Who Are We?

SEPARATISM

This is the fifth of a series of articles on inter-ethnic relationships in New Zealand in the early 21st century and the development of an informal duality of citizenship, the acceptance of that duality by community leaders and the long-term potential for dis-harmony.

An observation in cultural identity and social cohesion.

Maori in Government

Maori seats in Parliament were established by Maori Representation Act 1867 and there were originally only four. Up to that time only men who held legal title to land were able to vote or stand for the New Zealand Legislative Council. In the

1860s, with a total population of about 800,000, only 3500 men were able to vote or stand for election. They included about 200 Maori men who had bought land with Crown title but, as Maori land was owned tribally or communally, the majority of Maori were not allowed to vote and few were interested until the impact of legislation on their lives became apparent.

Traditional Maori society was consensus-driven and patriarchal. The strict rules of democratic debate in a western-style parliament in the English language were serious impediments to Maori participation regardless of their outstanding skills in oratory, memory and altruism in their own setting.    

The 1867 law gave all Maori men aged 21 years and over the right to vote. A non-Maori man could vote only if he owned, leased, or rented property of a certain value. A residential qualification to vote was introduced in 1879.

By 1967 any person could stand for a Maori seat regardless of ethnicity and the Electoral Act 1893, which gave women the vote, set the number of Maori seats on the Legislative Council on the same basis as the general seats at four by the level of the electoral population and we now(in 2021) have seven Maori seats.

Only voters who have registered on the Maori roll are eligible to vote in the Maori seats. To be on the Maori roll, a voter must be of Maori descent. Since 1975, voters of Maori descent have been able to choose whether to go on the general roll or the Maori roll.

While it can be argued that the original justification for the Maori seats no longer exists, removing them would create unnecessary disharmony but many Maori leaders now see the seats as a form of separatism and a means of confining Maori political influence to an easily manageable group.

It has been predicted by influential Maori leaders we will have more Maori MPs in general seats and on the general roll than otherwise within the next decade. Some also see the newly established Maori Party is yet another form of separate rather than inclusive political representation which will soon be abandoned by Maori voters. Others (Hon Simon Bridges et al pers com) see recently-created Maori wards in local government also as a form of patronising separatism.

While there will always be those who will take advantage of any opportunity to further their political agendas most Maori don’t want separate representation. The fate of the Maori seats in Parliament should however be decided by Maoridom alone.

Contrary to recent public comment (Waikato Times April 1 2021: submission to Hamilton City Council) that the Maori “voice” in local government has not been silenced. There has never been any impediment to Maori or any other New Zealand citizen from standing for election. If Maori are under-represented in local government it is more likely due to a lack of candidates, or lack of interest than anything else. 

The Foreshore and Seabed

The Foreshore and Seabed debate should be seen in the light of the fisheries debate of the late 1980s. If an area of foreshore was not included in the sale of adjoining land when the original Maori owners sold it, and it has not been lawfully acquired in the intervening years there is clearly a prima-facie question of dispossession to be addressed.

If however the foreshore and seabed can be reasonably assumed to have been included in the original land sale, and many sales were agreed without inclusive or accurate surveys, there is probably no case to answer. The issue is far too complex and important to be resolved by pre-emptive legislation and should be thoroughly investigated by an appropriate judicial body.

As with the fisheries debate, the answer to the foreshore and seabed ownership question should establish pre-bargaining positions of the Crown and Maori and legislation should only be used to give legal permanence to agreed outcomes. It is important to note that none of the principal Maori claimants has indicated they want exclusive access to the foreshore. In fact, most have given a clear indication that the beaches should be available to everyone for recreation. It was only disingenuous politicians who raised the spectre of exclusion.

To be continued…