Are Maori seats in Parliament a historical anomaly, or do they continue to have a purpose, asks Lachy Paterson.
The Maori seats have been a feature of New Zealand’s Parliament since 1867. The National Party, which has failed to win one since 1946, sometimes grumbled about them, but more recently New Zealand First called for a referendum on their continuation, and Act New Zealand is now calling for their abolition. But are these seats just a historical anomaly, or do they continue to have a purpose today?
New Zealand’s Parliament, which first sat in 1854, was hardly a "democratic" institution by today’s standards.
Only men who possessed sufficient property could vote, excluding most Maori whose extensive land holdings were not registered with Crown titles.
Partly to assuage misgivings in the "home country" about settler violence and rapaciousness, and partly to draw loyal Maori to its side, the government created four Maori seats in 1867, although given their population at the time Maori should have gained about 14 seats.
The four seats remained; it wasn’t until the introduction of MMP in 1996 that equity was applied with the proportion of seats reflecting the size of the Maori roll.
The Maori Electoral Option every five years allows Maori to choose whether to be on the Maori or general rolls, which then determines the number of seats.
There are two key issues. Does tangata whenua status entitle Maori to their own parliamentary representatives or, for that matter, any Maori-specific legislation? Alt-light activists, such as Don Brash of Hobson’s Pledge, would say no because they don’t believe the Treaty has any meaningful place in the life and politics of New Zealand today. But in the last four decades both the Labour and National parties have come to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi not just as the nation’s "founding document" but as the basis of the Crown’s relationship with Maori.
There has always been legislation in New Zealand relating specifically to Maori; the difference now is that legislation is more likely to meet Maori needs and aspirations rather than those of government or the Pakeha majority.
The second issue is whether, with Maori also winning general and list seats, the need remains for dedicated Maori seats.
Certainly when MMP was introduced, there was discussion about whether they should remain, and we have seen a more representative spread in Parliament since 1996, with parties tending to place at least a few Maori in electable positions on their party lists. If we look at all the parties now in Parliament, either one or both of their top two positions are held by individuals claiming Maori heritage.
It is really up to Maori voters to judge how well these MPs represent their specific interests.
Act leader David Seymour, who is now pushing to abolish the Maori seats, may be of Nga Puhi descent, but has done nothing meaningful in his time in Parliament to push for Maori interests.
The same might be said for Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges. We would expect this; MPs in general seats are expected to appeal to a majority of non-Maori voters.
List MPs are vulnerable because MMP gives parties too much control over who gets elected, with those who rock the boat likely to be demoted to an unelectable slot on the list. The proposed waka-jumping legislation, if passed, will allow for list MPs to be ejected from Parliament if they leave their party on a point of principle.
There is certainly no incentive to Maori MPs in list or general seats to stick their necks on the line for Maori. It’s tempting to assume that New Zealand First and Act, parties that struggle for relevance in the MMP environment, are merely clutching at the low-hanging redneck vote, that residual rump who just don’t like "Maowries".
But most people are now aware that colonisation failed Maori. When land, and the resources it could provide, were the principal driver of the country’s wealth, a key role of the settler government was to facilitate the transfer of Maori land into Pakeha hands, resulting in economic and political marginalisation for Maori.
The government also sought to assimilate Maori into the mainstream Pakeha society, with deleterious effects on Maori culture and language. We continue to live with this historical legacy, and it is small wonder Maori are more likely to feature poorly in statistics relating to wealth, health, education and incarceration rates.
It is clear Maori need a voice in Parliament. This is their entitlement under the Treaty of Waitangi as tangata whenua.
They also need advocates who can address issues of Maori disadvantage, so that all New Zealanders can enjoy the fruits of citizenship. The Maori seats seem the most logical mechanism to achieve this, and surely it should be up to Maori to decide when this is no longer necessary. Oh yes, this is what happens every five years, when they get to choose to enrol on the general or Maori roll.
- Associate Prof Lachy Paterson is acting dean of Te Tumu: School of Maori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies at the University of Otago.
