The Maori seats: submit!

Here's my submission on the Maori seats. Feel free to use this as a guide but please don't copy and paste. My submission on the Bill of Rights (posted the week before last) is here with a few rules for submission writing. 

This is the draft version. I need to expand in places, reference, add macrons and so on. The guts of it is here, though. 

----------

1.    The Maori seats must be retained.

1.1  The Maori electorates embody the Treaty partnership between Maori and the Crown.

1.2  The Maori electorates represent constitutional recognition of Maori as tangata whenua and act as a constitutional safeguard for Maori interests.

1.3  The Maori electorates are, after 146 years in existence, an inalienable right and are part of the fabric of Te Ao Maori. 

1.4  Retention or abolition is a decision for Maori voters.

1.5  The Maori seats are not an affirmative action measure. The Maori seats are an expression of the guarantee to “rangatiratanga” in Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi.

2.    The Maori seats must be entrenched.

2.1  Entrenchment will insulate the Maori seats against majority tyranny or the unprincipled use of an ordinary Parliamentary majority.

2.2  The provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 that regulate general electorates are entrenched. The provisions regulating Maori electorates are not. The difference in treatment cannot be justified.

2.3  Dr. Ranginui Walker argued that the Electoral Act 1956 – which did not entrench the provisions regulating Maori electorates but did entrench the provisions regulating general electorates – was “perhaps the most discriminatory measure of all in the application of the law to Māori representation”. He was right and the criticism also applies to the Electoral Act 1993. (Walker, 1992).

2.4  In obiter remarks in Taiaroa v Ministry of Justice McGeChan J held that the Maori electorates are a “Treaty icon” and are “entirely consistent with the Treaty”. That is correct. As an expression of the Treaty, the Maori electorates must be entrenched.

2.5  The provisions regulating the Maori electorates are constitutional provisions. Constitutional provisions must be afforded the highest protection (i.e. entrenchment).

3.    The Purpose of the Maori electorates must be clarified.

3.1  There is a misconception that the Maori electorates are concerned with achieving equal representation for Maori (i.e. electoral equality). This is not the Maori electorate’s contemporary rationale.

3.2  The Maori electorates protect Maori interests in the electoral system and are an expression of the Treaty partnership.

3.3  The Maori electorates allow Maori to participate as Maori in an electoral system that is, in all other respects, a western system.

3.4  Maori have been beneficiaries of MMP, though only in the sense that Maori representation in Parliament is equal to and in some Parliamentary terms greater than the Maori share of the population. However, proportional representation has not guaranteed that Maori interests are adequately protected. The Maori electorates have.  

4.    The Maori option must be extended.

4.1  The existing five month window too short. The window should be extended to six months or longer.

4.2  A provision imposing a positive obligation on the government of the day to “effectively” (rather than “reasonably”) advertise the Maori electoral option must be enacted.

4.3  I support in principle the private members bill from Te Ururoa Flavell MP that would automatically enrol New Zealanders of Maori descent on the Maori electoral roll.

5.    Dedicated Maori representation in local government must be investigated.

5.1  I accept that it would be wrong in principle to impose dedicated Maori representation on local governments.

5.2  However, dedicated representation must be discussed. Maori interests are not adequately protected at local government level.

5.3  Provisions regarding Maori input in the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and so on are inadequate. Maori interests must not only be heard, but be afforded the appropriate weight.

5.4  Where dedicated Maori representation is rejected, local governments must be compelled to investigate alternative methods that include Maori perspectives in the decision-making process.  

ENROL!

This is a re-post from earlier in the year. Figures from the Electoral Commission show that in some Maori electorates the number on the Maori roll has fallen, while in others the numbers have increased only slightly. If an eighth Maori seat is important to us, we have to enrol in numbers.  

If you do one thing this year, enrol or switch to the Maori roll. I can’t stress it enough – enrol on or switch to the Maori roll. Do it. Do it now. 

Every patriotic Maori should be on the Maori roll. 

In 1975 the then Labour government introduced the Maori electoral option. The option would've let Maori choose between enrolling on the general roll or the Maori roll and the number of Maori seats would have risen and fallen with the number enrolled on the Maori roll. However, the Muldoon government legislated to keep the number of seats at 4 (he did so before the the changes the Labour government made could come into effect - h/t Graeme Edgeler). A rise in the number of Maori seats didn't come until the option in 1994 - 127 years after their creation. 

The option is held in census’ years and determines whether or not there will be an increase or decrease in the number of Maori seats.   

Along with the Treaty of Waitangi, the Maori seats lend Maori a special constitutional status.* This is the unintended consequence of the seats creation. For 127 years the Maori seats were capped at four – despite explosive growth in the Maori population and the extension of the franchise – thus limiting Maori political power. Until 1951 elections for the Maori seats were held separately and until 1975 only “half-castes” could elect to vote on either the European roll (as it was then called) or the Maori roll. It wasn’t until 1993 that the number of Maori seats was tied to the Maori electoral population.**

The Maori seats give our people, for want of better metaphors, a foot in the door and a seat at the table. They anchor Maori political power. Without them, Maori political progress is wholly dependent on the acquiescence of non-Maori parties. It will be a perverse situation if we, rather than external actors, are responsible for limiting our own political power.

If we enrol in numbers the smart money is on an eighth Maori seat, probably in South Auckland. However, recent figures from the Electoral Commission show that we're not. Cue alarm.

It’s so, so important that we enrol on or switch to the Maori roll. I can’t emphasise that enough. Unlike the provisions of the Electoral Act regulating the general electorate seats, the provisions around Maori representation are not entrenched. In other words, the Maori seats are subject to abolition by simple majority.

It’s also worth considering the timing of the electoral option (i.e. five-yearly). The practical effect of the five-yearly option is, I think, to discourage Maori from switching rolls. There may be a constitutional rationale for the restriction, but as the Electoral Commission notes one of the main concerns among Maori is that they cannot switch rolls at or between elections. The Commission recommended that Maori should have option of switching rolls between elections. The compromise option appears to be limiting enrolment several months before or after elections rather than anytime between.

The Maori seats don’t lend Maori more electoral power than non-Maori (arguably). Maori roll voters can only vote in one electorate and cast one party vote. The Maori seats do, however, ensure that kaupapa Maori issues will not be – or at the least don’t have to be – subsumed into the body politic.*** That's something we have to preserve. Now enrol. 


Post script: for a good backgrounder on the Maori seats have a look at this research paper - The Origins of the Maori Seats - by the Parliamentary Library.
 
*See the Waitangi Tribunal report linked to above. 
**For an accessible discussion citing those facts see this piece at Te Ara.
***That should probably read “subsumed into mainstream political discourse”. However, I like the words body politic and the metaphor it represents.

The Maori seats: surveying the field

Via RNZ:

A kuia affiliated to Ngai Tuhoe suggests a member of the tribe should stand for Parliament.

Harata Williams - who lives in Auckland - raised the idea in passing while discussing the electoral roll options for Maori.

Ms Williams considers Tuhoe leader Tamati Kruger would be a good candidate.

It’s that time. Candidates are dipping their toes in the water and throwing their hats in the ring. A year and a bit out from the next election, here’s how the field is looking:

Te Tai Tokerau

Mana: Hone Harawira (certainty)
Maori Party: none
Labour: Kelvin Davis (maybe). There’s another name floating around the rumour circuit - one that most Maori will recognise - but I’ll wait for that person to confirm or deny their intention.

Tamaki Makaurau 

Mana: Too early to say
Maori: Pita Sharples (a near certainty)
Labour: Shane Jones (a high chance)


Hauraki-Waikato

Mana: Angeline Greensill (a veteran in the seat, it’s unclear whether she’ll stand again)
Maori: Tuku Morgan (it’s on the record that he wants the Maori Party presidency, the next step is the HW seat)
Labour: Nanaia Mahuta (a more than even chance of standing. On the one hand, she’s out of favour in many Labour circles and busy caring for her new born. On the other hand, she's embedded in the seat and does't look ready to pass it on)


Waiariki

Mana: Annette Sykes (unless she stands in Tamaki-Makaurau or the (possible) eighth electorate)
Maori: Te Ururoa Flavell (a strong possibility, provided the party offers him a clear path to the leadership. If not, a less than even chance of standing).
Labour: still looking for a suitable candidate.


Ikaroa-Rawhiti 

Mana: no one with a realistic chance
Maori: Na Rongowhakaata Raihania (a strong chance. A former candidate and one of the more impressive ones).
Labour: Parekura Horomia (if Parekura doesn’t find an appropriate successor, expect to see him give it one last go)


Te Tai Hauauru

Mana: Too early to say, potentially Misty Harrison
Maori: Rahui Katene has announced her intention to take the seat. Kaapua Smith is also mentioned.
Labour: The rumour circuit is running hot here too, but I’m not going to name names. It’s unlikely that Soraya Peke-Mason will stand again.

Te Tai Tonga

Mana: too early to say
Maori: Rahui Katene is the default candidate, but she appears more interested in Te Tai Hauauru.
Labour Rino Tirikatene (certainty)


Eighth seat 

Mana: Annette Sykes (potentially), Willie Jackson (potentially), Kereama Pene (potentially), Clinton Dearlove (potentially).
Maori: ?
Labour: another prominent name is doing the rounds here too. Again, I’ll hold back on naming that person.

The Greens

To demonstrate the Green's commitment to kaupapa Maori politics, Metiria Turei should consider standing in the (possible) eighth seat. That'd be a candidacy I'd support and one that could open the field. In the other electorates, Dora Langsbury and Jack McDonald have form from the last election and should consider another run. 

Other names

Moana Maniapoto is, apparently, positioning herself for a run (with Labour). People have mentioned Maria Bargh, but in a "I wish Maria Bargh was standing" way rather than "Maria Bargh wants to stand". Veronica Tawhai, an academic at Massey University, is also mentioned as a possible candidate for Mana. Meng Foon is a common name, but it's unclear whether he'd want to stand, let alone have a shot at an electorate. Marama Davidson would make an outstanding candidate too, just saying. 

General comments

The momentum is with Labour. The Maori electorate appears to be reverting to its default setting - strong Labour. Mana is in a lull, the Maori Party is dominating Maori political discourse for all the wrong reasons and the Greens - despite having well developed Maori policy and strong Maori faces - are not seen to be as committed to kaupapa Maori politics in the way that Labour, Mana and the Maori Party are. 

Reminder: Maori electoral option

Via TVNZ:

Labour's Associate Maori Affairs spokesperson Rino Tirikatene is reminding voters that the Maori enrolment option opens today. 

Tirikatene says it is important that Maori consider their options as it only comes up once every five years. 

"It's important that Maori voters know that the option is open because it determines who will represent them in Parliament. 

"The Maori electorates anchor Maori political power. They also ensure guarantee that kaupapa Maori issues are represented in Parliament." said Tirikatene. 

The number of Maori enrolled on the Maori roll has steadily increased from 101,585 in 1993 to 229,666 in 2008. 

As a result the number of Maori electorates has increased from four in 1993 to seven in 2008.

I've outlined why this is important and Rino makes a similar point. The option is open for the next four months and if you're of Maori descent you should receive an enrolment pack this week.  

Colin Craig on Maori (and I'm on Twitter)

With Craig and the Conservative Party in the news recently, I’ve been searching for clues to their approach and opinion on Maori issues. Yesterday I stumbled on this interview Craig gave with Claudette Hauiti from Waatea Radio. The interview is one of the more in-depth and instructive that Craig has given and, arguably, indicates that Craig is pragmatic when it comes to things Maori.

I initially expected Craig and the Conservative Party to be openly hostile on Maori issues. Given the segment of the electorate Craig is targeting, I thought anti-Maori sentiment would be a given. Take, as one example, this pamphlet the Conservative produced last year. The pamphlet explains “why National is wrong on the foreshore and seabed” and proceeds to attack the Maori seats, The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and treaty settlements.

However, in contrast with the above pamphlet, Craig took a more pragmatic approach to Maori issues on Waatea. Much of the interview consisted of, for want of a better term, cuddly responses from Craig. For example, when describing his time in the Maori department at AUT, Craig reckoned that “everyone was everyone’s friend” and it was “a wonderful experience for me”. Thankfully, however, Hauiti managed to pry some very instructive answers from Craig.

On education, Craig supports Kura Kaupapa and Kohanga Reo saying that we need a “variety of educational institutions” and “schools should have the freedom to do what works”. Although this position clashes with the Conservative Party’s opposition to policies that “divide us based on race”, for example the Maori seats, it indicates a pragmatic approach to Maori issues. Kura and Kohanga work, that’s undisputed, and it is encouraging to know that Craig supports what works. It would be easy, and perhaps politically expedient, for Craig to oppose Kura and Kohanga on ideological grounds.

If anything, the above indicates that Craig’s ideology is flexible and that, for a politician at least, is an asset.

Hauiti also asked Craig whether he thought, and I’m paraphrasing here, Maori held the key to their own destiny. In other words, does he support Maori self-determination (tino rangatiratanga). At first, Craig didn’t recognise what was implicit in the question. When the question was put to him for a second and third time, he didn’t give a straight answer. Actually, Craig’s answer was contradictory. At first he started speaking about individual responsibility, which I read as meaning that the individual has the key to their own destiny rather than Maori as a collective, but then Craig went on to endorse Maori organisations and their efforts in Maori development which seemed to indicate that he does endorse Maori formulating solutions for Maori. I find it difficult to reconcile those two positions.

Interestingly, Craig thinks the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was wrong and that every New Zealander should have “the right to go to Court on an issue”. However, Craig is opposed to Maori customary title holding the foreshore and seabed should be held in the commons, read owned by all New Zealanders. However, Craig endorsed customary rights to fishing, usage and so on. Again, this is a contradictory position. It recognises that Maori have special rights, for example fishing rights, however the Conservative Party's position is that everyone has the same rights. Again, this indicates a degree of pragmatism on Craig’s part. Perhaps aware that the party will have to rely on and, if elected to Parliament, work with Maori, Craig is attempting to find positions that will satisfy his target market and at the same time provide a base for working with Maori politicians.

On the question of how well the Conservatives will represent Maori, Craig reckons “very well” and says that for “New Zealand to succeed we need Maori to succeed”. If you had to attribute that comment to someone, you’d probably pick Hone Harawira before Colin Craig. In another moment that could have come from Hone Harawira or Tariana Turia, Craig claims not to put much faith in the free market. On the subject of Maori unemployment, Craig does not believe “the free market is going to sort everything out”. Instead, Craig believes in creating initiatives “that work” (what works is a common thread throughout the interview) and he does not want people “forced into situations where they have to put their hand out”.

At the end of the interview Craig says he supports Whanau Ora, but before he can qualify/explain that answer he was cut off. Again, this may indicate an openness to what works, but we can’t know for certain without a more wholesome answer.

In all, it was an interesting interview. I don’t necessarily agree with Craig’s positions, but he appears open to Maori ideas – or at least not openly hostile. This could, of course, change with time and change in response to shifting political circumstances. But, for the moment, Craig poses no threat to Maori progress.

*Just a reminder I'm on Twitter now. You can follow me here. 

A few thoughts

I haven’t had time to blog much over the past few days so I’ll briefly cover a few issues here:

Labour Party Conference

The Labour Party held their annual conference over the weekend with President Moira Coatsworth emphasising the party’s commitment to the Maori seats. This is, in my opinion, promising and sensible. Retaining and regaining the Maori seats makes strategic sense. Labour needs to reduce National’s post-election options and the most practical way to do so is to weaken the Maori Party vote and loosen the party’s grip in Te Hauauru and, arguably, Tamaki Makaurau. Without the Maori Party the Nats will find it more difficult to maintain a “moderate” pretence and, ultimately, command the numbers in the House.  

National

The National Party has selected Claudette Hauiti to contest the Mangere electorate, a safe Labour seat. In my opinion this move represents National’s response to the increasing number of Maori turning to National. As the Maori middle class grows so to does the number of Maori voting National. The Nats are responding to this by increasing the number of Maori candidates they stand (for example Leonie Hapata in Palmerston North - UPDATE - She isn't actually Maori - my mistake), extending concessions to corporate iwi (where much of the Maori middle class is drawn from) and generally building the perception that National is no longer hostile towards Maori aspirations (think the Maori Party/National Party coalition and the symbolism that it embodies). All of this is unfortunate, the Nats, rather than formulating sound Maori policy, are relying on tokenism and symbolism to win Maori votes. Great approach to politics, shit approach to government. 

Turia on Poverty

Tariana Turia says Maori must stop blaming poverty for child abuse. What a classic Tory line. Turia is an extreme social conservative who opposes abortion and is, apparently, a strong advocate for personal responsibility. Although I find Turia’s comments one dimensional, I must admit that she is correct in one sense; poverty does not annul the responsibility a child abuser must bear. However, Turia should consider the drivers of social dysfunction before jumping ahead of herself. Poverty is, more often than not, the chief reason why child abuse occurs in Maori whanau.

Maori Seats in Local Government

A number of Councils are undertaking a Maori representation review, as required under the Local Government Act 2001. At this stage it appears the New Plymouth District Council is the only Council considering Maori seats. The chances of success appear slim though. Three separate community boards have rejected the idea and Grey Power is opposed. I am fairly gutted, yet not surprised, with the response of the community. The Taranaki is hardly a region of progressive thought and racial harmony - and this is why Maori seats are a must. There is no appreciation or understanding of Maori concerns at the Council table - only a collection of individuals who reflect the ignorance of the general community and, consequently, propagate anti-Maori policy.

Finally...

Finally, cheers to Denis Welch for his generous comments on Radio New Zealand re me and this blog.

The battle for the Maori seats

A few weeks ago I enjoyed a beer with Lew from Kiwipolitico. Lew is one of my favourite bloggers and is perhaps the most astute political commentator in New Zealand. He is also one of the best commentators when it comes to Maori political issues - or Maori issues in general actually. When we were talking he mentioned that there are two elections happening this year. The main election battle between Labour and National and an election battle for the Maori seats. This is a fairly significant observation in my opinion.

Even under MMP the election is, for the most part, a battle between the two, for lack of a better term, material parties – Labour and National. We may not have an authentic two party system, but we do have a de facto two party system where political discourse occurs on the terms of the two main parties. Other parties are often a secondary concern and rarely penetrate the body politic. This trend will probably continue as New Zealand moves towards presidential style elections.

The other election is, as said, a battle for the Maori seats. A battle for the right to represent Maori. The Maori Party claims, or at least claimed, to represent Maori, however the party never really secured an undisputed mandate to do so. The Maori Party MP’s entered Parliament representing their respective constituents rather than Maori as a whole. The same is true of Parekura Horomia and Nanaia Mahuta. The Maori electorate MP’s wins did not symbolise an endorsement of the Maori Party or Labour Party. Their wins were a personal endorsement and a reflection of their own standing in their respective electorates.

The battle will feature three actors. The Labour Party, the Maori Party and the Mana Party. Three serious contenders. The Labour Party is just looking to secure a few extra seats, but the Maori Party and the Mana Party are seeking a mandate. A secure grip on the Maori seats and the right to say we have the mana to speak on behalf of Maori. The Maori Party desperately wants the mana to act unequivocally for Maori. This was the party’s goal from its genesis. The problem for the Maori Party is that Hone Harawira wants the same and he is making a legitimate claim. Hone realises the Maori Party is compromised and he is having no trouble convincing Maori that that is the case. On the other hand the Labour Party is looking to claim what is, historically speaking, theirs by right.

In my opinion neither Hone nor the Maori Party will secure a mandate. The Labour Party will not either. The political situation is too messy, it is unclear where everyone stands. Hone has yet to cultivate a clear claim as to why he should receive the mana to represent Maori. The Maori Party has given no reason why Maori should trust them again and Labour is yet to repent for the FSA 2004 betrayal. Tangible political issues are dominating Maori thinking as well. Maori are struggling through a violent increase in living costs and a brutal government agenda, for example ACC cuts and assaults on workers rights. There is little room for symbolic questions at the moment.

But is it even possible to represent all Maori? Probably not. Maori often act in unison and are united on many issues, especially questions of tino rangatiratanga. However, there will always be diversity of opinion. Maori may agree on an outcome, but there will be one thousand different ideas on how to get there. Maori may seem integrated, especially in terms of values, but there will always be subtle differences and small nuances that separate different iwi, hapu and even whanau.

I do think it is possible to hold the mana to act on behalf of Maori though. I do not mean the mana to act as a unilateral decision maker, but the mana to act as a symbolic leader, a person(s) who can unite Maori on certain issues and drive ideas among Maori.         

The battle for the Maori seats is, comparatively speaking, attracting little attention. This is surprising considering the results in the Maori seats will almost certainly determine who forms the next government. If the Maori Party is destroyed the National Party will lose their only stable coalition partner, therefore depriving them of another term in government (assuming Rodney Hide is toast in Epsom and an outright majority is not obtained). The Mana Party will undoubtedly fill the void and a centre left government would be almost guaranteed.

If I were to pick a representative of all Maori, I would pick Hone Harawira. Not because he reflects most Maori, but because he takes his job as a representative seriously. He remembers that his mana is derived from the people and the people can take it back. He speaks passionately and honestly. There is no pretending, nothing fake or forced, Hone speaks for Maori. The others speak, first and foremost, for themselves. They put electoral considerations ahead of what is perhaps right. Been a hopeless idealist, I like the thought of someone with a bit of honesty.

Weekend thoughts

A few comments:

Parekura Horomia should stand as a list candidate only. If Labour wants to retain Ikaroa-Rawhiti a succession plan needs to be put in place. As an aside, the Maori Party should be doing the same in the interests of longevity. If they do not they will be a one hit wonder and Labour will step in once Turia, Sharples and Flavell have gone. But back to Parekura. I think an anointed Labour Party candidate would do well. So long as Parekura campaigns alongside him or her. In the last two elections the Maori Party came reasonably close to snatching the seat. The sudden lose of Parekura would translate to a Maori Party victory in my opinion. However, if Parekura can transfer his personal following over to the next Labour candidate the Maori Party will remain outside of striking distance. 

On the subject of Parekura, he is on the right side of his constituents in saying maintaining traditional lifestyles outweigh any perceived economic gains. On other hand, the Prime Minister is on the wrong side of tangata whenua in saying they must consider the economic benefits. The risk posed is unacceptable. The local people should have a greater say in whether oil prospecting and extraction occurs. The locals will shoulder the risk, yet receive little in return.

Were a disaster to occur it will be the local people who are directly, and almost immediately, affected. I will not be affected here in Wellington nor will the Prime Minister. I will lose nothing, but I probably would have benefited through the increase in economic activity, while the local people will lose their recreational ground, their food basket and ultimately the lifestyle that has sustained them for almost one thousand years. The value of their property will plummet, their quality of life will plummet and an exodus would occur. The whenua and the moana would become a sparsely populated wasteland.

Most readers will have heard about Jamie Lee-Ross and his call for the abolition of the Maori seats. Veronica Tawhai, a politics lecturer at Massey University, rebuts Lee-Ross. I encourage you to read it. There is also an excellent discussion over at Big News. 

The Maori Statutory Board (MSB) funding drama is now resolved. Both parties appear to have compromised and an agreement has been reached. The MSB played the situation very well. The board was always in the stronger position. The Council could not afford to have the issue dragged out in the public domain. That would have been, politically, very damaging. Hopefully the MSB can get on with the job now. 

The case for Maori representation in local government

From Waatea News:

The Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres says all local governments need dedicated Maori seats.

That's one of the main recommendations in the commissioner's annual report to parliament on the state of race relations.

He says the seats are needed to tackle the institutional discrimination against Maori that is still rife throughout the country.

“I'm not that confident many of them will because they will either use that stuff, as they have before, about ‘no privilege’, but actually the Maori seats are provided for in legislation, they work really well in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council,” Mr de Bres says.

The creation of Maori seats would also help address the concerns of the United Nations which wants the government to include Maori more in decision-making at all levels.

I couldn’t agree more. I have blogged previously on the issue of Maori in local government. Rather than paraphrase what I have already written I will reproduce the relevant parts here:

Politics in LG differs significantly from the style of politics practised on the national stage. LG is characterised by political consensus as opposed to political conflict. This is primarily due the absence of party politics which is often viewed as unnecessarily divisive. Essentially the political independence of representatives in LG allows for a non-partisan approach to issues facing the community. This gives rise to a predisposition for pragmatism in preference to ideology. So far so good, right?

The make up of LG should be a concern for Maori and proponents of diversity. The make up of LG largely determines whose interests will be served. Currently, LG is dominated by land owners and business owners who are overwhelmingly white, middle class and male; arguably as ratepayers they could be seen as having the most tangible interest in LG, however more often than not their interests dominate council priorities at the expense of the rest of the community. With this sort of makeup in LG there is a greater focus on material projects such as sewerage systems and roads whilst a reduced focus on the provision of amenities such as parks and pensioner housing. For example, consensus is more likely to come about on issues such as rates rebates for business owners whereas consensus on issues such as pensioner housing will be a lot harder to reach given the makeup and interests of council. This is where consensus politics fails in my opinion. Without diversity of opinion and perspective, a one eyed approach if you will, consensus will only be reached on issues that are within the understanding and interests of the decision makers. Consensus politics also makes it hard to identify who is responsible for certain policies. Therefore, voters find it difficult to punish or reward candidates. This translates to poor electoral accountability in my opinion.

So how does consensus politics affect Maori? Often LG fails to adequately address Maori issues and take into account Maori views. This failure is often masked by consensus politics and the lack of large scale controversies that would follow such behaviour if it occurred on the national stage. Councillors can easily dismiss Maori issues and views on the basis that a consensus has been reached and no controversy will ensure because, usually, the only media taking note is the local newspaper.

Often the views of LG are informed through the prevailing beliefs of the community. Perhaps this is largely good for the community but I do not think it is good for Maori. Many communities are rather unsympathetic towards Maori concerns and views. Their understanding of Maori issues is largely informed by their, and I do not mean this harshly, narrow worldview. Sadly, Maori issues are not approached with any great insight or perception and councillors usually reflect this superficial understanding. Furthermore, unlike an electorate M.P, LG politicians usually only interact, in a political capacity, with like minded people, for example their church group. Therefore, their political judgements are informed by people with similar beliefs and backgrounds. This is not conducive to representative government.

Maori are continually excluded from local government and this exclusion is the chief cause of voter apathy. The representation of only a certain section of the community is undesirable. This problem could be addressed through the creation of Maori seats in LG. Maori seats give effect to the Crowns treaty obligation to act in partnership with tangata whenua and acknowledges their special status and role as kaitiaki. Maori seats also ensure diversity of viewpoints in LG. However, I am not in favour of Maori seats on all Councils – I favour having Maori seats only on regional councils and the Auckland supercity. The model pioneered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has been a success and should be emulated.

I should probably add that I now believe that Maori seats should be included on all councils – not just the Auckland Council and regional councils.