Row about Maori seats misleading

Press, 17 September 1976, Page 2

Row about Maori seats misleading

Parliamentary reporter

Claims by three Maori members of Parliament and by Maori groups of the “huge discrepancy” between the populations of Maori electorates and those of the miscalled “pakeha” seats are tending to cause confusion where none should exist.

The Maori groups persist in claiming that Maoris are under-represented in Parliament — but the figures they use are at least open to challenge. There are even grounds for saying that, with four membrs in Parliament In the official Maori seats, plus the opportunity taken by many Maoris to vote on the general rolls, Maoris have a better chance than nonMaori New Zealanders to be adequately represented in Parliament

Last Monday, the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) told Press Gallery reporters that he had asked the Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) to draft an electoral amendment bill fixing the number of Maori seats at four. Mr Muldoon added that the idea was to get the bill in before the result of the census was known, and to pass it this session.

As expected, this statement has not found favour either with the Labour Opposition or with the New Zealand Maori Council. The leader of the Matakite movement (Dr Douglas Sinclair) has branded it as "resist and undemocratic.**

The claim that there is a "huge discrepancy” between the populations of Maori electorates and those of the general ones is being widely Circulated by the Maori members on the Labour side of Parliament

A statement issued by Mrs T. W. M. Tirikatene-SuUtvan (Southern Maori), Mr K. T. Wetere (Western Maori), and Mr P. B. Rewiti (Eastern Maori) makes two points: 1. That each Maori voter was asked on census night whether he or she wanted to remain on the Maori roll. "Those who opted for the Maori roll would have determined the number of Maori seats.”

2. That te a Maori electorate “the numbers involved are nearly twice as great as those in an ordinary electorate."

In support of this statement, the Maori members have produced what they describe as “figures from the 1971 census.” These figures are: Northern Maori, 46.300; Eastern Maori, 52,900; Western Maori, 70,300; Southern Maori, 57,200. “This compares with the average European electorate of about 31,000, and shows

the serious under-representa-tion of the Maori people in Parliament,” the Maori members’ statement says.

The returns for the last General Election show that these figures are about as misleading as they can be. This is presumably because they have taken total census figures (including children). A different situation entirely is shown by the General Election returns, which indicate that the average number of electors qualified to vote in general electorates was then 22,682, while in the four Maori electorates the average number of qualified voters was only 17,608. The number of people in each Maori electorate qualified to vote on November 29 were: Eastern Maori, 16,439; Northern Maori, 14,715; Southern Maori, 18,282; Western Maori, 20,997. More interesting still is the official record of those who were interested enough to record their votes. The return shows that in the general seats a total of 1,568,181 electors recorded their votes — a general-seat average of 18,893, or a percentage of 8329. In the four Maori seats, however, the total of those recording votes was only 43,839. An average of 10,953. only 6224 per cent of those eligible to vote. The number of voters in the four Maori seats were: Eastern Maori, 11,821; Northern Maori, 8766; Southern Maori, 10,613; Western Maori, 12,639. The lowest number of voters in a general electorate was 15,704, recorded in Auckland Central. This number, though well below the general average, was still more than 3000 votes above those recorded in the highest-voting Maori electorate. A non-Maori as intemperate as some of the pro-Maori agitators could well suggest that by these highly up-to-date and accurate figures, and considering that many Maoris choose to vote in general electorates. Maoris are more than adequately catered for. By promoting this sort of confusion. obtained by juggling census figures with electoral figures. Labour Maori members might also be accused of contributing to misunderstanding. The first point to be established is: "Who is entitled to call himself or herself Maori?” The Labour Government left some confusion on this score by promoting some legislation which is still not understood by those whose interests it was proposed to serve. A choice is open —■ but once made should be adhered to. It has been an aim of National Party policy to abolish the Maori seats — but no overt move to do this has ever been attempted. Rather,

the view has been that of the late Mr J. R. Hanan — that a time will eventually arise when the separate Maori seats will be redundant. That time may be closer than we think. The following points are worth noting: I. Last year, in some areas of large Maori population, many Maoris changed from the Maori to the load electoral roll simply because, as citizens, they received more help from the local member.

2. This highlights the fact that no representative of a Maori seat can be expected to cover the whole of his or her territory in a way satisfactory to electors. 3. The granting of more Maori seats would inevitably give the qualified Maori voter even more of an advantage that he has today — but would not notably affect the value of his member. 4. The arrival of two Maori members in Parliament as representatives of general seats (Mr M. B. Couch, Wairarapa, and Mr W. R. Austin, Awarua (both National) has demonstrated that a Parliament without Maori seats would not necessarily be a Parliament without Maori representation.