One law for all (seats)!
Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Maori seats (and if you’re interested in the Greens’ view on why they’re a good thing, go and listen to yesterday’s audioblog), it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the way National is approaching the issue is extremely heavy-handed.
The Herald today has a useful table of the various parties’ positions on the Maori seats. Only National and Act support scrapping the seats without support from Maori. National’s position is anomalous for two reasons.
First: the general electorate seats are entrenched, and thus require either a 75% vote in Parliament or a referendum to be changed, yet the Maori seats are not. So, why is National opposed to Maori seat entrenchment? Why not allow one law for all seats?
Second: if National believes wholeheartedly in the virtue of its policy, then it should be confident that it can convince either the general public or 75 percent of Parliament that its view is the right one. If your policy is so good, then why not put it to a referendum and win the battle of ideas with the public? Of all parties, National should be pushing for a referendum on the issue, rather than promising to ram the change through Parliament. Don Brash said he couldn’t bring himself to vote for Civil Unions because the Government should have called a referendum. I don’t believe in using referenda all the time because I believe elections are the mechanism for the people to give parties the mandate to implement certain policies. However, if Dr Brash were to be consistent, surely he should be saying that the Maori seats, a matter of much greater constitutional significance than Civil Unions, should also be put to a referendum?
September 1st, 2005 at 9:12 am
Frog:
Well, I find it rather ironic that there’s the implicit assumption that there would be no Maori voting on any legislation to abolish the seats, and that Maori are too dumb or lazy to bother making their voices heard through the select committee process.
And if you’re going to make the argument from history and precedent, it’s a little rich of the MP and the Greens wanting to change the rules because you’re not sure you’d like the result.
September 1st, 2005 at 9:30 am
I am not of Maori descent, and I am not as 100% PC about Treaty issues as my political leanings may suggest, but I do believe that the special Maori seats should remain as long as the Electoral Commission and the clear majority of Maori voters feel the need is there for them to do so. It will not be forever. I think that the current formation of a strong Maori Party gives an indication that the need for special seats is waning. Joy.
September 1st, 2005 at 9:57 am
I agree with the abolition of the Maori seats as it gives Maori double representation - they can argue for issue regarding Maori through their local Maori MP and then general issue through the General MP.
If non-Maori have an issue they can only raise it through their General MP.
September 1st, 2005 at 10:08 am
Frog, if those are the best arguments you can find against National’s policy then you’ve already lost the debate.
1) It opposes entrenchment of the Maori seats because it opposes the Maori seats. It doesn’t oppose entrenchment of the General Seats because it doesn’t oppose General Seats. Do you support entrenchment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, or the existence of the right of appeal the the Privy Council?
2) Why not one law for all seats? Well, National wants one law for all seats - every seat general, every seat entrenched.
3) National opposes (among other reasons) a referendum because they have telegraphed this well in advance to absolutely everyone. Just like Civil Unions and Labour. National views equality for all as a human rights issue; it does not subject such issues to decision by a majority in a referendum. Just like Civil Unions and Labour.
4) This is a major constitutional issue. Like Labour and the Supreme Court. But we know what National’s planning with the Maori seats. UNlike Labour and the Supreme Court.
5) Why not put it to a public vote? They are. I understand it’s being held in 16 days’ time. I’m surprised you haven’t heard about it.
September 1st, 2005 at 10:25 am
Well, no, Edge, I said explicitly that people interested in the Greens’ arguments for retaining the seats should go listen to my interview with Metiria yesterday…
I just find National’s position on the seats rather strange and at odds with past statements.
September 1st, 2005 at 10:42 am
Joy:
You might not have intended to imply this, but the Electoral Commission does not have any role in determining electoral law in New Zealand
From http://www.elections.org.nz/sitehelp/about_contact_main.html#Electoral _Commission :
QUOTE
The Electoral Commission is an independent Crown entity which registers political parties and party logos. It also receives registered parties’ annual returns of donations and returns of election expenses, and allocates election broadcasting time and funds to eligible political parties. The Commission also encourages and conducts public education about electoral matters.
END QUOTE
I think it would be singularly inapporopriate for the EC to insert itself into a political matter. It is charged with enforcing election law, not seeking to influence it.
BTW, didn’t the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommend that the Maori seat be abolished as part of the transition to MMP?
September 1st, 2005 at 10:48 am
Craig:
While I totally agree that it is floating around “out there”, I didn’t get the impression that that “implicit assumption” came from lovely Green Frog!
Quite the contrary!
Have a quick read of
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR9050.html
as just one example …
Don Brash et al are the “one law for all” spouters … seemingly regardless of issues that might be involved. I read it that Frog was responding to their arguments more or less on their terms.
eredwen
September 1st, 2005 at 11:43 am
one law for everyone fwog, no exceptions,
sorry,
September 1st, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Erewaden:
I don’t agree with Merita’s assertion that “ultimately that is solely the prerogative of Maori themselves, something that is tested by the proxy referendum of the five-yearly Maori electoral option.â€?
We elect Parliament to legislate - including to properly propose, debate and vote on electoral legislation. And I something have to be a little cynical and wonder whether politicians only invoke “Maori” (as some vast ethnic Borg collective) when convinced Te Borg will say what they want to hear.
Whether you agree with me or not, I believe in good faith that the Maori seats are an anachronistic relic of Victorian paternalism that are well past their use-by date. I’d like to see that tested in Parliament - and would strenuously object to a repeat of the Harry Dynhoven Job Protection Act farce, when our electoral rules were altered under extreme urgency (i.e. without proper debate or select committee/public scrutiny) for nakedly partisan reasons (Labour’s desire to avoid a potentially embarrasing by-election in New Plymouth).
Parliament has never seen fit to ‘entrench’ Maori seats before, and it’s grossly opportunistic (and a wee bit hypocritical) to be making the argument now.
September 1st, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Craig:
Good points! “Victorian paternalism” YES!
“Well past their use by date” That depends …
I do agree with Metiria on this matter for several reasons:
Watching and listening to the daily “circus” going on around us at the moment, I’m not sure about the wisdom of your assertion that “We elect Parliament to legislate - including to properly propose, debate and vote on electoral legislation.” … but in whose interests?
(I’m becoming an old cynic!)
I understand that the current situation is that voters of Maori descent can choose, individually, whether they want to enrol on a Maori Roll or a General Roll, and the number of Maori Seats in Parliament changes according to the number of people of Maori descent who choose to retain the Maori Roll option. This way, left to individual choice, Maori Seats will disappear when individual Maori don’t want them any more … and those that disagree with Maori-Electorate MPs (as it seems you do) can choose not to be represented by them …
That sounds like a much safer “win win” situation to me, as it should be for Tangata Whenua who are now minority group, who should not in this matter be dictated to (individually or collectively) by the whims of what at times seems like an increasingly ignorant and selfcentred “majority”.
Eredwen
September 1st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Eredwin:
Well, plenty of good meat we can argue - and that doesn’t make either of us drooling racists. Oddly enough, I think you and Merita are actually making a textbook conservative argument: That however unsatisfactory, we should tinker with institutions with great reluctance. And if we do, the slower the better.
And I have to temper my cynicism about politicians with an equally cynical observation about voter - if they’re that bloody awful, it doesn’t say much about the judgement of the people who put ‘em there.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Craig:
Good stuff!
I’d add (Para 1) … “and make sure that those who are affected are (given a real opportunity to be) well informed and involved in the decision.”
I agree (Para 2) … with quite a few notable exceptions among the politicians. Despite years of MMP the culture of the House seems to remain combatant FPP/Westminster (although Green MPs say that in Select Committees, “where the real work is done”, cooperative behaviour happens!)
I believe that overall, although we do reasonably well in this country, we could look at politics in societies that seem to do better (eg Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Switzerland just for starters … )
How Kiwi voters get their information (and the quality of that information) are crucial issues … and would be a good starting point IF we want real democracy …
eredwen
September 1st, 2005 at 4:03 pm
I put the question at a candidates meeting in Hamilton.
“Should the government treat people diffrently based on their race? It’s a yes or no answer, by all means you can try to qualify your answer but start the answer by stating your position…thank you.”
ACT “No”
National “No”
Libertarianz “No”
That was the end of the straight answers, none of the other candidates had the balls to come right out and say “Yes, the government should treat people differently based on their race.” No…from then on it was all pathetic goobly de gook polly double speak.
September 1st, 2005 at 4:06 pm
A good resource for the history of the separatist seats, where they came from and why (not a treaty issue) is a book called “New Zealands Electoral Atlas” sorry forgotten the author but any of the larger libraries should have a copy.
September 1st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Warwick:
Having listened to, and looked at, the arguments carefully, I believe that Pakeha are being manipulated (in many cases willingly) into “WHAT ABOUT ME?” behaviour.
In the current National-Party-et-al rhetoric, there is deliberate confusion between the meanings of the word “race” and of the word “inheritance” (as in Te Tiriti) … and sometimes in medical matters, of the word “ethnicity” (as in predisposition to certain conditions).
… Hopefully this divisive “race based” Maori bashing will be recognised for what it is and consigned to the middens of our history.
eredwen
September 1st, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Craig,
Thank you for putting me right. Have just got in from the cowshed and found your comment. I just thought it was the EC that set and re-set the elctoral boundaires from time to time so I assumed, in ignorance…… OK, so who would make this decision? Is it one of those special decisions that would require a 75% majority in the House for anything to be changed?
Is separate Maori Elctoral rolls/seats anything like the separate Scottish Parliament in the UK? Joy.
September 1st, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Warwick :
Absolutely right, it’s important to understand why the Maori seats were created. As you know, they were an apartheid measure, which (combined with the property franchise) enabled Pakeha, who were the minority, to have an overwhelming parliamentary majority, yet still claim that the regime was democratic…
I think it’s funny as hell, one of history’s great ironies, that the Maori seats should now politically inconvenience the inheritors of their creators…
I happen to believe that NZ has a best-of-breed electoral system, I don’t know of a better one. Political practice is improving as it slowly adapts to it, and will continue to improve as the old buggers retire (old dogs, new tricks).
At first glance, the Maori seats seem like an anomaly in the MMP set-up, but their existence does not, in fact, give Maori any more political power, or anyone else any less political power, so I can’t actually see what the problem is. Given that they were originally created to shaft Maori, and that Maori now find them useful, it’s up to Maori to decide when they cease to exist.
September 2nd, 2005 at 3:18 am
No the Maori seats are nothing like the Scottish Parliament - it is a separate regional assembly and all people in Scotland get to vote for both their westminster MP and their MSP.
An interesting thing about the Scottish Parliament is that it is elected using MMP, but the difference with our MMP is that it uses 7 separate regional lists. This is rather flawed - it may work for a very large parliament with hundreds of list MPs like Germany, but it doesn’t work for a small country with tens of list MPs - they would be much better with a single national list.
September 3rd, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Frog,
my apologies for not responding to your response sooner =)
I must say that whilst some of the argument Metiria propoounded were good, others were completely off the wall.
It is not “a serious constitutional anomaly” that those who have opted to be on the Maori electoral roll cannot change to the general electoral roll at will. This is somewhat glib but, yes, a non-Maori can move from Wellington Central to Auckland Central *at will*: so can a Maori. A Maori can move from Te Tai Tonga to Te Tai Haururu (note that a non-Maori cannot). No-one, Maori or non-Maori, can move from Auckland Central to Te Tai Haururu, or vice versa. How is this “completely inappropriate”?
It’s not, and, if you don’t mind a short law lesson you’ll hear one reason why this is the case. The number of Maori seats (and the number of general seats) is determined following the census; by choosing at that time on which roll they wish to be, Maori determine both the number of Maori seats there are, and the number of general electorate seats there are in the North Island.
Naturally there are demographic changes over time (between the census and subsequent elections) that should mean that electoral boundaries ought to be redrawn, and perhaps that the North Island ought to receive an additional seat, but these aren’t particularly major, for the most part someone moves into Auckland Central and someone else moves out - the electorates do not differ greatly in size from the average.
This is not so with the Maori option, however. Participation on the Maori roll need not move at the rate of demographic changes - changes in the political landscape might well be enough. I have no doubt that were a Maori electoral option held in the wake of the foreshore and seabad legislation, or following the formation of the Maori party there could have been a major swing, with substantially increased interst in the Maori electoral roll from Maori. This is perhaps even what Metiria was considering when she made her comments (and you yours).
Realise what would have happened as a result: Maori would have been substantially under-represented in the next parliament - the number of Maori seats would have remained the same, but the number of Maori on the Maori electoral roll would have been much higher. Non-Maori in seats with a high proportion of Maori would be substanially over-represented. And the North Island would almost certainly have too many general electorate MPs compared to the South Island. Far greater anomalies all ’round than Metiria is concerned about.
On another legal note, I take issue with your suggestion that the Maori seats are not entrenched. Abolition of the Maori seats will require the repeal of s 28(3) and s 28(4) of the Electoral Act 1993. It refers explicitly to “Maori electoral districts”. Section 28 of the Electoral Act 1993 is entrenched.