Rob Paterson
Rob Paterson is a retired lawyer who lives in Tauranga.
Michael Laws’ recent commentary “On the Rejection of Māori Wards” (13 October 2025), viewed by many viewers , signals how contentious this issue remains. However, unlike Don Brash (Hobson’s Pledge 16 October 2025), I do not believe the recent outcome is cause for celebration.
Until 2021, only three councils in New Zealand had Māori wards:
- Bay of Plenty Regional Council (three seats, established by legislation),
- Wairoa District Council (one seat, established by public poll), and
- South Waikato District Council (one seat, without referendum).
That changed abruptly with Minister Mahuta’s 2021 abhorrent racist legislation removing the right of communities to challenge the creation of Māori wards via referendum. As a result, the number of councils with Māori wards has ballooned to 20. This is not a sign of democratic progress: it is a step backwards and it appears these wards are locked in for two election cycles (six years).
A Sensible Solution Ignored
A better approach would have been to repeal all Māori wards as of 1 June 2025, allowing them to lapse by 11 October 2025 (date of last local body elections). Councils could then have opted to hold referendums on that date. If voters approved reinstating Māori wards, those changes could take effect at the 2028 local elections.
Instead, the government has adopted a reverse process: enforce Māori wards first, then seek public approval much later. This sequence undermines democratic accountability and imposes racially defined structures without proper consultation. Any future proposal to implement such wards should require a binding referendum, paid for by the local authority.
Frank Newman’s recent article posted on NZCPR on 16 October 2025 articulates this point well. Michael Laws’ 13 October 2025 blog also contributes usefully, though it reflects an optimism about the results that I believe is misplaced.
Public Support Overstated
Seventeen councils voted to retain Māori wards. But the low voter turnout raises serious questions about how representative these decisions are.
Take Western Bay of Plenty District Council. In its 2018 poll referendum, over 78 per cent of voters opposed Māori wards. While this year’s opposition fell to around 60 per cent, it still reflects a strong public stance against the policy. Tauranga City Council, if allowed to participate, would likely have returned a similar result.
It is striking that Minister Mahuta was able to enforce this significant constitutional change unilaterally under urgency in 2021, yet its reversal requires a complex, multi-year legislative process stretching into 2028 – and in the case of Tauranga, 2031. This discrepancy shows how deeply tilted the system has become.
Nationwide voter turnout was only 32 per cent. In places like Nelson, just 19 per cent of eligible voters endorsed retaining Māori wards. Arguably, this implies that the silent majority either oppose the policy or feel disenfranchised by the process.
Media Bias and Political Pressure
This shift toward race-based local governance has been enabled, not just by legislation, but also by a media environment that suppressed dissent. Advertisements opposing Māori wards, including those from Hobson’s Pledge, were routinely rejected by the discredited mainstream media outlets, while pro-ward campaigns were given free rein.
In this regard it is worth noting a full page pre-paid Maori Ward advertorial by Voter Empowerment Tauranga (VET) was lodged with Bay of Plenty Times for publication in early 2021 but this was finally rejected by NZME head office as it did not suit their agenda or views. Media censorship was applied as it was alleged said the advert did not meet NZME standards although they could not define those standards.
Meanwhile, Local Government New Zealand actively supported the introduction of Māori wards, aligning itself with activist interests rather than remaining neutral. The resulting imbalance left many voters unaware of both sides of the argument, undermining the legitimacy of the outcome.
Defining “Māori” – A Legal and Social Fiction?
There is a deeper issue at play: the legal and social definition of “Māori”.
- “Māori” are not indigenous to New Zealand in the strict anthropological sense.
- Genetic data and demographic records suggest that no person in New Zealand today can claim more than 50 per cent Māori ancestry. It follows that no one in NZ can legitimately be described as Māori.
- By international standards of indigeneity, this raises the question: does a distinct Māori racial category still exist? – In short the answer is no.
The current statutory definition of Māori, introduced under the 1974 Māori Purposes Act, relies on subjective self-identification. Earlier definitions, such as those in the 1953 and 1967 Māori Affairs Amendment Acts, were more objective. Today’s legal framework blurs identity, biology, and politics – complicating claims to special representation
The 1953 Māori Affairs Amendment Act defined Māori as follows:
“Māori” means a person belonging to the aboriginal race of New Zealand; and includes a half caste and a person intermediate in blood between half castes and persons of pure descent from that race.
Conclusion: Rebuilding Equal Democracy
Race-based electoral structures have no place in a liberal democracy. The continued existence and expansion of Māori wards risks entrenching division, undermining the principle of equal representation, and eroding public trust.
New Zealand’s local government system should reflect shared citizenship, not ancestral classification. Until the definition and justification for race-based wards can withstand both democratic and legal scrutiny, we should not be holding referendums on their retention. We should be phasing them out as they relate to something that does not in reality exist.
This article was originally published by Breaking Views.
