Nikki Preston in the Herald reports:

Waikato iwi are urging the Waikato Regional Council to introduce two Maori seats in time for the 2013 local government elections.

But the regional council has mixed views on Maori representation and a lively debate is expected at tomorrow’s council meeting.

I’m not a fan of race based seats. The parliamentary seats are a historical reality, but that is no reason to expand them into local government. While well intentioned, they can only end up with greater division.

My preference would be to consider giving Iwi which fall within a region’s boundaries, certain rights. I’ll detail what they may be some other day.

Maori are 20 per cent of the population of the Waikato region, and since the council was set up in 1989 there have been no Maori representatives elected.

I can understand why that leads some to say the seats are needed, but one vital stat is missing. How many Maori candidates have there been? Can anyone answer that question?

Tags: Maori Seats, Waikato

Jami-Lee Ross does his maiden speech today, and I expxect Louisa Wall will be sworn in as an MP next week. What hasn’t been on is that this increases the number of Maori MPs by two (and sadly reduces the Ginga MPs by one). The House now has 21 23 MPs of Maori descent (have updated post to include two more MPs of Maori descent):

1. National
   Paula Bennett
2. Simon Bridges
3. Aaron Gilmore
4. Tau Henare
5. Hekia Parata
6. Paul Quinn
7. Jami-Lee Ross
8. Georgina te Heuheu
   Labour
9. Kelvin Davis
10. Darien Fenton
11. Parekura Horomia
12. Shane Jones
13. Moana Mackey
14. Nanaia Mahuta
15. Mita Ririnui
16. Louisa Wall
    Green
17. David Clendon
18. Metiria Turei
    Maori Party
19. Te Ururoa Flavell
20. Rahui Katene
21. Pita Sharples
22. Tariana Turia
    Independent
23. Hone Harawira

So that is 23/122 MPs are of Maori descent, representing 18.9% of Parliament. Now this means that Maori are over-represented in Parliament, relative to their population proportion. Now I don’t think this is at all a bad thing. My belief is that Parliament should be diverse and broadly representative of NZ, but we shouldn’t have quotas trying to match the makeup of Parliament to the exact population.

But what it does show is how well MMP has worked for Maori representation. We now have seven Maori MPs in Maori seats, three Maori MPs in general seats (all National) and 11 13 Maori List MPs.

It also reflects my view that one could do as the Royal Commission recommended, and abolish the Maori seats (in exchange for no 5% threshold on the list for Maori parties). Even without the Maori seats, there would be at least 16 MPs of Maori descent in Parliament (and probably more).

Currently as I said Maori make up 18.9% of the House. This contrasts with being 15.2% of the total population and 12.0% of the adult (18+) population (which I deem as the appropriate comparison).

If there were no Maori seats, then there would be at least 16/120 Maori MPs which is 13.3% of the House – almost exactly proportional to the adult population.

I’m not an advocate of removing the Maori seats, without significant consent of Maori. It would cause significant disharmony to do so. But it would be good to have a sensible debate about whether the time has come to implement the Royal Commission’s recommendations.

What I like about the RC’s recommendations is you wouldn’t have the tensions of the Maori Party trying to represent all Maori – something that is impossible. With no threshold (effectively meaning 0.6 0.4%) for Maori based parties instead, it means you may get say three different Maori parties in Parliament – a radical Hone type party might get three MPs, a more right ring urban Maori party might get one MP, and an Iwi based party might get say two MPs. It would allow for better diversity of Maori opinion (in my opinion). Plus you’d have the Maori MPs in National, Labour and Greens.

Tags: Jami-Lee Ross, Louisa Wall, Maori Seats

Bernard Orsman reports:

It is undemocratic and untenable for unelected members of the Auckland Council’s Maori statutory board to have voting rights on council committees, says Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman Phil Twyford.

I agree with Phil Twyford on this point.

It is worth noting that the Royal Commission actually recommended having an unelected (appointed by Iwi) Councillor sit on the main Auckland Council itself. Labour criticised National for not following the Commission’s recommendations.

Two Maori representatives from the nine-member Maori statutory body will join up to 20 council committees with full voting powers under a Super City bill passed last year in the name of Local Government Minister and Act leader Rodney Hide.

If the council committees are actually making decisions, not just recommendations, this is a quite serious issue. Non-voting representation would be more appropriate.

It is worth remembering that three of the 20 Councillors are of Maori descent – and elected through wards.

Mr Twyford said hand-picked representatives exercising a full vote alongside elected representatives on council committees went against a fundamental principle of democracy and the Government should amend the law to make the positions advisory only.

I agree. But is Twyford representing what Labour said at the time. Here is a press release on 14 May 2009:

“Labour believes the Government should have adopted the Royal Commission’s proposals to include Maori seats on the council, but it hasn’t.

One of those Maori seats as an un-elected one, appointed by Iwi. So in 2009 Labour seemed to argue for un-elected Maori representation, but now they argue againgst it.

Mr Horomia said the relationship between the Auckland Council and mana whenua is important and it is essential they have a voice in local government decision-making.

“Just how that is reflected and how potential mana whenua seats might complement elected Maori seats is an issue which the select committee will hear submissions on and we will pay attention to this.

Again, Labour were not saying they were against appointed Maori representation back then.

“Imagine how people will feel in a really heated debate on some important issue, a committee is evenly split, and these non-elected, hand-picked advisers have the casting vote. People will be furious,” Mr Twyford said.

Again I agree.

Last night, Mr Hide, who is overseas, on his honeymoon, issued a statement saying the decision for Maori to be members of committees was made at the select committee state.

Labour was on that select committee. In their minority report they said:

This bill introduces a Māori Advisory Board. While we have worked hard to ensure this board is more effective, we have not altered our position. Labour believes there should be Māori seats on the new Auckland Council.

Working hard to make it more effective doesn’t sound like arguing they should not have representation on council committees.

He did say he was surprised the board would appoint people to sit on all council committees when the legislation required it to appoint people only to committees that dealt with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.

This is correct. So it is a decision of the Auckland Council itself that gave voting rights to the non-Councillors on all the other Committees. So will Phil Twyford call on Len Brown to restrict these appointments to those few committees dealing with natural and physical resources.

Tags: Auckland Council, Maori Seats, Phil Twyford

Audrey Young reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has given an undertaking to the influential Iwi Leadership Group to talk to the new Auckland Council about dedicated Maori seats on the council. But no quick decisions are expected to be taken.

Mr Brown attended the group’s hui at Takapuwahia Marae in Porirua on Saturday as a guest.

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples asked Mr Brown to attend the hui with him.

The request to discuss Maori representation on the council was put by Tainui leader Tukoroirangi Morgan and Ngati Whatua leader Naida Glavish.

Mr Morgan said last night that Mr Brown gave an undertaking to discuss the issue with his new council which has only just been sworn in.

He had said it was a serious issue and it would be discussed comprehensively.

I have two objections to Maori seats on the Auckland Council – one principled and one pragmatic.

The principled argument is that race based seats are a bad thing, and over time will lead NZ to a Fiji type situation.

The pragmatic argument is that there is no problem to solve.

In the Auckland region, Maori make up just under 10% of the population (and only 8.3% of the adult population). On the Auckland Council, 3 out of 20 Councillors or 15% have Maori descent.

Mr Morgan and Dr Sharples said there was no support for getting the issue tested through a referendum.

It would be a brave Council that introduced race based seats on its own initiative, without letting the people have a say.

Tags: Auckland Council, Len Brown, Maori Seats

The Herald reports:

The council is a balance of experience, youth and gender. It has eight women councillors, five sitting or former council leaders, and two Pacific Island and two Maori councillors – but no representatives from any other ethnic groups.

A pretty diverse Council, and one would think showed there is no need for race based seats.

On TVNZ’s Q & A yesterday, Mr Brown said a referendum on creating Maori seats on the council “may well” be possible in the next three years.

“I want us to have a full debate across the community, and I want to find out the best way of including the whole community in that,” he said.

“But I want to see Maori representation, particularly mana whenua [local tribal] representation on that council.”

Len Brown’s policy was to support Maori seats, so this is no surprise.

But I would be very cautious about mana whenua representation, because that implies that rather than have an election amongst electors on the Maori roll, instead the three local iwi would directly appoint a Councillor. So a dozen people in a room get the same voting rights as the entire Rodney District.

The current laws allows for Maori seats in the traditional sense, but a law change would be needed to have mana whenua direct representation as proposed by the Royal Commission and supported by Len. So this is highly unlikely unless people vote for a Labour/Green Government in 2011.

Tags: Auckland Council, Len Brown, Maori Seats

The Herald reports:

National has bowed to Maori Party wishes and agreed to support the highly contentious United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples despite the previous Labour Government issuing dire warnings that the document is fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems. …

The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, being able to maintain their own languages, being able to protect their natural and cultural heritage and manage their own affairs.

Dr Sharples, one of the Maori Party’s co-leaders, said this morning’s announcement restored the mana and moral authority of Maori to speak in international forums on justice, rights and peace matters.

But National appears to have given its backing to the declaration on condition a proviso is attached saying that progressing Maori rights occurs within New Zealand’s “current legal and constitutional frameworks”.

Which appears to me to be a sensible proviso.

National’s concerns appear to have been dealt with by the attachment of the rider to New Zealand’s statement of support. This proviso reaffirms “the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New Zealand’s legal system” and notes that those existing frameworks define “the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the declaration”.

Dr Sharples said the Labour Government’s position had called into question Labour’s commitment to Crown-Maori relations and undermined New Zealand’s credibility on human rights issues.

There will be some anguish amongst Labour’s Maori MPs that National and the Maori Party found a workable solution to this issue, which their party did not.

Personally I’m not someone wildly concerned about non binding UN declarations, and whether or not we say we support them or not. But if it is important to a “coalition” partner, then I’d much rather have something like this given to them as a “win”, than something which I have serious objections to.

So far, there have been five major “wins” for the Maori Party. None of them have caused me great disquiet. They are:

1. Repeal of Foreshore & Seabed Act – have long supported this on the basis of not taking away the right to go to court of any person or group
2. Dropping of opposition to Maori Seats in Parliament. I support the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish them (and in exchange have a lower party vote threshold for Maori parties) but National was never going to get the numbers to repeal the seats unilaterally anyway, and in exchange the Maori Party dropped their efforts to entrench them.  It’s a freezing of the status quo.
3. Whanua Ora – the principle of it is something I have long supported, and is linked to the Family Start programme started in the 1990s. I have concerns over how well it will be implemented, but all in favour of devolving resources to the private sector, to help get better outcomes for disadvantaged families.
4. UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Does not change legal rights under NZ law, but symbolically important to Maori.
5. A Maori Flag flies on Waitangi Day alongside NZ Flag. As the day celebrates a treaty between the Government and Maori, think flying both flags is a fine idea.

Now if the Government had agreed to legislate special Maori seats on the Auckland Council, that would have gone down badly with me.  I think it would have entrenched the notion of race based seats as being a good form of Government, that should be spread to all levels of Government.

The deal with the Maori Party over the ETS was a fairly shabby one, which I don’t think one can defend on particularly principled grounds. However I note that was a horse trade over getting a law passed, not directly liked to the confidence and supply agreement. In other words would probably have occurred even if there was no National/Maori Party agreement.

The very nature of MMP and minority Government requires larger parties to agree to some things they would probably not have otherwise done. My test is how “bad” one considers those concessions to be.

While I have a fundamentally different world view to the Maori Party on many issues, I don’t regard any of the above five concessions as particularly “bad” – some in fact I would support National having done regardless of the Maori Party’s wishes.

And I compare that to the demands of NZ First under both National and Labour. Winston demanded weakening of monetary policy, making superannuation more unsustainable, huge increases in funding for his pet portfolios, appointments for his mates, protectionism etc etc – a lot of stuff that I regarded as fundamentally bad for NZ’s future.

Tags: Maori Seats, UN

On Facebook there is a group called Maori 60. It’s description is:

Maori should be equal partners with settlers in the NZ government. There are now 120 MPs. Maori should control 60 seats.

The most prominent member of Maori 60 is Green co-leader Metiria Turei.

That is some heavweight support, to have a party leader join your group.

I wonder how many Green Party voters know that their co-leader does not support a democracy where all votes are roughly equal, but where 15% of the population should have 50% of the seats, and the other 85% have the other 50%. That make a vote from someone with Maori ancestry six times more powerful than a vote from someone who does not have the right relatives.

Tags: Facebook, Maori Seats, Metiria Turei

Just watching a recording of Q&A and Paul Holmes has revealed that the Families Commission put in a submission on the Auckland Council legislation advocating for Maori Seats.

They defended their submission on the grounds that how Auckland is governed can affect families/whanau. What a ridicolous justification.

I would say every law passed by Parliament can be argued to have an impact on families. That doesn’t mean we need to be putting in millions of dollars into the Families Commission to be making submissions on laws that really are well outside what should be their core area of focus.

I’m still unconvinced we get anything near value for money by having a Families Commission. Some of the stuff they have been involved in is useful (I think the anti domestic violence TV ads are quite good), but these may well have occurred even if there was no Families Commission.

Tags: Auckland Council, Families Commission, Maori Seats

In a classic case of stating opinion as fact, Northern EMA CEO Alasdair Thompson writes:

Maori have the right to be elected to reserved seats on the new Auckland council under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Now of course the Treaty says no such thing.

Certainly some, maybe many, will argue that having reserved seats on the Council would be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

But I get annoyed when people form an opinion on what should be done, and then claim that so and so is a “right” under the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is a way of trying to stop debate.

UPDATE: Alasdair was writing in a personal capacity. I mentioned his work role, as that is how almost everyone knows him.

Tags: Alasdair Thompson, Auckland Council, Maori Seats, Treaty of Waitangi

The NZ Herald states:

The new Auckland Super City Council will now have Maori seats only if ratepayers force a referendum approving them or a future council is sympathetic enough to create them of its own accord.

The story makes this sound like some desperate lowlife way to get Maori seats, but isn’t this actually the way it should be.

They are saying the Auckland Council will only get Maori seats if Auckland voters or the Auckland Council itself want them. So the decision will be made in Auckland, not Wellington.

Tags: Auckland Council, Maori Seats

The Herald reports:

The Cabinet is expected to reject Maori seats on the Auckland Super City council today.

This is no real surprise. It is in line with National’s long standing policy, and the Government’s initial decision.

Blair M in comments in a previous thread suggested as a compromise a non-voting Councillor, and this is an option which I think could have been worth pursuing, and might even have application for local bodies beyond Auckland.

The Royal Commission proposed three Maori seats – two from voters on the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by mana whenua – the local Iwi effectively.

Now I have never been a fan of separate electoral rolls, despite the good intentions of those who back them. I think it is unhealthy long-term to have New Zealanders divided up into those with some Maori ancestry (no matter how small) and those without. Especially as long-term over a quarter of New Zealanders will have some Maori ancestry. It becomes arbitrary. And long-term I fear we end up like Fiji with the population split 50/50 and divided on our differences instead of united.

The idea of mana whenua representation on the Auckland Council holds greater appeal to me (and to the Maori Party it seems). Iwi are permanent entities that have historical and ongoing legitimate interest in what happens on their traditional lands. They do have legal rights under the common law, let alone any moral obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

However allowing Iwi to appoint a voting Councillor runs contrary to democratic principles. You may have half a dozen Kaumata deciding on a Councillor who gets the same voting power as someone elected by 80,000 people. So I can’t support a voting mana whenua Councillor.

The compromise which I think would have been worth pursuing is the idea that local Iwi within a Council’s area can appoint a non voting Councillor. The Councillor has all the same rights as an elected Councillor – attend all meetings, speak on any issue, be paid a salary, request information from management – but in the (hopefully) relatively rare cases where there is a partisan vote split, they would not have a vote.

The members of the Iwi would have their voting represention done through the elected Councillors (whom they vote for like everyone else), but the Iwi as a whole would have the ability to have a voice at Council (not buried in a seperate Committee) to protect their interests as the original mana whenua.

One of the issues New Zealand has never really grappled with, is the constitutional relationship between Iwi and the Crown. It seems to me the idea of allowing each Iwi to appoint a non-voting Councillor onto their local authority could be a significant step forward.

Where a local authority has more than say three local Iwi, then perhaps you would require the Iwi to select just three representatives between themselves (or even two). So if there are two local Iwi, they each appoint a non voting Councillor. If there were six local Iwi, they would decide amongt themselves on two or three non voting Councillors.

Tags: Auckland Council, Iwi, Local Body Politics, mana whenua, Maori Seats

I was interviewed by Radio New Zealand about ACT’s stance on the Maori Seats. The interview was here.

There were in fact two interviews. The first I was not at all critical of what had happened. As I have said on this blog, I think it is quite appropriate that Rodney says he could not carry on as Local Government Minister if it means introducing a bill he does not agree with.

They then rang me back half an hour later and said that Rodney was now saying he would quit all his portfolios if the Government went with Maori seats. This appears to not be a correct interpretation of what Rodney actually said – I understand he said it would be up to the PM if he kept his other portfolios. On the basis of what Radio NZ told me, I said that a threat to resign all portfolios would be a significant upping of the stakes and unhelpful.

In a later part of the piece, they quote me saying that while ACT supporters may be pleased with Rodney’s strong stand, the way he has gone about it is somewhat disappointing. I want to make clear that was in relation to the reported comments to resign all portfolios, not the decision (made back in June) to relinquish Local Government if there were Maori Seats.

I am also quoted as saying “It is generally preferable that negotiations happen behind closed doors and without ultimatiums about resigning portfolios”. This gives the perception I am blaming Rodney for this issue going public. I am not.

As I wrote for NBR on Friday:

Act also suffers from the publicizing of the leaked e-mail. …

I think that is unfair on Rodney as he was not the one who leaked the National Caucus e-mail – I doubt he is that happy this has been made public.

I in no way think Rodney was responsible for taking this issue public. I have specifically pointed out they have suffered from it being made public.

I don’t know who leaked the e-mail, but as it was sent by a National MP to his colleagues, the logicial conclusion is it was a National MP or staffer. I doubt Rodney has hired Nicky hager to intercept the Nats e-mails

So in summary my position is:

1. I think it is entirely appropriate that Rodney has said he would not continue as Local Government Minister if he seriosuly disagrees with a Local Government bill or law proposed or passed by the Government
2. I think it was someone in National who leaked the Henare e-mail
3. I do think it would be a bad thing, if Rodney was threatening to resign all portfolios, rather than just Local Government, in relation to this issue. However it is not at all clear he has done so.

Tags: Maori Seats, Radio NZ, Rodney Hide

How nice to see disagreeing parties acting maturely on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council.

ACT are firmly against Maori seats and Rodney Hide has said:

Mr Hide said he told Mr Key: “Just to be absolutely clear, you have got our support for supply and confidence but as a minister, as the Act leader, I couldn’t be responsible for introducing to the House a bill that would have reserve seats in it.”

And that is fair enough that you can’t expect a Minister to introduce a bill if they are opposed to a major section of it. But there is no NZ First type talk of walking away from Government if they do not get their way.

And the Maori Party are being equally mature:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said last night that she was disappointed at Mr Hide’s position but her party’s support for the Government would not change. “We always knew when we went into this arrangement with National that there would be issues that would take us right to the wire and this is one of them.

“But we have no intentions of withdrawing support for the Government and we have no intention of withdrawing our ministerial roles. That’s not what we went into the relationship for.”

It is inevitable that the Maori Party and ACT are not going to agree on everything, and that whatever National decides will disappoint one of them on this issue.

I believe the solution is easy, and has always been there. Parliament should not decide for Aucklanders whether or not to have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The Local Government and Electoral Acts allows local voters to decide this by way of referendum. If Aucklanders wants Maori seats on the Auckland Council, they should petition for them (only needs 5%) and gain a majority in the referendum. Having Wellington impose Maori seats on Auckland is a very different issues to having Auckland decide for itself whether or not it wants Maori seats.

Tags: ACT, Auckland Council, Maori Party, Maori Seats, Rodney Hide, Tariana Turia

Chris Barton has an interesting article on Maori Seats in Auckland. But first his final summary:

• Maori make up 11 per cent of the region and 9 per cent of local body winners.

• Asians comprise 19 per cent of greater Auckland but hold just 4 per cent of council seats.

• Pacific peoples make up 14 cent of the population. They, too, have 4 per cent of elected local body positions.

So over the Region, Maori are barely under-represented at all – nothing compared to Asian representation or Pacific representation. So the issue is not about representation, but whether the Treaty demands reserved seats for Maori.

Barton says:

The slightly ajar door has the Maori party scrambling to come up with a proposal that would be acceptable to National – understood to be just two, rather the previously proposed three, seats. And with candidates required to show affiliation to mana whenua (local Maori with ancestral ties to the land) and voted in by Aucklanders on the Maori electoral roll.

That is an improvement, but unless they increase the number of ward seats, there should be only one seat for those on the Maori roll – as Maori also get to vote for the at large Councillors.

An issue that may be worth considering, is that some of those currently on the Maori roll, may not want to lose the right to vote in a geographic ward, and be forced into a Maori ward. Normally you can only change rolls after each census – so not until 2011.

Also what if someone wants to vote on the Maori roll for parliamentary elections but would like to vote in a geographic ward for the Auckland Council elections? Perhaps there should be seperate rolls?

Why should there be Maori seats?

It’s the Treaty, stupid. Why the Government chose to ignore the Royal Commission’s extensive research and consultation on this matter is difficult to fathom. The Commission concluded there should be three safeguarded seats for Maori – two voted from the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by a mana whenua committee.

And the Royal Commission got it badly wrong. Even if you agree that there should be Maori seats, their proposal had a vote for a Maori Councillor worth four times as much as a vote for a geographic ward councillor.

The principle of equality of vote (within a small tolerance) is a vital one.

Its primary reason was “to give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also came into play, said the Commission, but to a lesser extent.

It is highly debatable that the intent of wording of the Treaty requires reserved Maori seats. They only came about through a desire to allow Maori to vote despite not having individual land titles. Now yes they have assumed a different significance over time – but it is all too simplistic to just call them a Treaty obligation.

The provision of three safeguarded seats for Maori is also consistent with the spirit and intent of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires local authorities to establish processes for Maori to contribute to decision making.

And there is a big difference between a process to contribute, and reserved seats.

I don’t agree with the position Barton advocates, but it is a very good article.

Tags: Auckland Council, Chris Barton, Maori Seats

It would be very interesting to know if the sucess rate in Auckland for Maori candidates differs greatly from non-Maori candidates.

Tags: Auckland Council, Maori Seats, Toa Greening

The Herald will be updating coverage of the Hikoi here.

I find it ironic that several of the Mayors will be joining the Hikoi. If they were so in favour of Maori seats, why did they not have them created on their existing Councils?

And while I have no problem with the Hikoi overall (the right to protest is vital), it would be useful to have greater clarity about what exactly is being demanded.

Is it to have one or more seats elected by people on the Maori roll only, or is it also to have one or more seats directly appointed by local Iwi?

The original Royal Commission proposal was highly flawed. I blogged on 31 March:

Three Maori Councillors for 90,000 persons on Maori roll is one per 30,000. Ten Ward Councillors for those on general roll of 1.28 million is one per 128,000.

So even if you accept there should be Council seats reserved for those on the Maori roll and/or mana whenua, the Royal Commission proposal gives four times the voting strength by allocating three seats. The correct number, it seems to me is one seat.

Some may say 3/23 is 13% and that is close to the Maori population of 11% of Auckland. But that overlooks that those on Maori roll also get to vote for the ten at large seats. The correct comparison is population on Maori roll vs population on the general roll in the wards.

So does Phil Goff and Labour support what the Royal Commission proposed, even though it gives those on the Maori roll four times the voting strength of non-Maori?

There has been talk about the lack of Maori on Auckland local bodies. And I can appreciate the concern. But has there been an analysis measuring the success rate of Maori candidate and non-Maori candidates? Is the problem more that non many Maori have stood for office in Auckland? I don’t know – but would like to see such an analysis made available to the select committee.

Finally a prediction. We keep hearing that only white people in Remuera can win an at large seat (a nice form of reverse racism). I dispute that. If John Tamihere and WIllie Jackson stand for an at large seat, I reckon they would bolt in.

Tags: Auckland Council, Maori Seats

Auckland City Councillor Paul Goldsmith has a forceful op-ed:

What’s the harm of having three Maori seats on the new Auckland City Council, as recommended by Justice Peter Salmon and his Royal Commission on Auckland Governance? In my view, plenty.

The best indication of potential harm is the bizarre suggestion democracy should be thrown out the window for one of the Maori seats so that one councillor is appointed by mana whenua.

What is the model that we’re emulating? Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs, the British aristocracy’s hereditary rights to sit in the House of Lords? An unelected group of men from one ethnic group, and possibly one network of families, decides who goes on to the council?

I have to say that if one is to have direct Maori representation, it is reatly preferable that it be by democratic vote of those on the Maori electoral roll, not a private appointment by an Iwi.

It reflects a worrying trend. The implication in retaining democratically elected Maori seats has been that to be represented in a democracy in the same way as everyone else is not good enough for Maori. Now we are being told that having specific Maori seats is also not sufficient for Maori, there needs to be direct appointments by Maori elders as well.

Indeed. And already there are calls that one mana whenua representative is not enough, but there must be two – one for Ngati Whatua and one for Tainui. They can’t possibly share.

Tags: Local Body Politics, Maori Seats, Paul Goldsmith

I’ve been looking more closely at the proposed representation for the 23 strong Auckland Council and there are some issues.

At the parliamentary level, all electorates are meant to be the same size, within a 5% tolerance.

At local body level, the number of residents per Councillor is meant to be realtively equal, so that those in one neighbourhood do not get less or more say than those in another. There is some flexibility as small distinct communities (like Hauraki Gulf Islands) can’t be given just 0.4 of a Councillor, but the current Auckland City Council wards are:

• Avondale-Roskill Ward – 90,459/4 = 22,615
• Eastern Bays Ward – 45,798/2 = 22,899
• Eden-Albert Ward – 59,454/3 = 19,818
• Hauraki Gulf Islands Ward – 8,637/1 = 8,637
• Hobson Ward – 74,388/3 = 24,796
• Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward – 88,218/4 = 22,055
• Western Bays Ward – 37,704/2 = 18,852

So with the exception of Hauraki Gulf, the residents per Councillor range from 18,852 to 24,796. About as equal as you can get them, without having ward boundaries significantly change.

Now what are the proposed local Councils for the new Auckland Council:

• Rodney 54,000/1 = 54,000
• Waitemata 261,000/2 = 130,500
• Waitakere 198,000/2 = 99,000
• Tamaki-makau-rau 397,000/2 = 198,500
• Manukau 387,000/2 = 193,500
• Hunua 72,000/1 = 72,000

This is massively out of kilter. The local Council boundaries are unsuitable to also be the ward boundaries. So either one has to change the local Council boundaries, or have City wards which do not correspond to the local Council boundaries. Now the RC has not said that the local Councils must be the ward boundaries but they have said four urban wards and two rural wards, and we happen to have four urban local Councils proposed and two rural ones.

But even more out of kilter is the proposal for there to be 3/23 seats reserved for Maori – two elected by voters on the Maori electoral roll, and one appointed by mana whenua. But many Maori do not go on the Maori roll – only about 60% do.

Now population of Auckland is around 1.37 million. 11% of that is Maori which is 0.15 million. However say 40% are on general roll and 60% on Maori roll. So 0.09 million on Maori roll and 1.28 million on general roll.

Three Maori Councillors for 90,000 persons on Maori roll is one per 30,000. Ten Ward Councillors for those on general roll of 1.28 million is one per 128,000.

So even if you accept there should be Council seats reserved for those on the Maori roll and/or mana whenua, the Royal Commission proposal gives four times the voting strength by allocating three seats. The correct number, it seems to me is one seat.

Some may say 3/23 is 13% and that is close to the Maori population of 11% of Auckland. But that overlooks that those on Maori roll also get to vote for the ten at large seats. The correct comparison is population on Maori roll vs population on the general roll in the wards.

Tags: Auckland, Local Body Politics, Maori Seats, Royal Commission on Auckland

TV3 just did a shock expose story on something that has been in the public domain since November 2008. Just because they didn’t do research doesn’t excuse them saying:

Had this not been leaked, it raises the question of whether National would have ever told anyone.

The issue is the agreement to fund an extra staff member in Out of Parliament offices of MPs whose electorate is larger than 20,000 sq km or is a Maori seat. I’ll come back to the merits of the policy later. But first the total beatup that this was some sort of secret only revealed by leaked documents. Have a look at the actual supply and confidence agreement signed by National and the Maori Party on the 16th of November 2008. It says:

The challenges of servicing the disproportionately large size of the Maori electorates will be addressed through immediate implementation of the recommendation from the March 2007 report of the Committee of the Third Triennial Review (Goulter report).

There is inequity in respect of the support that Parliament provides the very large electorates compared to the very small ones. One comparison is between Te Tai Tonga (147,000 sq km) and Epsom (22 sq km).

So this was as public as you can get. The supply and confidence agreement was massively reported on at the time. TV3 has stuffed up big time by painting this as some sort of hidden initiative.

The other aspect totally lacking in the TV3 story was what this decision was based on. As the supply and confidence agreement states, it was recommended by a neutral independent reviewer (John Goulter) in March 2007. And what did the Goulter review say. On page 92:

“That all Maori constituent Members of Parliament and each constituency Member of Parliament with an electorate in excess of 20,000 sq km in area be entitled to the services of an extra staff member to equate to three full-time equivalent out of Parliament support staff members”

So this was a open and public decision to implement the recommendation of a neutral expert reviewer. That does not mean it was a good decision (in fact I disagree with aspects of it), but TV3 were dishonest with their portrayal of it as National MPs voting them and their allies more money in secret. They even listed the MPs names with dollar signs next to them as if they were personally getting the money. In fact they are merely getting permission to hire a third staff member.

Now as it happens this issue has been reported on before – by myself and Home Paddock. Despite both being Nats we have been critical of the actual policy because of an inequality. The smallest Maori seat, as Home Paddock pointed out on 16 November is Tamaki Makaurau being only 730 sq kms in size. So why include that in extra resources?

I’d personally blogged twice on this issue previously. I actually commented when the agreement was announced:

I would rather decisions like this are made through the Parliamentary Service Commission. But this was recommended by the Goulter review, and two offices are not enough for some of those large electorates.

I didn’t like the idea of funding arrangements being decided bilaterally, but noted the fact it had been recommended mitigated that.

Then I linked to Home Paddock’s post and commented on 18 November 2008:

It is hard to justify a third staffer for Tamaki Makauru, when it is so much smaller than the other Maori seats.

I went on to propose the policy should be based on size only, so should be:

To be fair to all large seats, the agreement should be modified to be either:

1. Only three of the Maori seats and four general seats over 20,000 sq km
2. Five Maori seats, and four general seats over 15,000 sq km
3. Six Maori seats and six general seats over 12,500 sq km
4. All seven Maori seats and 27 general seats over 730 sq km

So you actually had a couple of Nats four months ago criticising the policy, before the media had even run a single story on it.

Really TV3 actually stuffed in every regard. The story they should have run is on the inequality of including Tamaki Makaurau when it is not a large seat. That is the legitimate issue you can criticise the decision over. I’d like to ask John Goulter (who made the recommendation) why he included them.

But instead of doing analysis they tried to portray this as some sort of secret hidden decision that only came to light due to a leak. They either did not know or decided not to mention that it had been announced four months ago. And they also neglected to mention it was implementing the decision of a neutral independent reviewer. A highly relevant fact.

UPDATE: looking more closely at the TV3 story, it looks like the Government decided not to fund Tamaki Makaurau for a third staff member (they only list the other six Maori seats), despite the recommendation and agreement it be all Maori seats. If correct, that is a good thing. It also means the story is then even more of a beat up.

Tags: Maori Seats, taxpayer funding, TV3

Florence from Te Papa has commented on the constitutional issues thread:

Since the Maori seats are part of the listed constitutional issues, I thought you might be interested by this event we’re organising at Te Papa: on Thursday 5 February, 6.30-8pm, we’re having a debate between Professor Philip Joseph and Derek Fox about the future of Maori seats in Parliament.

This will be webcast live from Te Papa’s website, so anybody can watch it. We’ll also allow people to ask their questions through our blog, by email or via a live chat.

So join us on Thursday, we really want to hear from anybody who’s interested in this subject.
http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/treatydebates

That’s great it is online, and allows online questions and feedback. Plus you can attend in person for free. I plan to listen online.

Tags: Derek Fox, Maori Seats, Philip Joseph, Te Papa

One of the smaller items in the agreement with the Maori Party was the agreement to fund a third out of parliament staff member for the seven Maori seats and any general seat over 20,000 sq kms.

I wondered what seats would qualify, and Homepaddock has the answers:

1. Te Tai Tonga – 161,443
2. Clutha-Southland – 38,247
3. West Coast-Tasman – 38,042
4. Te Tai Hauauru – 35,825
5. Waitaki – 34,888
6. Ikaroa-Rawhiti – 30.952
7. Kaikoura – 23,706

So only three of the seven Maori seats are over 20,000 kms. Next we have

1. Waiariki – 19,212
2. Te Tai Tokerau – 16,370
3. East Coast 13,649
4. Taranaki-King Country 12,869
5. Hauraki-Waikato – 12,580

You could cut the line at 15,000 but if Hauraki-Waikato gets a third staffer, shouldn’t East Coast and TKC?

And then we have the seventh Maori seats – Tamaki Makauru at 730 sq kms.  There are a further 21 general seats between Tamaki Makauru and Hauraki-Waikato.

To be fair to all large seats, the agreement should be modified to be either:

1. Only three of the Maori seats and four general seats over 20,000 sq km
2. Five Maori seats, and four general seats over 15,000 sq km
3. Six Maori seats and six general seats over 12,500 sq km
4. All seven Maori seats and 27 general seats over 730 sq km

It is hard to justify a third staffer for Tamaki Makauru, when it is so much smaller than the other Maori seats.

Tags: electorates, Maori Party, Maori Seats

Labour won the party vote easily in all seven Maori seats. Their party vote ranged from 45% to 57%, and the Maori Party ranged from 21% to 34%. Waiariki was closest with an 11% gap and Ikaroa-Rawhiti had a 31% gap.

In 2005 Labour ranged from 49% to 58% and Maori Party from 18% to 31% so not much change on the party vote.

National in 2005 got from 2.7% to 7.4% in the Maori seats. In 2008 it was from 5.5% to 10.9% so a very small improvement there.

The electorate votes we start from Te Taik Tokerau in the North. Hone Harawira won it by 3,600 in 2005 over Dover Samuels. This time he has a 5,500 majority.

Pita Sharples evicted John Tamihere from Tamaki Makaurau by 2,100 in 2005 and holds it over Louisa Wall by a massve 6,300.

In Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell won by 2,900 in 2005. In 2008 he doubles that to 6,000.

Nanaia Mahuta held onto Tainui by 1,860. The boundary changes to Hauraki-Waikato did not favour her, so she did well to hold on by 1,046.

In Te Tai Hauauru, Tariana Turia won by 5,000 in 2005 and this time he rmajority is almost 7,000.

The big battle was in Ikaroa-Rawhiti. Parekura held off Atareta Poananga by 1,932 in 2005, and Poananga’s former partner, Derek Fox, challenged in 2008. But Fox fell short by 1,609.

Finally in the South, Te Tai Tonga was held by Mahara Okeroa in 2005 by 2,500. New Maori Party candidate Rahui Katene beat him by 684 votes in 2008.

Tags: Atareta Poananga, Derek Fox, Election 2008, Hauraki-Waikato, Hone Harawira, Ikaroa-Rawhiti, Labour, Mahara Okeroa, Maori Party, Maori Seats, Nanaia Mahuta, National, Parekura Horomia, Pita Sharples, Rahui Katene, Tamaki Makaurau, Tariana Turia, Te Tai Hauauru, Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Tonga, Te Ururoa Flavell, Waiariki

Greg Fortuin writes in the Herald:

This Saturday, Tariana Turia’s amazing walk from occupation to Parliament will culminate in the Maori Party harvesting all seven seats as Maori grasp their opportunity to forcefully shape the nation’s future.

But the polls are not going their way, with Maori TV/TNS poll showing Mahuta ahead by 13% in Hauraki-Waikato and Horomia ahead by 5% in Ikaroa-Rawhiti.

In recent weeks there has been a Marae Digipoll and a Maori TV TNS poll in each of the Labour held Maori seats. Here is what they say:

• Hauraki-Waikato: Mahuta ahead by 13% by TNS and ahead by 1% by Digipoll
• Ikaroa Rawhiti – Horomia ahead by 5% by TNS and 5% by DIgipoll
• Te Tai Tonga: – Okeroa ahead by 10% by TNS but trailing by 6% by Digipoll

It will be interesting to see which polls turn out to be more accurate with the Maori seats – especially in Te Tai Tonga.

A clean sweep by the Maori Party isn’t totally off the cards, but the odds look to favour Labour keeping some or all of the three seats. Maybe their campaign suggesting the Maori Party would go with National is working?

Ironically the more Maori seats Labour wins, the better it is for National, as it reduces potential overhang and means National can form a Government with maybe just 61 MPs instead of 62 or 63 MPs.

Tags: Maori Seats, overhang, Polls

In an extraordinary and desperate flip-flop, One News reported tonight that Helen Clark said she now supports entrenching the Maori Seats, a policy the Maori Party has indicated may be a bottom line. Never mind she didn’t a few days ago – TVNZ amusingly showed her also saying that was not their policy in 2005, yet denying it was a flip-flop.

But what is really amusing is she has scored a massive own goal. How? Go back and read what Chapman Tripp said on entrenching the Maori Seats:

However, to add the Maori seats to the list of entrenched matters will require more than a majority vote in Parliament. When entrenching something new, the Standing Orders and our constitutional conventions come into play.

The Standing Orders state: “A proposal for entrenchment must itself be carried in a committee of the whole House by the majority that it would require for the amendment or repeal of the provision to be entrenched.” In other words, a proposal for entrenchment can only be passed by the super-majority it proposes – in this case, 75 per cent. …

On current polls, a 75 per cent vote in the next Parliament will require getting both National and Labour into the “ayes” lobby.

What this means for the Maori Party, even if it is in the position post-election to decide who gets to lead the next government, is it will have to somehow persuade both the suitor it is accepting and the suitor it is rejecting to support it.

Now think about how things play out now that Labour have said their policy is to support entrenchment and National has said its policy is not to.

If the Maori Party go with Labour, then they will not have a 75% majority. National will have no reason to change its policy and Labour/Maori Party will fail to entrench the seats. Labour can not deliver on entrenchment without National.

Now what happens if the Maori Party go with National, and as part of that they manage to negotiate that National support entrenchment in exchange for various concessions on other issues. Well they also will not have 75%, But here is the great thing – Helen has already announced that Labour’s policy is now to support entrenchment. Labour will have to vote to entrench the seats, even though they are not in Government, or risk a mighty backlash from Maoridom for having lied to them about supporting entrenchment.

In her desperation to get close to the Maori Party, she has massively blundered by giving away one of her major post-election negotiating items. She has actually given the Maori Party an increased incentive to go with National, as that is the only way to get the 75% needed to entrench the Maori seats.

Well done, Chief Political Strategist Clark.

Tags: Chapman Tripp, coalition options, entrenchment, Helen Clark, Labour, Maori Party, Maori Seats, National

I’ve blogged over on curiablog the results fo several recent electorate polls, including tonight’s one in Tauranga. The topline results are:

• Tauranga – Bridges 26% ahead of Peters. Labour’s Pankhurst in 4th place at 5%. NZ First Party Vote down from 13% in 2005 to 6%.
• Palmerston North – National candidate Malcolm Plimmer ahead by 3%
• Ikaroa-Rawhiti – Parekura Horomia 5.4% ahead of Derek Fox
• Nelson – Nick Smith 36% ahead of Maryan Street
• West Coast-Tasman – Damien O’Connor 3.5% ahead of Chris Auchinvole
• Te Tai Tonga – Maori TV/TNS has Mahara Okeroa ahead of Rahui Katene by 10% – 49% to 39%. However Marae Digipoll has Okeroa bejind by 6% – 40% to 46%
• Hauraki-Waikato – Nanaia Mahuta ahead of Angeline Greensill by 0.6%

All three Maori seats held by Labour are highly competitive. In two seats Labour is ahead and in the seat with conflcitign results, an averaging of them out would see Labour ahead. This means that the Maori Party may not have much of an overhang at all – in fact they could even gain a List MP if they got 4% or so party vote.

Palmerston North is the only Labour held seat that a public poll has shown National ahead in, so far. Due to boundary changes Taupo and Rotorua are technically National’s on paper.

Based on boundary changes and public polls (and note this is not a personal prediction) the electorate seats would be:

1. National 35
2. Labour 28
3. Maori 4
4. ACT 1
5. United Future 1
6. Progressive 1

Labour will in one sense be very pleased to be ahead in all three Maori seats. However this does lessen their chances of winning via overhang.

And the Tauranga result is superb. With only 5% voting Labour on the electorate vote anyway, it means no amount of tactical voting in Tauranga can put Winston back in that way.

Tags: Angeline Greensill, Anne Pankhurst, chris auchinvole, Damien O'Connor, Derek Fox, Hauraki-Waikato, Ikaroa-Rawhiti, Labour, Larry Baldock, Mahara Okeroa, Malcolm Plimmer, Maori Party, Maori Seats, Maryan Street, Nanaia Mahuta, Nelson, Nick Smith, Palmerston North, Parekura Horomia, Polls, Rahui Katene, Simon Bridges, Tauranga, Te Tai Tonga, West Coast-Tasman, Winston First