Maori electoral option
The electoral office have released an update of enrolments as they enter the final weeks of the Maori electoral option, which show that so far nearly 12,000 voters have opted to shift from the General Roll to the Maori Roll. This is significant, as the number of voters on the Maori roll will determine how many Maori seats there are in the next Parliament. I haven’t done the maths, but it seems likely from these figures that we could be looking at more than the current 7 seats, which could obviously have a significant impact on the make-up of Parliament and indeed the next Government. [Edit: in fact, the rate of sign up is lower than at the last option, so there is still quite a long way to go before a new seat is created]
Here’s what Metiria had to say about the Maori Electoral Option when it opened back in April. More Maori on the Maori roll doesn’t necessarily benefit the Greens electorally, but the ability to move between rolls is an important constitutional decision which the Greens support, and believe should be available to Maori more than once every five years.
July 4th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Metiria said:
“But the opportunity to change from the general roll to the Maori roll only comes up once every five years, and the number of voters on the Maori roll directly effects the number of Maori seats in Parliament, so it is a very important issue.”
Except, if the Maori electoral option was continuous, or occured in the lead up to each election, then the number of voters on the Maori roll would no longer directly effect the number of Maori seats in Parliament. The Maori electoral option is run five-yearly because the census in run five-yearly, and electoral boundaries are drawn up five-yearly. If people could switch at will between the Maori roll and the General roll then you could have a situation where, the number of Maori seats having been established after the census (along with the number of South Island, and North Island seats) an influx onto the Maori roll before an election could see Maori drastically unrepresented in Parliament (the Maori roll might have grown by 50% with no increase in the number of Maori seats).
That would be undemocratic.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Edge:
The figures for each and every general electorate are also potentially skewed during those five years by general demographics:
Young Kiwis reach voting age, new migrants become citizens with voting rights, people migrate from electorate to electorate …
As far as I know all these people can register on their appropriate electoral roll during those five years.
Why should people of Maori descent be treated differently in this regard?
Surely an up-to-date rethink of the current practice is in order.
eredwen
July 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
eredwen - certainly demographic changes skew representation, but nowhere near to the extent possible as a result of a political decision to change roll type.
Young kiwis with Maori heritage who reach voting age can choose which roll (Maori or General) they will enter. Young non-Maori kiwis reaching voting age are also entered onto the electoral roll.
New Migrants become permanent residents with voting rights, and can choose, if eligible, whether to enter the Maori or General roll.
People migrate from electorate to electorate and must change the electorate in which they vote.
You are right, and I’m certainly not saying any of this should change.
You ask: “Why should people of Maori descent be treated differently in this regard?”
This is an interesting question, but I think the answer is - because there is a separate Maori roll. To argue that Maori and non-Maori should not be treated differently is effectively to argue that there should be no Maori roll. A Maori on the Maori roll who moves from Tamaki Makaura to Ikaroa-Rawhiti must change from the TM roll to the IR roll. A Maori on the general roll who moves from Auckland Central to Wellington Central must change from the AC roll to the WC roll, and a non-Maori who moves from AC to WC must do the same.
Maori do not have fewer options than non-Maori, they have more. In addition to deciding which electorates boundaries they will live in, when they first sign onto the electoral roll, and then just after every census they get the extra option of deciding whether to be on the General roll of Maori roll. Obviously, non-Maori never receive this option.
Please don’t take these arguments as arguments against the existence of the Maori seats, with which I have no problem, they are intended solely to combat the argument that the Maori seats disadvantage Maori in the way they are presently set up. This does not represent a “structural inequality” in the Westminster system as Metiria argues.
I’m happy to answer any other concerns you might have with the position I advance - it is rather odd, I disagree with a number of the Green Party’s positions, but this is among the ones I most strongly oppose. I guess that I just don’t see that any of the Greens’ arguments for this position are actually defensible (unlike Green arguments around GMOs or climate change etc.)
July 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Edge:
I agree with most of your thoughts on the matter.
I guess one of my concerns is that if people have to make their decisions NOW (with no other opportunity for another five years) there will inevitably be some who miss the deadline for various reasons (illness, disorganisation, absence, change of address etc) … and these people effectively have their franchise options diminished (fully or partially). As you point out, the demographic effect of roll type choice is greater for Aotearoa/NZ than just change in elctorate location. (I was delighted to watch when Pakeha-looking friends who live in affluent suburbs “came out of the closet” and enrolled on the Maori Roll because of the anti Maori rhetoric of some political parties. I see this as very healthy for Aotearoa/NZ.)
Our voting population is diverse with some more organised and aware than others. I’d like to see a continuous system rather than a “catch all or wait five years” system in place … obviously with advertised cut off dates of when the statisitics will be needed … but one that lets people enrol “whenever” (the mood takes them?? as in the case of my friends.)
We have increasingly efficient computers and communication systems.
Thus the ability to gather and process the information must be easier and faster now than it was when the “five year” decision was made. The particular lead in time that was needed when the legislation was passed is likely to be very different from today’s.
I believe that all of this needs to be examined in light of the “Maori or General Roll choice”.
eredwen
July 6th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I’m with Edge on this one, it makes complete sense for the period of roll-switching to be limited to the period of post-census electorate boundary decision-making, which is intended to ensure that all electorates are created equal. You can’t have people switching from one roll to another mid way through because it could lead to imbalances in electorate sizes.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Stuey,
You’ve just caught me out there; I knew the maaori electorates changed size/number according to enrolements, but do other electorates do that too?
For instance, if a swag of maaori left wellington central for te tai tonga, would that change the shape of the boundaries for wellington central?
cheers, katie
July 11th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Well yes and no. Yes it would, in 5 years time when the next electorate boundary adjustments are made. But no it wouldn’t in the short term, you’d have to wait 5 years.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
katie - at the moment it would, but not necessarily if the law changed as the Greens want.
After the census every five years a Maori electoral option is held. Following that, the number of South Islanders on the general roll, the number of North Islanders on the general roll and the number of people on the Maori roll are calculated (I’ll add here that the numbers actually used aren’t those of the numbers on the roll itself, but includes children and others who can’t vote).
The number of general roll south islanders is divided by 16. This is the size of the average south island general electorate.
The number of people on the north island general roll is divided by the size of the average south island general electorate. This gives the number of north island general seats.
The number of people on the maori roll is also divided by the size of the average south island general electorate. This gives the number of Maori seats.
Based on these numbers, the representation commission then draws a whole heaps of lines on maps determining the boundaries of each seat, which all have to have a similar number of people in them (within 5% of the average).
If between one census and the next people have migrated around the country then boundaries will have to change. Likewise if a large number of people have switched rolls then the number of maori seats, and north island general seats will change (and the boundaries with them).
Allowing people to switch from the Maori roll to the general roll between censuses could mean that boundaries are drawn which become massively outdated very quickly (far more differently than through general demographic changes like migration or birthrates). Say, after the formation of the Maori Party a large number of Maori had been able to and had switched to the Maori roll - the average size of Maori electorates could have increased from the around 50,000 residents to 70,000+ which would mean that each Maori electorate vote would be worth less than a general electorate vote (and non-Maori electorate votes in the general seats Maori had left would be worth too much).
A solution to this problem might be to constantly re-draw boundaries when people switch rolls, or are born, or immigrate, but this could cause a lot of problems, with gerrymandering more likely.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Edge: Thanks for that explanation.