Steven Gaskell: Greens Push to Lock in Māori Seats Because Some Votes Need Extra Protection

Just when you thought New Zealand’s electoral system couldn’t get any more “future-proofed,” along come the Greens with a helpful new idea: entrench Māori seats so they can’t be removed without a super-majority of MPs.

That’s right. In the name of democracy, the Green Party wants to make it harder for future Parliaments to change how representation works provided the seats in question are the right ones.

Under the proposal, Māori electorates would be elevated into the constitutional VIP lounge, requiring 75% of MPs to agree before any changes could be made. Currently, like every other electorate, they can be altered or abolished by a simple parliamentary majority. The Greens say this is “unequal”.

Apparently, equality now means some electoral arrangements deserve stronger legal protection than others.

Green Māori Development spokesperson Hūhana Lyndon unveiled the bill at Rātana celebrations a fitting venue, given the growing habit of announcing constitutional change in settings heavy on symbolism and light on public mandate. She argues the move would correct a “constitutional imbalance” and safeguard Māori representation from the whims of future governments.

Translation: lock it in now, before voters get any funny ideas.

The bill also proposes giving Māori voters more flexibility to switch electoral rolls and vote on different rolls in local elections, aligning with recommendations from the 2023 Independent Electoral Review. Flexibility, of course, is very important especially when it only ever seems to flow one way.

Supporters insist this isn’t about race, but about fairness. Critics, meanwhile, note that entrenching race-based seats in law while leaving the rest of the system unchanged is exactly about race, and represents a significant constitutional shift that most New Zealanders have never been asked to approve.

This isn’t a new idea. Similar attempts have surfaced before and quietly failed, largely because they raise awkward questions:

Why should one group’s electoral arrangement be harder to change than another’s?

If Māori seats are so essential, why not put them beyond Parliament altogether and ask the public in a referendum?

And if equality is the goal, why is permanent differentiation the solution?

Of course, this is only a member’s bill, meaning it still has to survive the parliamentary lottery and then convince a majority of MPs including many outside the Greens’ ideological bubble to support it. That alone suggests its chances are slim.

But the signal matters.

Once again, we see the same pattern: constitutional change by accumulation. Not through a single, honest national debate, but through incremental steps, framed as “fairness,” introduced quietly, and defended as inevitable.

New Zealand’s democracy has always been built on the idea that every vote counts the same, and that Parliament remains accountable to voters. Entrenching Māori seats would tilt that balance not by expanding democracy, but by insulating one part of it from future democratic choice.

Whether that’s progress or protectionism depends on who you ask.

But one thing is clear: when politicians start arguing that democracy itself needs safeguarding from voters, it’s probably time to pay attention.

Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.