encouraged interviewees on RNZ.
No-one actually articulates what the "pro-Maori "position actually is. More importantly, how this perspective of two separate peoples was arrived at. For those of us who believe in one person, one vote and we are all New Zealanders, any seats based on race is abhorrent. If the decision is because a certain ethnicity arrived here first then why isn't this happening in other western countries. Australia is possibly going down this track, however it's not "in your face" like here and "The Voice" was quashed by the majority.
How can anybody who has studied history think this will end well?
In Tauranga the council made the decision in favour of Maori wards. At one point 5,000 of us voted against the proposal. You can only conclude more than part-Maori will benefit financially? What other possible conclusion is there? It can't be solely altruistic.
Well said
Yeah !! It’s a disaster about to happen, because of the total commitment of the MSM to the "Collectivist" idea. Most ordinary regular folk have no idea of the repercussions.
Representative Democracy is the only system of govt that can remove an undesirable leader WITHOUT VIOLENCE.
Socialism (collectivism/communism) require a CIVIL WAR & see how that plays out.
Much of the unseen support for all this Maori rubbish has been Feminists/Women who have moved from The Home to The Workforce in the last 50 years & Women are collectivist (social) by nature & DONT SEE THE DANGER coming.
Help !!
Robert, how can you do a mass advertising campaign in the MSM, when they will refuse to take your material, regardless of the money on offer ?
That has already been tried many times, edit your advertising to comply, or they will not publish.
All I can think of are large billboards, including the message not to trust the MSM.
It’s up to us to remind as many people as possible to vote down the maori wards , hopefully this and other sites ramp up the above information right up to the elections to ensure this happens , as an aside I wasn’t aware I could vote in an area I don’t live but own property in that area , it’s just a matter of registering , this could make a difference especially with historic low voter turnout in council elections
Yeah?? I am a feminist ...still and in my 70's but I also know the History of NZ. I long ago moved away from the Maori BS and started reading our History again when I heard blatant revisionist dribble being touted as fact by our idiot politicians.Those who swallow the kool-aid cos everything else is just too hard deserve to lose their democracy and be treated like secondhand citizens by grifting iwi.
Remember National, (Goldsmith holds the media/communication portfolio) has allowed this situation to happen. Not the doing of the Coalition as a whole.
Currently on a trip in Oz and what a relief it is not to hear a word on Maori babble - we must root out the rot and get NZ back to a place that respects everyone equally and loses the Marxism that is dooming it to full blown apartheid.
Post a Comment