What does the Government have against Māori wards?

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 1:27 pm, May 28th, 2024 - 49 comments
Categories: act, local body elections, local government, Maori Issues, Maori seats, national, nz first, Politics, same old national - Tags:

The Government is moving with urgency to reverse Labour’s repeal of referenda for Māori wards on local councils.

There are a couple of barbs.

Every Council that created Māori wards without a referendum since the amending legislation was passed and who wishes to keep the wards will have to hold a binding referendum on whether the ward should continue.

And everyone has until 5 pm tomorrow to submit on the bill, which was introduced last Thursday.

The time frame is extraordinarily tight.

The right have pointed out that Labour introduced the previous bill on February 9, 2021 and required it to be reported back by February 15, 2021.

Nanaia Mahuta gave this justification for pace when the bill was introduced:

You will hear in this House tonight many people over there say that there is not enough time in select committee. But I can remember in 2002, under the Local Government Act, when the 5 percent poll provision was put into legislation, how challenging it was to get unanimity across the House to remove a discriminatory law. But here’s the thing: some years later, when we became Government last term, I got a letter from Local Government New Zealand, and, in fact, it was one of the major priorities that they brought to my attention. I had to trawl back through my records and find that letter.

On 22 March 2018, the then president of Local Government New Zealand, David Cull, wrote to the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Hon James Shaw, as the respective leaders of the coalition confidence-and-supply Government, asking that the poll for Māori wards and constituencies be removed. I note this particular comment in his letter: “As noted, these poll provisions apply only to the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies. That they do not apply to other wards and constituencies marks the provision as discriminatory to Māori and inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi. Either the poll provisions should apply to all wards or they should apply to none. The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable.” Tonight, we are rectifying that by ensuring that we can put through the House—yes, under urgency, but, again, it’s an idea whose time has come—the move to remove this discriminatory poll.

So to clarify Local Government can set up all sorts of representative structures and wards. But if they are a Māori ward then a petition by 5% of the population can require a referendum.

During that debate one Christopher Luxon said this:

[W]e know there are diverse and different communities all across New Zealand, and some may well choose to have Māori wards and constituencies and others may not. But that should be their decision. They should make their decision, not us sitting here”.

Fast forward to now and National intends to require those areas which have more recently set up Māori wards to hold binding referenda.

But the difference is that *all* councils that have set up the wards since Mahuta’s law change have to hold referenda. They do not have a choice. So much for allowing Councils to make their own decisions on matters.

The Waitangi Tribunal has conducted an urgent hearing and recommended that the amendment be halted “to allow proper consultation between the treaty partners with a view to agreeing how Māori can exercise the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga in article 2 to determine their own dedicated representation in local government.”

Fifty Mayors have written to the Government and urged that the legislation not be proceeded with. According to the letter:

Māori wards and constituencies should be treated like all other wards and that decisions should be made at the council level. Polls aren’t required on any other wards or constituencies, and requiring them will add increased costs to councils.

Of course the real intent is to have ugly divisive referenda during next year’s local body elections. Hobson’s Pledge must be salivating at the chance to use Atlas resources to run a divisive and ugly campaign during the election campaign. And no doubt those candidates who drink the Hobson Pledge kool aid will do well.

As said by Arena Williams in Parliament:

The Government comes to this House and they say that there is a choice for local councils, but the choice is that they can either scrap Māori wards that exist, or send them to a binding referendum that they know will be ugly, because these politics are ugly. Do you know why these politics are so ugly? It’s because we have parties on that side of the House who are drumming up an ugly, divisive debate that has no place in Aotearoa, which is imported from US politics, which is about kicking people when they’re down—in this case, kicking Māori. But it could be anything. It could be kicking renters when they’re down, by taking away 90-day no-cause elections. It could be kicking disability communities when they’re down, by taking away the very entitlements they rely upon. This Government is on a collision course to take it out on the people who cannot fight back, and it’s shameful.

It’s shameful that we are having a debate in this House today which has been couched in terms of re-democratising, of making things better for the communities, when, in fact, we have mayors around the country saying to the Government that this will drum up the kind of rhetoric in their communities that they do not want to oversee, that this is something which mayors in Aotearoa are saying will be hurtful and divisive and undermine social cohesion in Aotearoa. We should listen to them.

Unfortunately the Government is not listening to the voices of reason. It just wants to have a fight.

If you get a chance make a submission. But you only have until midnight tomorrow.

49 comments on “What does the Government have against Māori wards? ”

Comments are now closed

tc 1

28 May 2024 at 2:17 pm

"…the Government is not listening to the voices of reason. It just wants to have a fight."

Nailed it micky, distract the punters and blow that dog whistle hard.
Belladonna 2

28 May 2024 at 2:37 pm

It's in the coalition agreement, and NZ First campaigned on it as a policy plank. So can hardly be a surprise to anyone.

Restore the right to local referendum on the establishment or ongoing use of Māori wards, including requiring a referendum on any wards established without referendum at the next Local Body elections.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/nationalparty/pages/18466/attachments/original/1700778597/NZFirst_Agreement_2.pdf?1700778597

If councils believe that this is widely supported by their residents – then they won't have an issue in holding a referendum at the next election.
- Patricia Bremner 2.1
  
  28 May 2024 at 5:44 pm
  
  Except Belladonna it is an expense in straightened times, for politics.
- mac1 2.2
  
  28 May 2024 at 5:52 pm
  
  There is more than one issue. I have just put in a submission on the Bill. My arguments, five in all, are these.
  
  My principle argument is that this is discriminatory against Maori and is therefore wrong.
  
  My second argument is that this is an unnecessary cost for ratepayers.
  
  My third argument is that it will promote ill-feeling within the community based on race issues.
  
  My fourth argument is that it denies local authorities the right to decide whether they should have Māori wards, or for that matter any other ward basis such as rurality. We elect our local body representatives and in the way of democracy we afford them the right and responsibility to make decisions on our behalf.
  
  My fifth and last argument is the ethical burden of living in a society that still accepts discrimination.
  
  At least numbers 2,3.4 will apply to local authorities I would hope.
  - Traveller 2.2.1
    
    28 May 2024 at 6:05 pm
    
    On your arguments:
    
    1. The reverse is true. Māori get exactly the same access to representation as non-Māori without Māori wards.
    
    2. So are Māori wards and elections within those wards, including, managing the rolls.
    
    3. The reverse is true. Māori wards promote racial division, because they are (rightly) seen as providing extra representation on the basis of race.
    
    4. It is not, and should not be, up to local authorities to determine. This is a matter that should be determined by the people.
    
    5. Dedicated Māori seats are discriminatory. They are also patronising. Māori are perfectly capable of being elected in general wards, as they have shown in both local and national politics.
    - mickysavage 2.2.1.1
      
      28 May 2024 at 6:18 pm
      
      On your arguments:
      
      Not true. Maori wards will be treated entirely differently to other wards. And it will be compulsory in some cases to have a referendum. The choice of our elected representatives will not matter.
      
      Maori wards cost no more than other wards to maintain. There is one global cost which is spread amongst all wards.
      
      They provide representation according to numbers. The general approach is that a discrete group of electors will vote for their representative. This will ensure some representation of Tangata Whenua.
      
      It is up to local bodies to determine their electoral system. The proposition is that if they decide on having Maori seats they have to go to the stress and expense of a referendum.
      
      Article 2 of the treaty preserved Tino Rangatiratanga to Maori. This is a treaty obligation not discrimination.
      - Traveller 2.2.1.1.1
        
        28 May 2024 at 6:30 pm
        
        How is "Māori get exactly the same access to representation as non-Māori without Māori wards." not true?
        
        2. They are an additional ward, so my point stands, and you have confirmed it.
        
        3. Wrong. Only Māori can vote in Māori wards, so representation is reserved for people on the basis of race.
        
        4. Electoral systems are changed based on referenda. Or at least they should be. Going to the 'stress and expense' is democracy.
        
        5. That depends how you interpret Tino Rangatiratanga. I argue that cannot seriously be a justification for anything more than equality of suffrage.
        
        adam 2.2.1.1.1.1
        
        28 May 2024 at 6:42 pm
        
        3. Wrong. Only Māori can vote in Māori wards, so representation is reserved for people on the basis of race.
        
        Can you stop with the lies? reserved, what a pile of dog crap. Māori wards, were designed to encourage a section of the population who do not vote, to vote.
        
        People on the Māori roll vote for Māori wards. The roll is not based on race. Also the wards are formed on the Māori roll. So nothing extra, nothing reserved, just democratic enhancing.
        
        Traveller …
        
        28 May 2024 at 7:05 pm
        
        Māori wards, were designed to encourage a section of the population who do not vote, to vote.
        
        And they failed. Māori wards did not inspire voters: What next to boost democracy? | RNZ News
        
        People on the Māori roll vote for Māori wards. The roll is not based on race.
        
        Can you re-read that please, and try to argue it isn't nonsense.
        
        adam …
        
        28 May 2024 at 10:47 pm
        
        One election, and your calling doomed!!
        
        If people are not engaged, one election is not going to fix a fucking thing.
        
        My guess, Māori vote will now collapse totally. Can't trust the racist fucks changing the rules every two minutes to suit them and their racist mates.
        
        You get the Māori roll is not based on race right?
        
        Belladonna …
        
        29 May 2024 at 11:43 am
        
        Māori roll is not based on race right?
        
        Yes, it absolutely is. You cannot be on the Maori roll if you aren't Maori.
        
        The Māori Electoral Option is a chance for all enrolled voters of Māori descent to choose which electoral roll to be on — the general roll or the Māori roll.
        
        https://www.elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/what-is-an-electoral-roll/what-is-the-maori-electoral-option/
        
        adam …
        
        29 May 2024 at 9:15 pm
        
        Sorry it's not a Blutschutzgesetz law.
        
        Here
        
        https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM308829.html
        
        Belladonna …
        
        30 May 2024 at 9:31 am
        
        Quote from the legislation
        
        76 Māori option
        
        (1)A Māori who is eligible to be registered as an elector may choose to be registered as an elector of—
        
        (a) a Māori electoral district; or
        
        (b) a General electoral district.
        
        So you have to be Maori to exercise this option. Other government legislation uses ancestry to define what 'Maori' is.
        
        most statutes use ancestry criteria to define who is a Māori. The Māori Land Act, and numerous other statutes, define Māori as “a person of the Māori race and includes any descendant”. Only persons of Māori descent can enrol in a Māori electorate to vote for candidates to occupy Māori seats in Parliament, or lodge a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. Ancestry is the closest concept to whakapapa (genealogy), which has customarily underpinned any claim to being Māori.
        
        https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj23/23problem-of-defining-an-ethnic-group-for-public-policy-who-is-maori-and-why-does-it-matter-p86-108.html
        
        Maori, of course, do not have to be on the Maori roll – and the vast majority, who would be eligible, in fact choose to be on the general roll.
        
        adam …
        
        30 May 2024 at 5:37 pm
        
        Not a link to an act of law, but a guide line written by MSD.
        
        Sad, just sad. As MSD is one of the worst abusers of the poor and downtrodden in this country. Lets not forget they have overseen some pretty horrific shitfuckery, particularly towards disabled, with some tragic out comes.
        
        Belladonna …
        
        30 May 2024 at 5:42 pm
        
        What part of quote from the legislation did you miss.
        
        Perhaps you can link to the legislation which says that *anyone* (regardless of whether or not they have Maori ancestry) can opt to be on the Maori roll.
        
        I'll wait…..
        But not hold my breath, because I am 100% confident that you won't be able to do so.
        
        But, hey, it doesn't matter – if you think a law is 'unjust' you feel there is no obligation for anyone to follow it.
        
        adam …
        
        30 May 2024 at 5:51 pm
        
        Oh look were back to the whole make up a point that was never said, to knock it down type of discussion, how very SIS of you. Check in the mail?
        
        I'm not the one pushing a Blutschutzgesetz ideology you are.
        
        I said, it's not based on race.
        
        Ball back in your court.
        
        Got anything, except another round of you making shit up?
        
        Belladonna …
        
        31 May 2024 at 9:26 am
        
        I said, it's not based on race. Ball back in your court. Got anything, except another round of you making shit up?
        
        I've provided the quote from the legislation (note, from the link you yourself gave), which says it is.
        
        Still waiting for you to provide a link (any link) to a credible source which says that anyone (whether or not they have Maori ancestry) can opt for the Maori roll.
        
        Ball in your court. But until the linked evidence is provided, I'm going to regard this as just another of your fact-free rants.
        
        adam …
        
        31 May 2024 at 11:08 pm
        
        Come on sunshine read the act again, where does it say race?
        
        It says "A Māori" that is not a race.
        
        My statement stands, the Māori roll is not based on race.
        
        Fact free rant – better than far right codswallop.
  - Drowsy M. Kram 2.2.2
    
    28 May 2024 at 6:09 pm
    
    Arguments that appeal to me, #3 in particular – ill-feeling nourishes our CoC govt
Traveller 3

28 May 2024 at 3:39 pm

"But the difference is that all councils that have set up the wards since Mahuta’s law change have to hold referenda. They do not have a choice.

And neither should they. This is a constitutional matter, and should be determined by seperate referendum, a right Mahuta removed.

"So much for allowing Councils to make their own decisions on matters."

Is there a wider context to Luxon's quote that informs your implication that he was referring to Councils when he used the phrase "diverse and different communities all across New Zealand,"? In the absence of context, it seems more likely he was referring to the communities the council's serve, not the councils themselves.
- Maurice 3.1
  
  30 May 2024 at 3:40 pm
  
  "since Mahuta’s law change"
  
  That is exactly what the present Govt has against Maori Wards. The Wards were part of the 'co-governance' structure that the present Coalition believe they were elected to remove.
  
  Not being brave enough to do it by legislative fiat they are setting it up so that their grass roots constituency can do it – democraticaly – at Council level.
adam 4

28 May 2024 at 5:05 pm

So were broke, local government has no money. And central government in their wisdom adds an extra expense to the bottom line. Via referendum. Will the wankers forcing this on our broke local governments be paying for this?

At the end of the day we had a program which engages Māori with local politics. Actively promoting democracy. Sorry the anti-democratic wankers Māori did not get any more rights or voting power – but a reason to actually vote for a change.

I see the usual suspects on this site are pushing the anti-democratic lies of the government. Such a coalition of shitfuckery.

They want to destroy society so they can create a greed focused utopia for the morally bankrupt. This is just one more morally bankrupt idea they keep pushing.
- Traveller 4.1
  
  28 May 2024 at 5:44 pm
  
  At the end of the day we had a program which engages Māori with local politics.
  
  Māori are engaged already with local politics. There is no impediment for Māori to be further engaged, if they so wish.
  - adam 4.1.1
    
    28 May 2024 at 6:34 pm
    
    Māori are engaged already with local politics. There is no impediment for Māori to be further engaged, if they so wish.
    
    What a sick little lie.
    
    They were not engaged, and that was the problem. A solution was found, and it was democratic. But there is some who find democratic enhancement a problem.
    - Traveller 4.1.1.1
      
      28 May 2024 at 7:04 pm
      
      No, Adam, Mari wards failed, despite the excuses.
      
      But despite widespread publicity for the Māori wards, there's no evidence of increased voting.
      
      Māori wards did not inspire voters: What next to boost democracy? | RNZ News
      - mickysavage 4.1.1.1.1
        
        28 May 2024 at 7:40 pm
        
        Maori wards have not failed. Their turnout is low because of clear reasons. But their representatives are overwhelmingly good and do their best to ensure that Te Ao Maori is given prominance.
        
        Traveller 4.1.1.1.1.1
        
        28 May 2024 at 7:46 pm
        
        I was responding directly to Adam's comment that They were not engaged, and that was the problem. The problem wasn't solved by Māori wards.
        
        As to your second comment, Māori representation at local government has been on the rise for decades. In 2004 just 4.2% of local government officials were Māori. By 2019, that was 13.5%. (Disproving the big lie | Kiwiblog)
        
        adam …
        
        28 May 2024 at 10:39 pm
        
        One election, and the numbers were up in my area. Not huge, but when people are disengaged and distrustful of lying sacks of shit who spin everything to fit their racist agenda. One needs to wait to see improvement. Other wises the spinning racist pieces of shit win again.
- georgecom 4.2
  
  28 May 2024 at 10:35 pm
  
  yup. David Spendmore is going to cost rate payers $100,000 a time for a referendum, council by council. Millions of dollars of rate payers money wasted as a time when we have a cost of rates crisis. the guy talks about wasted money but then wastes more of it than anyone. david spendmore, and more, and more……….
David 5

28 May 2024 at 5:12 pm

What is the issue with having a referendum?

If idea of maori wards is a good thing, and there is sufficient public support, voters will be in support of the maori wards.
- Incognito 5.1
  
  28 May 2024 at 5:34 pm
  
  Hmm, I don’t know, but it could be low voter turnout at Local Elections and that the majority vote could already be heavily biased to one outcome based on demographics alone.
- mickysavage 5.2
  
  28 May 2024 at 6:12 pm
  
  Why only have referenda for Maori wards and no other arrangements?
  - David 5.2.1
    
    29 May 2024 at 12:26 pm
    
    I’m unaware of what the “other arrangements” are. But a referendum would be a good idea, if the council wanted to add a ward for a certain group.
- Graeme 5.3
  
  28 May 2024 at 8:28 pm
  
  Well, as mickysavage said above why not have referenda for other representation issues.
  
  Down here Otago Regional Council are currently having a representation review that will most likely result in Dunedin loosing one of it's 6 councillors and Dunstan (Central Otago) gain one to go with our current three.
  
  If this went to a referendum it's pretty obvious how it would come out. Thankfully the decision will be made by our elected representatives with the advice of Council staff and public submissions.
  
  I don't see why Māori wards should be any different where there is a Māori community sufficient to warrant one.
  - Traveller 5.3.1
    
    28 May 2024 at 8:37 pm
    
    Because they are two completely different issues. A representative review is simply about the balance of population. Māori wards are about providing representation on the basis of race alone. Apart from that, Maori seats failed to increase participation, at a time when Maori representation around the table of local government has grown significantly.
    - SPC 5.3.1.1
      
      28 May 2024 at 9:09 pm
      
      CDI? OR!
      
      A representation of people based on area and its population is unrelated to representation of people by electoral roll (and or party list). Does the EC know?
      
      And Maori are not a race, but an indigenous ethnic people (part of the Polynesian group). Being one is based on ancestry and associated with an iwi (or multiple) of recent times) ancestry tradition.
      
      You seem to have a problem with greater Maori representation on councils, despite low turnout in wards.
      
      Is this related to an opposition to growing Maori electorate MP numbers, despite low voter turnout in Maori electorates?
      - Traveller 5.3.1.1.1
        
        28 May 2024 at 9:21 pm
        
        A representation of people based on area and its population is unrelated to representation of people by electoral roll (and or party list).
        
        That's not what I said.
        
        You seem to have a problem with greater Maori representation on councils, despite low turnout in wards.
        
        I have no problem at all with greater Māori representation on councils. We have achieved that already without Māori wards. https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/02/disproving_the_big_lie.html
        
        adam 5.3.1.1.1.1
        
        28 May 2024 at 10:58 pm
        
        At the end of the day the Māori wards are about building trust, engagement, and leadership. Not just representation. It does appear you do have a problem with Māori setting an agenda which is about enhancing democracy.
        
        SPC 5.3.1.1.1.2
        
        29 May 2024 at 4:38 pm
        
        My point was that having wards or not having wards has not stopped a decline in participation in council elections, so why the focus on participation rates in Maori wards?
    - Kokako 5.3.1.2
      
      29 May 2024 at 2:56 am
      
      This is painful. You are being deliberately obtuse as to the benefit of voter engagement of an indigenous population that is overrepresented in negative public health and civil rights data. Shame on you.
Drowsy M. Kram 6

28 May 2024 at 5:38 pm

No Maori Allowed: New Zealand’s Forgotten History of Racial Segregation
It is unacceptable that in the second decade of the twenty-first century, many New Zealanders do not know what happened at Pukekohe and are oblivious of the extent of racial intolerance against Māori across the country during the segregation era. Ultimately, this is a story about the exploitation of people who were dehumanised, deemed to be expendable, and treated as second-class citizens in their own land.

Our shameful CoC govt is tapping into racist sentiments in Kiwi society to achieve its regressive goals – they are bent on a path that favours the beneficiaries of polarisation.

When these binding referendums on Māori wards are held, with abolition being inevitable (New Zealand is "racist as f**k"), some local councils will find ways to ensure continued representation of Māori interests. My local council is moderately progressive in this regard.

https://www.pncc.govt.nz/Participate-Palmy/Elections/Maori-wards

And, of course, Māori wards will be back in due course. New Zealand was founded on a partnership between Māori and the Crown. Neither group/entity is going away.

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trade-agreements/DEPA/DEPA-Treaty-of-Waitangi-New-Zealand-August-2019.pdf
Ad 7

28 May 2024 at 8:01 pm

This matter should be in the hands of the Electoral Commission, not thrown around by each new government. National should listen to those mayors who wrote to them.

We have such weak local and regional government here that undermining local government choice yet again just discourages anyone from participating in it.

It is pathetic that on the one hand this government say they are 'empowering' councils to come to their own arrangements about water, while gutting their RLTP choices, and constraining how Councils choose to enable democracy.
tWig 8

29 May 2024 at 11:05 am

SPC and Traveller, perhaps missing the point in discussing Maori elector turnout. For many, they may have thought the people standing would be a guaranteed shoe-in. The point is having a councillor focused on Maori issues with a voice at the council table.
AB 9

29 May 2024 at 3:53 pm

Maori are not a 'race'. They can't be – because there is no such thing as 'race' anyway. It has no biological basis and is a relatively recent social invention (maybe 400 years) that created racial hierarchies in order to justify European colonial activities such as slavery, land theft and the ethnic cleansing or genocide of indigenous people.

Interestingly, there is a much longer prior history of what we would now call 'white' people being enslaved by the Greeks and Romans onwards. This got conveniently forgotten, as it jarred with the theory that slavery was justified by the racial inferiority of black people. *(Painter, 2010)

So Maori have their own electoral wards because of their indigeneity, not 'race'. The desire to get rid of Maori wards seems to have two main motivations:
- an attempted denial of the fact that New Zealand is a fairly recent colonial project – and that the facts on the ground concerning Maori well-being show that we still have to find ways of giving that project moral legitimacy
- a cynical attempt to win elections by stoking animosity of the majority towards a minority, while dishonestly claiming to do the opposite by reducing 'division'
* Painter, Nell Irwin. The History of White People. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010
- SPC 9.1
  
  29 May 2024 at 4:43 pm
  
  Rome killed or enslaved everyone in Dacia and then renamed the place Romania.
  
  They killed a third and enslaved a third in Gaul, such was the way of "empire". There was taxation, or tribute, from areas ruled over and the highest form of tax was slavery.
Jim 10

30 May 2024 at 1:02 am

All this talk about being indigenous. Everyone's ancestors are indigenous to somewhere. NZ has no indigenous people. We can all track our own or our ancestors arrival from somewhere else, by boat or by aircraft. Therefore we are all either immigrants or descended fro immigrants Five hundred odd years in a country doesn't make you indigenous to that country Aboriginals in Australia are indigenous. Only flora, fauna and some birds are indigenous to this country.

I agree with the comments made by David, Traveller and Belladonna. It seems trying to have a reasoned discussion with the other commentators is on a hiding to nothing.. In this country there is nothing legally holding any one back from participating in either local body or general elections. It is a personal choice , so please don't blame the system, colonialism or any other fashionable excuse, for low voter turnout. This is not apartheid South Africa.
- Descendant Of Smith 10.1
  
  30 May 2024 at 9:18 am
  
  "have a reasoned discussion "
  
  As if you saying Maori are not indigenous is any attempt at a reasoned discussion.
  
  Whether or not Maori are indigenous isn't even the issue and just a red herring anyway. It is just a racist response to try and argue for European domination of political systems in a country that they, capitalist Europeans, consciously and deliberately colonised – recognising at the same time this capitalist imposition on local populations was also happening in places like Scotland as well.
  
  Defining indigenous isn't clear cut anyway. Your assertions are non-sensical.
  
  https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf
  
  Then you double down with unreasoned bull-shit like this
  
  "fashionable excuse" and this "This is not apartheid South Africa" to both dismiss and minimise genuine concerns about representation and to imply that some form of apartheid is taking place.
  
  The real question is more something like "Maori were the local population in New Zealand when Europeans arrived and with whom we signed a Treaty that guaranteed them certain rights. As the number of European settlers grew many of these rights were breached. We rightfully entered into a Treaty process to resolve these breaches – a process in which Maori have been remarkably generous in accepting settlements and apologies far less in value as to what was taken. What has been evident through that process, and highly evident before that, is that Maori culturally have a much stronger communal and long term approach to things like land management, environmental controls, exploitation of resources, the accrual of benefits and so on.
  
  As the population through migration is now dominated by non-Maori which has for instance put in systems of majority rule voting then Maori views can easily be disregarded and ignored. This has happened for a long time and in fact enabled the dispossession of land, etc in the first place.
  
  To build on the progress of the Treaty settlements and to ensure that the often different viewpoints of Maori re considered, discussed and are able to have some influence then what systems need to be modified to ensure this?
  
  Maori wards on councils helps achieve this. It seems a quite reasonable way to do this in my view and I have little fear of this. Since it has been implemented I have heard many say that it has really added value to council meetings and has improved local relationships with iwi.
  
  It isn't clear to me what people like yourself are so afraid of. I get what capitalism is afraid of – they can't just do what they want to extract profit but unfetterred capitalism is always exploitative. Part of the 18th and early 19th century opposition by capitalism towards Maori was due to the communist collective nature of their culture.
  
  As a society we should want better outcomes for our Maori population. We should support things that help achieve that. We shouldn't just impose our values – we need to listen to theirs and share some power with them in order to do this. Improved outcomes for Maori are improved outcomes for us all.
- SPC 10.2
  
  30 May 2024 at 9:42 am
  
  The first settlement people in the Americas came from Asia.
  
  The Aborigine arrived in Oz soon after leaving Africa, but went via south Asia.
  
  The first homo sapien settlement in Europe occurred after the Neanderthal.
  
  The I Y chromosome people are the longest (by identifiable male line) surviving group in Europe today. In a sense no one else there is indigenous.
  
  The Maori are the first known settlement group here and their culture developed separate from other Polynesians in this place.
  
  In some countries the topic is moot, Indians in India, Han Chinese in China – where did they migrate from – their cultures developed in these areas.
  
  At the world level, Maori are recognised as an indigenous people, so your reckons account for nought.
Maurice 11

1 June 2024 at 12:23 am

The other effect of Maori Wards (which are global – i.e. whole of Council area) is that those who can opt for voting in the Maori Ward (only those in the whole Council area that are on the Maori Electoral Roll (for National Elections) are LOCKED out of a vote on their local Ward for local representation. A way of purging Maori Electoral Roll voices from the Ward area they actually live in? This has most effect on those Councils which are more rural – that is District Councils – where it makes them a minority put in a box and prone to being out voted …..