TIME FOR CHANGE?

Kaea, Issue 1, 1 December 1979, Page 13

TIME FOR CHANGE?

Tony Garnier

The question of whether we should have separate parliamentary representation is an old one, but it has received particular attention recently, stimulated by the controversy over the Hunua election results. We asked Tony Gamier, who had highlighted these issues in his “Weekwatch” column in the Wellington Evening Post , to give us his analysis of the situation. It is a point of view with which many people will disagree. Already Ngatata Love, in his column in Truth, has taken issue with Tony Gamier and says: “I would predict with confidence that any attempt to abolish Maori representation would be met with the sternest resistance from the grass roots of Maori society.” Would it? What do YOU think? Should we abolish the seats? Should we maintain the status quo? Or should we, as suggested by Professor Sidney Mead of Victoria University, rethink the situation and increase the number of Maori MPs to twelve? Write to Te Kaea and let us know, and we will publish the best letters.

Most Maoris want the four Maori seats in Parliament abolished immediately.

However, the improper actions of 1976 Census officials prevented a clear expression at the last general election of the grassroots Maori opinion which supports abolition. Statistical evidence suggests two things: Possibly 40,000 names of Maoris were improperly put on to the Maori electoral rolls for the last election. About 70 per cent of New Zealand’s Maori voting population is already on the general electorate rolls or not on any roll. The argument goes like this:

A major unresolved statistical mystery arising from the 1978 general election is the question of why the numbers of Maori registered voters jumped from 68,983 in 1975 to 109,598 in 1978. The 40,615 increase between the two elections was an all-time record it was far above the traditional increase of about 3,000. The previous largest increase was of about 14,000 between 1972 and 1975, when the voting age was reduced from twenty-one. Yet at the 1978 election, despite the record increase in Maori enrolment, just 42.65 per cent of those enrolled eventually cast a valid vote. This was an all-time low.

So why the dramatic increase of registered Maori electors between 1975 and 1978? And having enrolled, why didn’t they vote?

Evidence provided at the Hunua Electoral Court provided some vital clues to the probable answer. The court hearing highlighted the fact that votes were disallowed because they were from people registered on the Western Maori roll but who voted in the Hunua electorate. Evidence to the court indicated that at least some of these people had not enrolled themselves on the Maori roll.

In fact, the court heard, 1976 census officials had “ticked” the box provided on the census form and enrolled them on the Maori rolls. The court ruled that officials did not have legislative sanction to “guess upon which roll” to put the names of people who had declared themselves to be Maori at the 1976 census but who had not actually “ticked” the enrolment form provided with the census form. The court drew what it called “an inescapable inference” that had any

of the four Maori elections been challenged in an electoral court they would have been declared invalid.

But how many “guesses” did officials make? How many names were unilaterally placed on the Maori rolls?

Up until 1972 the usual increase in the number of enrolments was about 3,000. Between 1972 and 1975 the increase jumped by about 14,000, when the voting age was reduced. Yet between 1975 and 1978, the increase suddenly moved up to about 40,000, even though there was no other exceptional circumstance except that officials improperly enrolled people on the Maori rolls.

Yet the percentage of Maori voting has progressively dropped over the last three general elections, from 79.67 per cent of registered Maori voters in 1969, to 77.1 per cent in 1972, to 62.04 per cent in 1975 and the all-time low of 42.65 per cent in 1978. In contrast, about 80 per cent of eligible non-Maori voters turned out in 1978.

But the most clear-cut evidence indicating that Maoris want the Maori seats abolished is seen by comparing voting and population statistics. The 1976 census showed that there were 144,898 New Zealanders of Maori descent aged twenty or over entitled to be registered on the Maori rolls. Yet just 33.71 per cent actually voted on the Maori rolls. It leaves the possibility that at least 66.29 per cent of Maori people voted on the general roll or were not interested.

Quite apart from the huge administrative injustice over Maori voting thrown up by the Hunua Electoral Court evidence, the present system is archaic. It is contributing to New Zealand’s growing racial problems. Separate Maori representation was initiated last century. The aim was to give enhanced political voice and protection to the Maori people over their serious land questions.

While Maori land problems remain, there is no strong voice from the Maori MPs suggesting that this is still their dominant concern. They are like other MPs, concerned to look at all issues as need arises. Also, the Ratana church no longer has the “hold” on Maori parliamentary representation and Maoridom that it once did.

Instead, as New Zealanders, Maoris and non-Maoris now have the same basic economic, social and cultural needs and concerns.

All MPs, Maori and non-Maori, should be concerned over the needs of the young urban Maoris. This group now comprises about 60 per cent of new Zealand’s Maori population. National’s three MPs who happen to be Maori

likewise have a duty to represent the non-Maori people and their issues.

In today’s world, it is not race per se which counts, but identity with or attitude towards culture. A person’s ability to do a job, not his or her race or cultural background, should be the primary requisite to becoming a parliamentary candidate. An MP like Ben Couch, who happens to be Maori, is as effective, surely, at looking after non-Maori electorate issues, as many non-Maori MPs would be at forcefully pressing Maori land and marae issues.

Under the existing set up, both Labour and National can safely ignore the collective and special problems of the Maori people. National has no incentive to pursue seats which it apparently has no hope of winning. Likewise, Labour can virtually take them for granted.

In short, Parliament’s system of setting aside four seats exclusively for Maori representation may be helping to keep the races apart. The system represents an officially blessed line of demarcation between the races.

It is even undemocratic to the extent that Maoris, as a major group in New Zealand, have no capacity to “make or break” a Government as they should as do the farmers, manufacturers, teachers or trade unions. In the United States, the Black voters are widely regarded as the key “pressure group” responsible for President Carter’s election.

In contrast, separate Maori parliamentary representation is keeping the Maori population impotent as a political force. It is certainly hampering the building of a strengthened “all New Zealand” identity among both Maoris and non-Maoris alike.

Clearly, the strengthened competition for Maori support that would result under abolition of the Maori seats, would demand and ensure that all parties put up quality Maori candidates in winnable seats.

Yes, abolition of the Maori seats would be a good thing. It would be a positive step towards improving New Zealand’s race relations, by “forcing” through political reality non-Maoris to come to the party and learn, really learn the true spirit that is Maoritanga. It would make New Zealand, ultimately, a much better place in which to live.