Until 2021, only three councils in New Zealand had Māori wards:
- Bay of Plenty Regional Council (three seats, established by legislation),
- Wairoa District Council (one seat, established by public poll), and
- South Waikato District Council (one seat, without referendum).
A Sensible Solution Ignored
A better approach would have been to repeal all Māori wards as of 1 June 2025, allowing them to lapse by 11 October 2025. (date of last local body elections) Councils could then have opted to hold referendums on that date. If voters approved reinstating Māori wards, those changes could take effect at the 2028 local elections.
Instead, the Government has adopted a reverse process: enforce Māori wards first, then seek public approval much later. This sequence undermines democratic accountability and imposes racially defined structures without proper consultation. Any future proposal to implement such wards should require a binding referendum, paid for by the local authority.
Frank Newman’s recent article posted on NZCPR on16 October 2025 articulates this point well. Michael Laws’ 13 October 2025 blog also contributes usefully, though it reflects an optimism about the results that I believe is misplaced.
Public Support Overstated
Seventeen councils voted to retain Māori wards. But the low voter turnout raises serious questions about how representative these decisions are.
Take Western Bay of Plenty District Council. In its 2018 poll referendum, over 78% of voters opposed Māori wards. While this year’s opposition fell to around 60%, it still reflects a strong public stance against the policy. Tauranga City Council, if allowed to participate, would likely have returned a similar result.
It is striking that Minister Mahuta was able to enforce this significant constitutional change unilaterally under urgency in 2021, yet its reversal requires a complex, multi-year legislative process stretching into 2028 - and in the case of Tauranga, 2031. This discrepancy shows how deeply tilted the system has become.
Nationwide voter turnout was only 32%. In places like Nelson, just 19% of eligible voters endorsed retaining Māori wards. Arguably, this implies that the silent majority either oppose the policy or feel disenfranchised by the process.
Media Bias and Political Pressure
This shift toward race-based local governance has been enabled not just by legislation, but also by a media environment that suppressed dissent. Advertisements opposing Māori wards, including those from Hobson’s Pledge, were routinely rejected by the discredited mainstream media outlets, while pro-ward campaigns were given free rein.
In this regard it is worth noting a full page pre -paid Maori Ward advertorial by Voter Empowerment Tauranga (VET) was lodged with Bay of Plenty Times for publication in early 2021 but this was finally rejected by NZME head office as it did not suit their agenda or views . Media censorship was applied as it was alleged said the advert did not meet NZME standards although they could not define those standards.
Meanwhile, Local Government New Zealand actively supported the introduction of Māori wards, aligning itself with activist interests rather than remaining neutral. The resulting imbalance left many voters unaware of both sides of the argument, undermining the legitimacy of the outcome.
Defining “Māori” – A Legal and Social Fiction?
There is a deeper issue at play: the legal and social definition of “Māori".
- ”Māori" are not indigenous to New Zealand in the strict anthropological sense.
- Genetic data and demographic records suggest that no person in New Zealand today can claim more than 50% Māori ancestry. It follows that no one in NZ can legitimately be described as Maori.
- By international standards of indigeneity, this raises the question: does a distinct Māori racial category still exist? - In short the answer us no
The 1953Maori Affairs Amendment Act defined Maori as follows
“Maori” means a person belonging to the aboriginal race of New Zealand; and includes a half caste and a person intermediate in blood between half castes and persons of pure descent from that race :
Conclusion: Rebuilding Equal Democracy
Race-based electoral structures have no place in a liberal democracy. The continued existence and expansion of Māori wards risks entrenching division, undermining the principle of equal representation, and eroding public trust.
New Zealand’s local government system should reflect shared citizenship, not ancestral classification. Until the definition and justification for race-based wards can withstand both democratic and legal scrutiny, we should not be holding referendums on their retention. We should be phasing them out as they relate to something that does not in reality exist.
Rob Paterson is a retired lawyer, who lives in Tauranga.
8 comments:
Yes - but Luxon's terror at holding a referendum on democracy citizen equality and his refusal to do so speak volumes for NZ/'s future.
Good stuff Rob, and very cogent. As far as the 1953 definition of 'maori' goes, it is very unlikely that persons 'intermediate in blood between half-castes and persons of pure descent' actually exist now, such that being 'maori' is a very dodgy self-determination decision, with a sliding scale of inheritance that makes a mockery of any sort of sociological or political category that confers preference based on ethnic background.
I was surprised at the mild response to maori wards. Especially considering the coincident antics of TPM. Maori with their vast insurgency coordination networks had huge opportunity to swamp the vote. The immense latent cancellation power of maori a large part of the explanation. Existing Councillors do not risk an intolerable atmosphere for the exercise of their duties, or the threat to family and external business etc of cancellation so paid lip service to maori wards. Council staff already deeply penetrated and favour future employment security and make work. Media similarly follows the best bet for secure future business; the affluent maori economy. With little or no newspaper cover, and few reading anyway, It is now very difficult for the public to follow Council affairs .So very few aware of the lengthy and expensive obstruction, complication, extension, consultation, domination generated by maori ward members. Many of the public fall for the cooperation/partnership soft soap not realising how self serving it is made. Kaipara an exception.
"It is striking that Minister Mahuta was able to enforce this significant constitutional change unilaterally under urgency in 2021, yet its reversal requires a complex, multi-year legislative process stretching into 2028"
This epitomises the entire progress of this coalition under National's so called leadership. It beggars belief but there it in plain sight, Labour does its damage at the drop of a hat where any corrective action by National is half hearted or non-existent. Witness the MACA amendment fiasco under Goldsmith dill-dallying approach to law making. Luxon has zero chance of "getting the Country back on track" when National has trouble getting out of bed in the morning! When (not if) Labour get back into power, they will be back in damage inflicting mode in a thrice (if not sooner)!
"Voter turnout" appears to be the latest fashion in excuses.
The right to withhold a vote is of equal importance to the right to vote.
If 99.99% of voters choose not to vote because the issue does not particularly concern them then the majority of the .01% get their wish. THAT is democracy.
If you wish to change that make the issue being voted on relevant to the voters to a point where voting becomes an individual requirement.
Start the process by shooting every second "journalist" - they won't be missed (not even, one suspects, by their families) - and demand potential voters pass a competency test.
Motivation to compete will ensure a massive turnout no matter what the issue is.
And then we had the coalition Govt announcing that English was to be given priority over Te Reo when it came to Govt entities. While hardly a pivotal issue, it's still reflective of the problem. On checking 30 of the main Depts, Regulatory Agencies and Entities, to this day half of them still have Te Reo in their branding FIRST, and typically the former is displayed more prominently in both size and colour. What does it tell me? One thing is that Labour can get things done quicker and with more certainty than National, albeit it's usually to our detriment. Like with the 'Ward' issue mentioned, National are timid to the point of gutlessness and, as the nursery rhyme suggests of that other famous wall sitter, a great fall might prove irreparable.
Absolutely.
The coalition should have acted promptly and repealed the race based wards.
Playing around with the hot potatoe will not suffice.
Deal with it.
The answer to this is that New Zealand is not a democracy, so let's stop kidding ourselves! It is a hypocrisy! Maori, just like the European, arrived to find people already living here. One person of maori descent, and a current parliamentarian, says of the British, among other things: "I ask you to turn a blind eye to genocide, rape and oppression"! Did this person take allegiance to the Crown?
Post a Comment