THE MAORI SEATS The case against

Tu Tangata, Issue 3, 1 November 1981, Page 6

THE MAORI SEATS The case against

Students of Maori politics attribute both non-enrolment and the low proportion of valid votes cast to the difficulties facing people endeavouring to enrol and vote on the Maori roll. For example, if we look at the Maori roll, enrolment forms and voting papers have been available only at certain centres, whose locations have often been poorly publicised. Where a polling booth has no Maori roll, then voters have to cast a special vote which involves complicated form-filling and the presence of witnesses. The special efforts made by the authorities and political associations to ensure enrolment and get people to the poll have not effectively been extended to Maori people. Finally, enquiries amongst those Maori who have enrolled and voted on the general roll established that they do so, not because they reject identification, but for practical political reasons. In voting for a Pakeha member of parliament they feel they have readier access to the member of a smaller localised electorate (especially in urban areas), and they feel also that their votes are politically more useful where the contest between the parties is closer than in Maori electorates.

If we look at the 1978 elections, we find that two things happened. There was a record increase in the numbers of registered Maori voters between elections. Despite this record increase of 40,000-odd voters on the Maori roll, only 43% actually cast a valid vote! This was a record low. Why the dramatic in-

crease of registered Maori electors between 1975 and 1978! And having enrolled, why did they not vote! I would argue that it is in the interests of our two-party political system to keep the rolls in their current state of confusion. No way do they want 150,000 additional voters on the general roll. The balance of power is volatile enough without adding an ethnic-class element to it! Probably the two most significant .events over the past three years were the Hunua case and the defection of Matt

Rata from the Labour Party. HUNUA Had the Hunua election petition been repeated in a Maori electorate, the Electoral Court would have been forced to declare the elections in the four Maori seas invalid on the grounds that the rolls contained an unspecified number of unqualified voters. The Wicks Committee recommended a complete voter reregistration. However, the Justic Depart-

ment decided against it because of their progress in cleansing the rolls. The outcome of the Hunua petition and the findings of the Wicks Committee was that the Maori electoral rolls in particular were in a mess and that a lot of work needed to be done to rectify the situation.

The law at the present time does not allow the Electoral Office to tell people that their votes are invalid because they had failed to register. In the 1980 Northem Maori by-election, 2,429 (or 84%) of the special votes cast were disallowed. Most of these votes were disallowed because constituents had not enrolled. My understanding of electoral procedures is that it is mandatory for people to register on the roll. If this is the case, then many Maori were breaking the law and should have been prose-

cuted. The system did not pursue this option, perhaps mindful of the Pandora’s box it would open. Here we have the law saying one thing and its executants doing the opposite. MANA MOTUHAKE When Matt Rata resigned, I could understand his motives and his observation that Labour’s indifference to the needs of Maoridom in the interests of efficiency and unity showed the power of

the modern party system. His action at the time, however, did not go far enough. If he had set out on a course of political martyrdom, then he should not only have severed his ties with the Labour Party, but also encouraged the Maori people to denounce a political system which leaves them with little effective power. So far his actions have not really brought into focus the real question, which is the effectiveness of maintaining separate ethnic representation. The Maori seats conveniently back our people into a corner and are a major factor in discouraging either party from being sensitive to Maori needs. In the light of Social Credit’s emergence, it will be interesting to see how they capitalise on the situation.

I do not expect Rata to gain support for his move from his former parliamentary colleagues. After all, they have a vested interest in the present system and are not likely to voluntarily join the ranks of the unemployed after the 1981 elections. I think if Rata were to appeal to Maori youth and explain the realities of New Zealand politics and the place of the Maori within the system, he could initiate a groundswell of Maori support to exercise their political clout.

Given the current economic climate and the volatility of the political scene, Rata’s move thought through and articulated clearly might just prove to be the catalyst for concerted Maori political action. If politics is about who gets what, when and how, then the Maori are not even in the hunt. They stand outside mainstream politics which isolate them ethnically by including them within the structure of party politics.

THE POLITICAL FUTURE

Given this background, several issues become apparant. New Zealand’s politi-

cal scene is made up of two ethnic segments Maori and non-Maori each separate and with its own representation and regime. The continued presence of the four special seats places the Maori in a clearly subordinate position in what is otherwise a territorial system of representation. The fact that four seats are reserved for Maori is something of a paradox. For here we are, as a country, taking pride in the harmony of our race relations and emphasising that a fundamental tenet of our society is equality. Yet upon closer inspection, what do we find! The same people accepting, largely without question, the continued existence of two separate patterns of parliamentary representation. One is based on universal suffrage, regardless of race, and on the other on ethnic considerations. Whilst the general electorates exemplify the goals of equality and fairness that we profess internationally, the electorates seem to negate these principles at every point.

Because of these factors, we operate at the present time under a dual handicap. Ethnically, we are a minority group, in that we comprise something like 10% of the total population. Politically, we are a minority in that we comprise something like 5% of the total number of seats in Parliament. Yet somehow we have been led to believe that as a double minority we have a privileged status, not only within the country, but also when compared to other groups such as the Aborigines and American Indians.

ALTERNATIVES

What then are the alternatives open to us. We could play it safe. Proponents of this view argue, ‘‘Let’s keep what we have and fight for more of the same. The Maori seats, like the Maori All Blacks, are an essential part of our Maoritanga.” Others, like the New Zealand Maori Council, seek changes within the current set-up to enable the number of seats to be increased. They have set out to work towards this objective over the next two elections.

There is another school of thought which seeks change in the electoral system itself to enable Maori, as well as other ethnic minorities and interest groups, to be adequately represented. Proportional representation, federalism and other variations are proposed. Alan Mcßobie, from Canterbury’s Political Science Department, presented submissions calling for the abolition of the four seats and suggesting that these should be replaced with an electoral system based on multi-member electorates with Members of Parliament being elected on a simple transferable voting system. The adoption of such a system would mean the Maori seats could be abolished, yet a Maori presence in Parliament would still be guaranteed. This system would also enable significant minority ethnic groups to be provided with parliamentary representation from people of their own ethnic group. In brief, it would provide proportional, as well as ethnic, representation. This system would enable significant geographical, cultural and ethnic minorities to be fairly represented within a single electoral system.

CONCLUSION

Norman Kirk, when speaking about the future of this country, used to say New Zealand needed the “guts of Israel, the skills of Sweden and the heart and soul of Polynesia’’. Given our present position, the Maori may well have to acquire the “will of Palestinians” too to make this country realise that we too belong. We too have a homeland, we too have identity, we too have a language and we too have a vision of the promised land.

Many people think that the Maori enjoys a privileged status in this country. So do monkeys in a zoo. Everyone tells us what is good for us. Only the wearer of the shoe can tell where it pinches most. It is not surprising, therefore, to read that Maori dissatisfaction over a number of issues has been simmering for some time. We only need to look at the Land March, Ngati Hine, Bastion Point, Tauranga, Wanganui and Taranaki, to name a few. Couple traditional issues with the current malaise within society such as land rights, education, unemployment, and it will only be a matter of time before the facade is shattered.

Effective participation in the political process, power-sharing at all levels, and a general willingness to initiate change, are crucial to our survival as a country. I believe that party politics have kept us in political limbo, in “no man’s land”. The only way we are going to change our condition is to change to the present system. The abolition of the Maori seats and movement onto the general roll would enable our demographic reality to be expressed in political terms. Auckland (4), Wellington (2), Hamilton (2), Rotorua, Whangarei, Kaitaia, the

East Coast and Rangiriri would have to reflect Maori aspirations. All parties must provide voters with work and shelter. Beyond that it will be the cultural imperative that will force politicians to face up to our “other needs”. STATUS QUO In view of the overwhelming and continuing Maori vote for Labour, it is debatable whether special representation is of any advantage today. As long as all the Maori members of parliament are Labour, Maori are virtually shorn of power and positive participation when a National government is in power. This has long been one of the reasons advanced by the National Party for the Maori voter to switch his allegiance during Labour’s long period in opposition. Neither party has yet chosen a Maori as a candidate for a “safe” seat in a Pakeha electorate. Nevertheless, Maoris have been nominated for marginal electorates and three Maori candidates won election at the 1978 elections (Couch, Austin and Peters). National capitalised on this to argue that separate representation is no longer valid. As far as Labour is concerned, four in the hand

(and, if possible, eight), are worth more than a likely sixteen in the bush. Alternatively, National would prefer to rewrite the rules so that both parties start with none in the hand and scramble for the sixteen in the bush. So the status quo is favoured by a segment of Maoridom as a means of guaranteeing ethnic representation. REAWAKENING There may well be a reawakening of Maori political interest and a greater willingness to consider the prospects of integrated representation. Under the new electoral rules, it will be interesting to see how many Maori decide to go onto the general roll. My contention is that if they did so in large numbers, Maoris would increase their political effectiveness, since the presence of significant numbers of Maori constituents would force members of Parliament to become more knowledgeable about, and pay more attention to Maori views and interests. Within Maoridom it would be difficult to see Maori members and traditional leaders supporting such a move. The parliamentary representatives would resist any moves which could

possibly affect their own positions of influence, patronage and power in the Maori world. The abolition of the Maori seats would put them out of a job, or at least force them to scramble for nomination with other perhaps betterqualified candidates for the newlycreated seats. The Ratana Church, Kingitanga and other traditional organisations have built up a series of networks whereby consultation and participation in the decision-making process with Maori members is virtually guaranteed. Abolition and the urban bias of newly created seats would shift the focus from their more conservative and rural-orien-tated views to the more radical and progressively minded urban Maori. It seems likely, therefore, that initiatives for abolition will have to come from urbanbased organisations. In association with the trade unions, they will presumably be the groups who will provide likely candidates for the new seats. Traditional voting patterns will be affected in that constituents will be influenced to vote more along ethnic and class lines and it is this combination which will produce the “maverick” vote.