A step backwards for democracy
It’s no surprise to see the Far North keeping them. Up here, where Māori make up a the majority of the population, the outcome was predictable. What these decisions show is not strength, not pride, and certainly not progress. It shows a lack of faith in Māori themselves.
The only message Māori wards send is this: Māori cannot get into councils on merit alone. That is absolute rubbish. Māori have proven time and time again that they are capable of excelling in every field imaginable, from business and politics to crime statistics. Māori do not need a political handout to succeed.
Creating separate wards does nothing but divide people and cheapen the achievements of Māori who have worked hard to earn their place. Māori wards are patronising, condescending, and rooted in the same paternalistic thinking that activists claim to despise. It is the modern-day equivalent of patting Māori on the head and saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll make room for you, cuzzie.”
For years we have been told that equality means treating everyone the same, yet these councils are voting for separation based purely on race. How is that progress? Democracy is meant to be about one person, one vote, one standard for all. Māori wards spit in the face of that principle.
Then there is Wellington. Tory Whanau, who rated her own mayoral performance a laughable 9 out of 10, could not even convince voters in the Māori ward to back her. Matthew Reweti beat her easily. That speaks volumes. If even Māori voters did not want her near the council table again, it is a damning reflection of how far she has fallen. Do not be surprised if she pops up next on a Green Party ticket, trying to reinvent herself yet again
.
Matthew Reweti
At the end of the day, those councils who had the courage to scrap Māori wards should be commended. They listened to the people and stood up for the principle of equality. The others? They have bowed to tokenism and division, pandering to a political ideology that is doing nothing but tearing this country apart.
New Zealand should be striving to unite, not separate. If you truly believe in Māori capability and mana, then trust Māori to earn their place in democracy the same way everyone else does. Because anything less is not representation, it is an insult.
Who said no?
Who said yes?
Some of these results are subject to change due to special votes still being counted.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
Creating separate wards does nothing but divide people and cheapen the achievements of Māori who have worked hard to earn their place. Māori wards are patronising, condescending, and rooted in the same paternalistic thinking that activists claim to despise. It is the modern-day equivalent of patting Māori on the head and saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll make room for you, cuzzie.”
For years we have been told that equality means treating everyone the same, yet these councils are voting for separation based purely on race. How is that progress? Democracy is meant to be about one person, one vote, one standard for all. Māori wards spit in the face of that principle.
Then there is Wellington. Tory Whanau, who rated her own mayoral performance a laughable 9 out of 10, could not even convince voters in the Māori ward to back her. Matthew Reweti beat her easily. That speaks volumes. If even Māori voters did not want her near the council table again, it is a damning reflection of how far she has fallen. Do not be surprised if she pops up next on a Green Party ticket, trying to reinvent herself yet again
.
Matthew Reweti
At the end of the day, those councils who had the courage to scrap Māori wards should be commended. They listened to the people and stood up for the principle of equality. The others? They have bowed to tokenism and division, pandering to a political ideology that is doing nothing but tearing this country apart.
New Zealand should be striving to unite, not separate. If you truly believe in Māori capability and mana, then trust Māori to earn their place in democracy the same way everyone else does. Because anything less is not representation, it is an insult.
Who said no?
- Hawkes Bay Regional Council
- Horizons Regional Council
- Northland Regional Council
- Taranaki Regional Council
- Central Hawke’s Bay District Council
- Hauraki District Council
- Hastings District Council
- Horowhenua District Council
- Malborough District Council
- Manawatū District Council
- Masteron District Council
- Matamata-Piako District Council
- Napier City Council
- New Plymouth District Council
- Ōtorohanga District Council
- Rangitikei District Council
- South Taranaki District Council
- Stratford District Council
- Tararua District Council
- Tasman District Council
- Taupō District Council
- Thames-Coromandel District Council
- Waikato District Council
- Waipā District Council
- Whangārei District Council
Who said yes?
- Greater Wellington Regional Council
- Far North District Council
- Gisborne District Council
- Hamilton City Council
- Hutt City Council
- Kāpiti Coast District Council
- Kawerau District Council
- Nelson City Council
- Palmerston North City Council
- Porirua City Council
- Rotorua District Council
- Ruapehu District Council
- South Wairarapa District Council
- Whakatāne District Council
- Whanganui District Council
- Wellington City Council
- Western Bay of Plenty District Council
Some of these results are subject to change due to special votes still being counted.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
Common sense around the country, but not Wellington - the place that governs the rest of the country. It's similar to the way that Canberra was the only part of Australia that supported indigenous seats in the Australian Parliament. NZ needs a serious clean out of the public service.
I do wonder though if those that stood in the Māori wards would put themselves forward in a General ward if there was no Māori ward, and if not, why not? That said, I still believe there should only be one system for all.
Does anyone know of another First World country where they have race based election systems ?
Stuff and its allies do not like the result of the ward vote in Taranaki and, in the case of the New Plymouth Council, the candidates and mayor elected. The evil belt-tighteners gained and the ''wrong'' mayor was elected. In past elections Stuff here was effusively all over the results, which fitted the correct views. This time little, except a part-Maori candidate who kept his seat in a general ward lamenting the ward rejection but praising the large pro vote as a sign of change to come. Naturally this column is in The Post etc as well because it is ''correct'' thinking.
In my view the pro -ward vote shows that side of the divide was more motivated and the pathetic turnout overall means anyone can read whatever they want into the outcomes. Strong LabGreenTPM areas such as Wellington went for spender councillors and pro wards. Where other parties appear stronger the vote was more the other way. Seems like Claytons victories all round. There was also a council meeting the day before the election in NP when the former mayor was appointed to head the new water entity by the head bureaucrat and it was quickly ratified by the majority spenderwoke councillors. This could be heading to court. Stuff are not much interested...yet.
Two cents:
1) Can't believe Hutt City with its history and sale deed that used to be on display in the library voted to allow alienators of land to still have an influence over it - wonder if they will also want that over their personal assets too?
2) Maori seats and any/all other forms of racial preference is the most patronising form of racism that says Maori are low achievers and incompetent without having rules made in their favour and supported by the great white saviours who can pretend to be Maori and who will help Maori to assuage their own feeling of inherited privilege and guilt. However, none of this will ever affect, reach or help socially housed Maori in Otara, Mangere, Waitangarua Canons Creek, Moera, etc.
Not a surprising result, given that there are pockets of Maori and supporters around the country. The yes / no split gives a fair indication of where.
Never ceases to amaze me that Maori have accepted any and all things provided by "colonisers" except democracy.
Dare I say the majority of Maori just get on with things like the rest of us.
I went to examine if the Guardian’s NZ correspondent would report on the local government elections and this is what presented itself: I call it “How The Guardian turns New Zealand politics into moral theatre for export”.
When Donald Trump railed against “fake news,” it was easy to dismiss him as paranoid.
Yet stories like The Guardian’s coverage of New Zealand’s Māori ward referendums show how news can be “fake” without ever printing a single falsehood.
Guardian reporter Eva Corlett’s headline alone sets the scene:
“Guaranteed Māori seats on New Zealand councils to be slashed by more than half.”
“Slashed” — a moral verb. “Guaranteed” — as though racially exclusive seats are a constitutional birthright.
From the first sentence, the reader knows who the victims are and who the villains must be.
What follows is a masterclass in narrative engineering. Māori wards are “hard-won.” The government is “right-wing.” Its law “forces councils” to act — while Labour’s earlier decision to bypass local votes “remedied” the problem. One side coerces; the other “corrects.”
The only government voice — Local Government Minister Simon Watts — is confined to a single line of bureaucratic neutrality. Then come the sympathetic experts and Labour’s Kieran McAnulty, whose indignant quote closes the story with moral finality. Not one mayor, councillor, or voter who supported the referenda outcome is heard from. Balance, on paper; bias, in execution.
Corlett also slips in ideological shorthand: “right-wing coalition,” “sweeping rollbacks to policies designed to improve Māori wellbeing.” The supposed purpose of those policies is stated as fact, not as claim — quietly converting a political debate into a moral lapse.
And then the ritual flourish: “The Guardian has contacted the local government minister for comment.” This, despite already quoting him two paragraphs earlier. It’s a symbolic bow to objectivity — followed immediately by McAnulty’s final word.
To the international reader, the structure tells the story: tragedy, villain, moral epilogue. No fabrication, just omission, tone and selective empathy. Advocacy journalism masquerading as impartial reporting.
This is how “fake news” works in the post-truth era. Not by inventing events, but by curating emotion. By choosing which facts glow and which fade. By exporting moral theatre dressed as news.
Trump’s critics may never forgive him his phrasing, but on this point, he saw the game clearly: fake news is not always made — it’s framed.
— PB
Post a Comment