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.
