This is a re-post from earlier in the year. Figures from the Electoral Commission show that in some Maori electorates the numbers on the Maori roll have fallen, while in others the numbers have increased only slightly. In total more Maori have moved to the general roll than vice versa. However, new enrolments have contributed to a 1,580 gain on the Maori roll. That’s not enough for an eighth Maori seat. If an eighth Maori seat is important to you, enrol and encourage the Maori you know to enrol.
If you do one thing this year, enrol or switch to the Maori roll. Assuming you’re Maori, of course. Every patriotic Maori should be on the Maori roll.
In 1975 the then Labour government introduced the Maori electoral option. The option let Maori choose between enrolling on the general roll or the Maori roll and the number of Maori seats would have risen and fallen with the number enrolled on the Maori roll. However, the Muldoon government legislated to keep the number of seats at 4 (he did so before the the changes the Labour government made could come into effect – h/t Graeme Edgeler). A rise in the number of Maori seats didn’t come until the option in 1994 – 127 years after their creation.
The option is held in census’ years and determines whether or not there will be an increase or decrease in the number of Maori seats.
Along with the Treaty of Waitangi, the Maori seats lend Maori a special constitutional status. This is the unintended consequence of the seats creation. For 127 years the Maori seats were capped at four – despite explosive growth in the Maori population and the extension of the franchise – thus limiting Maori political power. Until 1951 elections for the Maori seats were held separately and until 1975 only “half-castes” could elect to vote on either the European roll (as it was then called) or the Maori roll. It wasn’t until 1993 that the number of Maori seats was tied to the Maori electoral population.*
The Maori seats give Maori, for want of better metaphors, a foot in the door and a seat at the table. They anchor Maori political power. Without them, Maori political progress is wholly dependent on the acquiescence of non-Maori parties. It will be a perverse situation if Maori, rather than external actors, are responsible for limiting their own political power.
If Maori enrol in numbers the smart money is on an eighth seat, probably in South Auckland. However, recent figures from the Electoral Commission show that we’re not enrolling. Cue alarm.
It’s so, so important that you (assuming you’re Maori) enrol on or switch to the Maori roll. I can’t emphasise that enough. Unlike the provisions of the Electoral Act regulating the general electorate seats, the provisions around Maori representation are not entrenched. In other words, the Maori seats are subject to abolition by simple majority.
It’s also worth considering the timing of the electoral option (i.e. five-yearly). The practical effect of the five-yearly option is, I think, to discourage Maori from switching rolls. There may be a constitutional rationale for the restriction, but as the Electoral Commission notes one of the main concerns among Maori is that they cannot switch rolls at or between elections. The Commission recommended that Maori should have option of switching rolls between elections. The compromise option appears to be limiting enrolment several months before or after elections rather than anytime between.
The Maori seats don’t lend Maori more electoral power than non-Maori (arguably). Maori roll voters can only vote in one electorate and cast one party vote. The Maori seats do, however, ensure that kaupapa Maori issues will not be – or at the least don’t have to be – subsumed into the body politic. That’s something we have to preserve. Now enrol.
Post script: for a good backgrounder on the Maori seats have a look at this research paper – The Origins of the Maori Seats – by the Parliamentary Library.
*For an accessible discussion citing those facts see this piece at Te Ara. Although 1993 was not an election year, a special option was held in 1993.
This should be emphasised for Maori who have emigrated to Australia, but who will never apply to/or get citizenship there. I hope that more NZers living in Australia remember we need to overturn this autocratic Natact government.
Why I am on the General, rather than Maori, roll:
[This is largely copied from a Standard Open Mike comment, which I further copied onto this site as a comment regarding the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election. It took a fair amount of time sifting through numbers on tedious lists, to research this, and I feel I’ve only scratched the surface.]
Looking through my Maori roll pack; with the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election coming up, I thought I’d check to see how the Maori roll count compares with the general roll. The last time I did this was off 2005 election results, and had to be calculated by hand (I’ve probably still got the pages of working around somewhere – in one of many old boxes of uni papers that I’m never going to sort through, but haven’t yet discarded). After hours of eye-glazing percentage calculation, I found the following page on the election results site: 2011 Election stats [can’t get the href to work for me – link down the bottom]. I really wish I’d found it earlier.
To outline the main points: 2.19% of maori roll votes were designated informal in 2011, compared to 0.80% of the general roll. Or in other words; a maori vote is 2.7 times more likely to be regarded as informal than a general vote (which is why I stay on the general roll). Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is the worst maori electorate for informality at 2.51%, compared with 0.43% for Epsom; the least informality on the general roll – 5.8 times more likely!
It’s even worse for special votes; 17% of maori roll special votes were disallowed in 2011. So my advice for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti voters is to make sure you are enrolled to vote, and don’t cast a special ballot. Party organizers should also make sure they have reliable observers at every vote count.
Not sure what I’m doing wrong with the link – it’s supposed to connect to: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/e9/html/e9_part9_1.html
interesting. I never knew what an informal vote was till now. Correct me as I may be wrong, but an informal vote does not pass the clear intention test, ie. They cannot tell which party or candidate you are voting for? guessing this means that more than one option is selected, or the form isn’t marked correctly? So in a roll with a higher % of informal votes, surely that gives someone who indicates clearly who they vote for a relatively stronger vote, as more in that roll are unclear and therefore do not contribute to the total?
As I said; I feel I’ve only scratched the surface. One thing I’m yet to find is a glossary outlining the precise difference between; “informal”, “disallowed”, & “invalid” votes.
From what I’ve been able to glean so far; an informal ballot is one in which all, or part, of the form is indecipherable; but part may be legible. So for the 2011 election, one (or more) of the; list, electorate, or MMP referendum; answers, would have been disallowed, but the portion of the ballot that could be read would have been recorded as a vote.
The reason for the high proportion of disallowed votes in the maori roll specials is mostly due to non-enrollment of voters. I suspect that this means that; if you forget you are on the general roll and try to vote on the maori roll (or simply haven’t been arsed enrolling), then as they can’t find your name on the list, your ballot gets binned. If we remove the non-enrolled from the maori special votes, the percentage of disallowed is a mere 0.52% rather than an obscene 17.1%. Link: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/e9/html/e9_part10_3.html
So, once again; make sure you are enrolled to vote, and don’t cast a special ballot (unless you will be out of the electorate on voting day in which case you’ll have to take the risk). Party organizers should also make sure they have reliable observers at every vote count.
I’m not Maori but my children are. Recently I’ve been considering the question of whether I should have the option to be on the Maori roll, given that ‘the aotearoa my children will grow up in’ is one important factor in my political decision making. I’m not saying I should have the option, just that I’ve been musing on it. I’d welcome any thoughts people might have.
I wouldn’t be opposed to that per se. However, I’d note that having non-Maori enrol on the Maori roll might undermine its rationale.
‘Think you know what’s best for Maori? Join the Maori roll!’…yeah that wouldn’t really work out well. It would need some very definite restrictions. In the end I can achieve what I’m after by voting green/mana/left. Mostly it was a mental exercise in challenging my own assumptions.
“Why would a white man in his 40s have an interest in voting on the Maori roll? Discuss.”
Consider Pakeha Maori of the 19th Century; would they have been able to have been enrolled on a maori roll (if such a thing had then existed)? One thing I find most unsettling is how access to the maori roll is explicitly racially based.
My limited understanding of tikanga maori is that if one is accepted by the kaumatua &/ or rangitira of an iwi (depending on local customs), then one is regarded a member of that iwi. While proud to be a descendent of; an Aotearoan Maori (along with various British celts), I do not identify as specifically maori. Mainly because I have very limited ability in te reo maori (for example, I don’t know how to do macrons without cut and pasting), but also because I have neither sought nor been granted this acceptance by iwi taonga.
So; yes Sam, I do believe you should be allowed to register on the maori roll given your whanau connection. But only if your were to be formally accepted into the iwi by a recognised iwi authority. Yet, at present, that is not possible; as the maori roll is administered by the settler government, and defined racially.
Good luck getting you vote counted if you ever do achieve this though!
One thing that you’ve omitted Morgan is that census results are TAMPERED WITH to suit people such as yourself wearing blinkers.
A recent census showed 6% of NZ considered themselves Maori – despite it being difficult to even finding a 50% Maori in our current population.
What’s a SHOCKER is that then the non-Maori list was culled and EVERYONE who called themselves kiwis (not Maori) but who also indicated they did hv some Maori ancestry but didn’t want to be considered Maori were then added to the 6% Maori list.
This raised the so-called Maori roll to around 15%. More corruption and lies – there’s a boomerang here
How often will history and even the news of the day continue to be rewritten to enshrine Maoridom as a ‘special culture’ when they were Stone age cannibals when Europeans arrived in NZ?
Comments are closed.