|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
12
November 05
The
Referendum Option
Print
friendly version (PDF) 
View
>>>
Next year's census will be held on March 7th and it will be followed by the Maori Electoral Option. This five-yearly survey gives electors of Maori descent an opportunity to choose whether they want to be registered to vote on the Maori roll or the general roll.
At the present time there are seven Maori electorate seats and 113 general seats made up of 16 South Island electorate seats, 46 North Island electorate seats, and 51 Party list seats. If, more Maori exercise their option to enrol on the Maori roll, then there will be more Maori electorate seats in Parliament and fewer general seats. If all Maori electors enrolled on the Maori roll there would be 13
Maori seats and 107 general seats.
The Maori seats were first established in 1867 as a temporary measure to give Maori the vote. While New Zealand's 1853 electoral franchise was theoretically 'colour-blind', giving the vote to men over the age of 21 who held individual title to their land, the problem was that very few Maori qualified because their land was communally owned.
In spite of an expectation that the seats would be abolished after five years - it was thought that Maori land would be split into individual titles - they remained to become an anachronism from the past.
When the Royal Commission on the Electoral System was established in the mid 1980s, they investigated the wisdom of retaining the Maori seats. In the end they recommended that the seats be abolished, believing that under the proposed MMP system of voting, the representation of Maori and other minority groups would be greatly improved through inclusion in Party lists.
However, Maori objections led to the present system whereby the number of seats increases or decreases according to the Maori Electoral Option. This has resulted in an increase in the number of Maori seats to five in 1996, and seven in 2002.
The Maori Party has already announced that it intends to campaign hard next year to increase the number of Maori electorate seats. They believe that winning more seats would make it harder for them to be abolished. At the same time they acknowledge that many Maori will be reluctant to move from the general roll to the Maori roll.
After the census and Maori Option exercise are completed, the Representation Commission will make the final determinations on seats and boundaries. With these results expected in mid 2007, it seems to me that the time is now right to ascertain whether New Zealanders are supportive of the concept of a Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR) to abolish the Maori seats.
The CIR Act was passed unanimously by Parliament in 1993, but since that time, although 39 referenda have been proposed on matters as diverse as outlawing battery hens, saving forests, and changing the flag, only three have been successful. They were the 1995 firefighters referendum, supported by 87.8 percent of voters, and the 1999 proposals by Margaret Robertson to reduce the number of MPs and by Norm Withers to introduce tougher sentences for violent crime. They gained 81.5 and 91.8 percent support respectively.
Although all three referenda received overwhelming public support, because in New Zealand citizens' referenda are not binding, governments do not have to do much more than pay lip service to them.
It is concerns such as this that drives the Direct Democracy movement and led its founder Steve Baron to propose a CIR in 2003 to make citizens’ referenda binding on the government (Steve is this week's guest contributor). Sadly, as with the majority of other referendum proposals, the task of obtaining some 400,000 signatures within a twelve-month period - the hurdle that must be overcome for a CIR to be able to proceed - proved too great.
That is why I am using this column to test public support for a CIR to abolish the Maori seats. An NZCPD poll just a few weeks ago showed an overwhelmingly majority of respondents believed the continuing existence of the Maori seats is a wedge that promotes racial division. 98 percent wanted the seats abolished.
The power of the Internet now makes a CIR more achievable. Gone are the days when petitioners had to sit outside the post office asking passers-by to sign their forms.
Now, once the wording of a referendum question has been officially approved (a process which takes some three to four months), petition forms can be emailed out to interested parties, signed and posted back.
This week, I am asking readers to say whether they would be prepared to sign (and distribute) petition forms, and provide the contact details of others who may be prepared to do the same.
If I gather enough support I will begin the CIR process, so that New Zealand can decide whether the Maori seats should be retained.
But I also need to be realistic. To be successful I will need to receive around 50,000 email addresses from people who will be prepared to help. If you feel strongly about this issue, then please send this request onto as many other people as you can so that they too can register their willingness to help.
Print
friendly version (PDF)
View
>>>
This
weeks poll. Are
you prepared to support the holding of a referendum on the
Maori seats issue?
To take part in our online poll
>>>
Would you like to comment on this issue?
Yes >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Coming from a
country which promoted reverse discrimination to try and prop
up one section of society (India and the scheduled castes)at
the expense of the rest, I know only too well how much bad
blood such policies can create. I see the Maori issue as one
of the biggest challenges facing NZ for its future, and if the
PC maori appeasement is not nipped in the bud (quite a big bud
it has become too)then NZ will see some troubled times ahead,
the kinds of which it can never imagine, though a few astute
people like yourself can very well see the road ahead frought
with these dangers. (17 Nov 05)
I would like a united NZ encompassing all residents of New Zealand irrespective of race. I agree that there is a "dumbing down" of ethnic races. Personally, I would be absolutely furious to have the assumption made that because I was female or maori or asian or short or fat or WHATEVER that I needed special help BECAUSE of that label. I want to make it on my own merits thank you very much, and I believe it is important that everyone does. Let us all stand up and be counted for the individual person that we are, for our beliefs, value base, honesty, truth and integrity. Let us be judged for the people we ARE, not the colour of our skin or the sins of our ancestors. But, all this aside, will a referendum be taken notice of by our esteemed leaders, or just filed in "drawer
13"? (16 Nov 05)
Much of what is being said here has its roots within the Treaty of Waitangi, whether we accept it or not. It is the founding document of this country. Of much concern for Maori though, is the claim that Maori ceded sovereignty to the British. Now, the Maori version of the Treaty states clearly that Maori gave the British governership - kawanatanga, not sovereignty like many claim. This is a whole different meaning to the english version of the Treaty. Of course Maori at the time had very little or no knowledge of the english language. This has been at the heart of Maori protest since the early Land Wars, and it will not go away. Sad to say, this is the argument that seems to give credence to polititians and those who argue against Maori Sovereignty.
Now, before anyone fires off the stale argument that the Treaty is a relic of the past and should be buried in the past. Think about this...the New Zealand Constitutional Act 1852 (Imp),English Laws Acts 1854, 1858, 1908 (NZ), The Imperial Enactments of New Zealand Law include: The Magna Carta (1297), Bill of Rights
(1688), Statute of Westminster 1931(Imp) etc, no one was around the making of these either and yet they form the basis of all law in the whole commonwealth and of course NZ.
Today, many people think that the Treaty gives Maori certain rights. It does not. The rights of sovereignty which Maori exercised for at least 900 years before the arrival of the Pakeha could not and still cannot be "granted" by the Crown. The British Crown officially recognized those rights in the 1835 Declaration of Maori Independence, and that recognition was reaffirmed in Article II of the Treaty. In effect, the Treaty does not give Maori any rights they didn't ALREADY have, but it does give Pakeha certain limited rights - the rights covered by the term kawanatanga.
The Treaty of Waitangi is today the only legal basis for the presence of non-Maori settlers here in Aotearoa/NZ. Maori never gave up their rights (as the Crown claims), nor were they ever conquered, despite several attempts. If we take away the Treaty, the legal right of non-Maori people to live in this country is removed with it. The Treaty of Waitangi is actually about Pakeha rights, not Maori rights. And those rights do not include the right to rule Maori people or Maori.
(16 Nov 05)
Muriel now that you as a white women have a say in almost all things possible and with the advent of Maori Women being bullshited by the white womens
(sic) drum of oppression. I believe you and all your white sisters have let us down big time.You have become the very weapon of oppression you accused your men of being. SHAME MURIAL!!!
(sic)
What threatens you about us, what frightens you, what makes an academic like you a supa bumb dumb. Bite the hand that unwillingly provides for you!
You have been a benefactor of all that Maori have lost. Your ancestors robbed, raped and legislated us off the face of our earth and you are still complaining, you live off the spoils of stolen good Muriel your education comes from the blood of my people.
Your people are the theives (sic) the criminals the scurge
(sic) and when the Maori have a real say Muriel we will be looking at the person and their value base, honesty, truth, integrity. These vlues
(sic) will be the very qualities we will look at for citizenship. There will be a revamp of this theiving
(sic) dishonerable (sic) system from briton (sic).
These all things talked about by your group of modern day crusaders. How you fit in will determine wether
(sic) you become a citizen of our country NOT yours Muriel OURS.
We will fight to remove people like you who are dangerous to the well being and hamony
(sic) of Aotearoa. (15 Nov 05)
A new (and better) deal for Maori. It's time to address the wrongs of the past, re-establish the Pakeha's respect for Maori and Maori's respect for Pakeha. Then we can move forward. We have to remove any entrenched systems of discrimination and complete, once and for all, the monetisation of past grievances.
This country, that embodies a fair go to all people, has the ability to create a new deal for Maori, which can be seen as a shining like to the rest of the world. One which recognises their birth right without constantly monetising it and without using it to create destabilising discrimination. It is possible, because Kiwis genuinely care for the success of the Maori race. Every Kiwi would just love the opportunity to embrace them and their culture with pride.
To do this a few things have to go, and that includes the Maori seats. It is no loss as MMP can give the Maori parties a much greater voice than the seats ever did.
If you build a house, you get the foundations right first. Unfortunately our foundations, including the Treaty and the Maori seats, are not sound. And we wonder why the house is shaking?
(15 Nov 05)
None of the above would even NEED to be discussed if the REAL issue were addressed - the fact that it is an
abomination that someone with only a fraction of Maori blood is legally able to declare him/herself Maori.
First we have to bring back a law which states that a person has to be 51% Maori to be able to be "treated" as one and legal avenues available to that person. All the rest are to be called "Part-Maori" for whatever else reason, and treated no different to anybody else.
It is woolly to attribute bad social behaviour and poor parenting to an ethnic race. There is a calculated 'dumbing down' of people with just as much intelligence as the average person OF ALL ETHNICITIES in this country, so the Government support can continue to perpetuate the myth that these hybrid-race persons need special help.
All one needs to do is look at the full-blooded Polynesians who are only first or second generation here and see their successes and ability to 'survive' in this modern-day society to get an idea just what a crock this part-Maori "poor me" attitude is. There is a culture of waiting for a scheme (mussel farming, e.g.) to be developed, with all the money coming from someone else, then demanding a slice of the pie, which is why so many Govt supported ventures go fiscally bad.
SO let's get a campaign going of challenging each person as to how much Moari blood they actually have before treating them as if they ARE Maori (I am going to refuse to allow my name to be shown because I don't want to be traced and have my house firebombed because of my comments).
(15 Nov 05)
I belong to the BCIR Assn. The Referendum you mention would be of no
use, because as per always referendums are very rarely taken notice of by Parliament or
local bodies. Most people these days are very sceptical about the 'consultation process'.
(15 Nov 05)
Maori seats should be retained in the near future, but that the qualification for eligibility should be quarter Maori blood or more. There are too many people with one-sixteenth Maori blood or none at all calling themselves Maori and expecting to vote as such. The whole concept is getting out of hand - the last thing we want is total governance of the country by a mixed body of people who call themselves Maori.
Within this century, I prophecy that 95% of the population will have Maori, Island or Chinese blood as well as European and it is time for this to be taken into account.
(14 Nov 05)
I think the referendum should be on the far deeper question as to why the consultation we were promised on MMP in 2002 was never held in the format sold to us as people. As part of that, the Maori Seats issue arises.
(13 Nov 05)
I am unaware of any developed country, which has a system of 2 electoral rolls as we do. With the majority of Maori being mixed ancestry unlike the 1867 situation, the Maori roll serves no useful purpose.
(13 Nov 05)
NO WAY! How else can we, as tangata whenua, expect to have representation, which truly meets the needs of the indigenous peoples of this land.
(13 Nov 05)
Something needs to be done - we need to ensure that Government pays more than lip service to referenda - otherwise it's just another waste of taxpayers' time, money and energy. Those in power need to understand that when the country votes through a referendum, that is the word of the people and should be taken into account, not just heard and then filed in Drawer 13!
(13 Nov 05)
I think that Maori need to be given a real, and agreed, chance to have their say - it must not be forced on them. I also feel that the Maori would be better off in the long run if the Maori seats were abolished.
(13 Nov 05)
The existence of Maori seats is one of the seemingly growing number of issues, which are creating a reverse apartheid atmosphere in NZ. To the detriment of the entire population!
(13 Nov 05)
This is long overdue, as at present an element of double representation exists.
(13 Nov 05)
I consider the Maori seats give a forum for the expression of Maori aspirations and needs. Without this avenue of expression within the political main stream we will see the rise of Maori radical movements not bound by norms of behaviour and laws of this country, all to the detriment of Maori/Pakeha relations and the peace and security of all New Zealanders. The tenure of the Maori seats must continue while Treaty claims remain unsettled then maybe it is time to mainstream all voters.
(13 Nov 05)
Surely another question needs addressing first. That is defining what is a Maori? Presently in the census it's a bit like asking if you are an All Black fan - there is no definition, except accepting the individual's choice. Is there anything to stop anyone at all from saying they are a Maori? - or any other ethnicity for that matter?
(13 Nov 05)
The country is not yet ready for this big step. We have no right to impose our views on the Maori electorate. It could add to the grievances they already have.
(13 Nov 05)
Make eligibility to go on the Maori roll conditional on having more than 50% Maori blood. Over time this will lead to the eventual phasing out.
(13 Nov 05)
I think that it is of vital importance that a CIR is absolutely binding on the Government, otherwise, what is the point - they will simply thumb their nose if it does not suit their political agenda of the day.
(13 Nov 05)
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
Send this
page to a friend:
|
