THE PRESS MONDAY, JULY 20, 1987. Call for more Maori seats

Press, 20 July 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, JULY 20, 1987. Call for more Maori seats

The chairman of the Labour Party’s Maori policy and advisory council, and member of Parliament for Northern Maori, Dr Bruce Gregory, surely must be trying it on with his assertion that the number of Maori seats in Parliament should be increased from four to 10. He certainly caught his leader, the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, on the hop. Apart from encouraging the separatist designs of radical Maori activists, the demand serves little purpose. It is hard to see what possible benefits there could be for the Maori people or for New Zealand society in such a move. Nor can Dr Gregory’s demand be sustained by the facts. Dr Gregory’s claim for 10 Maori seats arises from a facile calculation and a quite deliberate confusion of two distinct issues: the number of people in New Zealand who acknowledge in the five-yearly census that they are of Maori descent, and the much smaller number of people who wish to vote in a Maori seat and exercise their option to be included on the Maori roll. Anyone over the age of 18 who claims to be a New Zealand Maori, or a descendant of a New Zealand Maori, may register on the Maori electoral rolls and vote in a Maori seat. These same people may, if they so choose, enrol instead on the general roll and cast their vote in one of the general electorates. Many of them do so. By taking the number of people who classified themselves as Maori or part Maori at the last census, and dividing it by the 32,500 or so average population for each of the general electorates, Dr Gregory conveniently arrives at the conclusion that there should be 10 Maori seats to represent the Maori population fairly. Such might be the case if all those people who classified themselves and their children as Maori or part Maori at census time were obliged thereafter to vote only in Maori seats; but voters in this group have a choice. They had the chance to exercise their option last year. There was much to-ing and fro-ing; about 11,200 voters on the general roll decided to switch to the Maori roll and about 10,300 on the Maori roll decided to go the other way. The activity might have been fostered by an energetic campaign at the time in support of taha Maori and a drive to encourage greater political awareness among Maoris for particularly Maori ends. The net result of it all, however, was that by October, 1986, 70,564 voters of Maori descent had elected to be registered on the Maori rolls. Here is a figure much more appropriate as a basis on which to calculate the number of seats required to give fair representation to voters who want to vote in specifically Maori seats. The census returns showed that, of those people who regarded themselves (and their children) as of Maori or part Maori descent, 52 per cent were over the age v of 18. If this ratio is applied to the 70,564 voters who want to be on the Maori roll, the - existing four Maori seats encompass a population of about 135,700, or an average of something less than 34,000 each. This is tolerably close to the average population of the general seats and the creation of even one more Maori seat could not be justified on these figures. Hence Mr Lange’s reference to Maori voters “voting with their feet” when it came time to exercise what has become known as the Maori option. Mr Gregory’s proposal would be supportable only if this option were removed and if all people of Maori descent were compelled to be on the Maori roll. Almost certainly, a referendum of all New Zealanders would produce a majority in

favour of abolishing the Maori seats. This was. borne out by the weight of submissions to the Royal Commission on the Electoral System that reported last year. The more committed separatists argue that the decision should be one for Maoris alone, but this assertion is nonsense. If all Maoris, or people of Maori descent, were determined on some form of sovereignty — and equally determined to make this fancy support itself without the tax contributions of the non-Maori population — the notion that the rest of the community should have less say in the affair might be marginally more acceptable; but such is not the case. A referendum among those who are registered as Maori voters would not, in any case, be a fair test of Maori opinion since many Maoris have already elected to be on the general rolls and play a part in a broader democracy. The creation or abolition of Maori seats is not a uniquely Maori concern. Theirs might be the more immediate interest and they will be the people most affected in the short term; but they will not be the only people affected. Any measure which would harden the divisions of race in New Zealand society would affect all, and would properly be the concern of all. Disqualifying the majority of New Zealanders from a say in such a fundamental issue as whether there is one community or two in this country would be indefensible. Advocates of separate Maori seats contend that, if ethnic seats are allocated in equal proportion to the size of each ethnic grouping, separate ethnic rolls do not necessarily violate the principle of one person-one vote: there can be racial distinction without racial discrimination. It might be contended with equal force that Maoris are not the only groups entitled to political protection. There are other minorities — such as the various Pacific Island groups (now numbering 118,476, or greater than the number of Maoris directly represented by the four Maori seats) and Asian communities — and other sections of society, such as women, the aged, the young, and the unemployed, who would claim to be under-represented in Parliament. Many sound arguments can be advanced for the abolition of separate seats. They are an anachronism; the election of Maoris to Parliament does not rely on them; and separate Maori seats do not guarantee that Maori interests are effectively pursued by those who are elected to speak for them. Experience, sadly, too often has proved otherwise. These and other reasons for abolition can be demonstrated at length. The debate, however, arouses strong feelings. To many Maoris, even to many of those who choose to vote on the general roll, the Maori seats are the principal symbol of the Crown’s recognition of the Maori’s place in society. They have been described as “the last vestige of a lost autonomy” and their importance to a ' great many Maoris, for reasons quite apart from electoral or democratic balance, should not be underestimated. < Until the overwhelming majority of Maoris themselves believe that their interests are best served by common representation, the less divisive course is to leave the Maori seats alone. If there are any great changes in the balance Of representation — if the number of voters choosing to be on the Maori roll swells or diminishes to such an extent that the number of Maori seats bears no comparison with the voter to seat ratio in general electorates — the number of seats would have to be reviewed. Until then, talk of doubling or trebling their number is mischievous and likely to inspire resentment between sections of the community.