When Helen Clark’s Labour Government introduced Māori Wards into the Local Electoral Act in 2002, the deputy chairman of the Local Government Select Committee David Cunliffe stressed they could only be established with community support: “There is a general referendum and a general trigger mechanism that means no Māori ward can be established unless a majority of all electors on the electoral roll say that should be the case.”
The “trigger mechanism” he described was a petition right enabling five per cent of voters to call for a referendum, so the community as a whole could decide whether to introduce Māori wards.
The reason a “trigger mechanism” was needed was that establishing Māori wards requires the introduction of the Māori Electoral Roll, and any constitutional change involving the voting system requires a higher threshold – a ‘democratic safeguard’ to prevent those in power from manipulating the system for their own advantage.
The reasons are easy to see. Since Māori Roll voters overwhelmingly support parties of the ‘left’, petition rights discourage left leaning councils from seeing Māori wards as a convenient way of cementing in permanent control of local government. They also prevent those tribal interests, who are desperate to get their hands on local government power – and the riches it will bring – from being able to coerce their way into a dominating position on councils.
By 2020, the fact that only three out of the 24 councils attempting to introduce Māori wards had been successful, was a clear indication that New Zealanders do not want their communities divided by race. Nor, according to Local Government New Zealand, do those of Māori descent: “A number of councils have sought the views of hapū and iwi about whether Māori wards should be established only to be strongly advised that any such wards would not have the support of mana whenua.”
By the end of that year, petition rights were again being used by nine communities to challenge council decisions to establish Māori wards: Kaipara, Gisborne, New Plymouth, Ruapehu, South Taranaki, Taupō, Tauranga, Whangarei, and the Northland Region.
But the newly elected Labour Government had other ideas.
In spite of campaigning on a pledge to “uphold local decision making in the democratic institutions of local government”, without any public mandate whatsoever they introduced and passed under urgency retrospective legislation to abolish petition rights, trashing ‘local decision making’ in the process.
Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta justified the move with lies. She claimed Helen Clark’s petition rights were discriminatory because they applied only to Māori wards, when, as she was well aware, only Māori wards change the voting system.
She also claimed they were needed to address the underrepresentation of Māori in local government. But that too was a lie: in 2019, 13.5 per cent of elected councillors were Māori – the same as the 13.7 percent of Māori in the adult population.
Once Labour had removed petition rights, powerful tribal lobby groups moved in to pressure local authorities around the country to introduce Māori wards. This resulted in an explosion in the number of Māori seats, with 32 councils establishing Māori wards and a further 13 planning to do so.
As a result, Māori representation on councils escalated to 21.6 per cent, with Māori now significantly over-represented in local government – just as they are in central government.
It was in this climate that the coalition government delivered on their election promise to restore petition rights. With local body elections due next year, the legislation requires all councils that established Māori wards without consulting their community – or plan to do so – to decide whether to retain or abolish them by 6 September 2024.
Those that resolve to abolish them will have no Māori ward after next year’s election. Those that decide to retain or establish them, will be required to hold a binding referendum at the election, asking their community whether they support Māori wards – the results will not kick in until the 2028 election.
With Māori wards likely to be a major topic of debate during next year’s campaign, the Coalition should be congratulated for forcing elected councillors to get off the fence and decide whether or not they support Māori wards. This will give electors a clear indication of their sitting councillor’s position when they decide who will get their vote.
To date, the only council that has resolved to disestablish their Māori ward is the Kaipara District Council, which voted for abolition in the face of heavy intimidation and disruption from hundreds of protestors.
In his account of the meeting, Frank Newman points out that it was the Māori ward councillor herself who “demonstrated why Māori seats should be abolished. Quite simply, they are a gateway for radical elements within Māori to get around the top table and disrupt. What we saw at the meeting were the disruptors who are so entrenched in their victim mentality that they think it’s OK to shout abuse at those who don’t agree with their radicalism.”
The Mayor of the Kaipara District Council, Craig Jepson, is not a career politician but a business operator, who sponsored the petition against Māori wards. He stood for election on a pledge of removing race-based privilege and restoring equal rights – and he’s been subjected to ongoing abuse by radical separatists ever since gaining office.
Mayor Jepson is this week’s NZCPR guest commentator with an outline of the case against Māori wards:
I believe the Māori ward here in the Kaipara has not justified its establishment and is divisive.
My critics say by removing the Māori ward we are not fulfilling our obligations to Māori. We are. Our council is complying fully with the treaty obligations imposed by section four of the Local Government Act in respect of decision-making processes and obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights. We facilitate participation by Māori in local decision-making processes but while doing so we ensure our decision-making entails equal rights for all communities and people of the district. Any preferential treatment of Māori or any other group would infringe those provisions.
We are elected to represent the various communities of our district equally without fear or favour. Democratic decision-making means dealing with the people and the communities of the district on an equal basis, without preferential treatment.
Our vote to disestablish the Māori ward was about preserving all that is good about our freedom for all to participate in a well-functioning democracy.
In response to Kaipara’s plan to disestablish the Māori ward protest organiser Ngāti Whātua filed legal proceedings against the council ahead of the vote and warned it would file an injunction if the council supported abolition.
Ngāti Whātua, a registered charity, is a $1.6 billion corporation with $100 million in income in the last financial year. In their latest annual report they outline the importance of gaining influence within councils:
During the year we have built a closer working relationship with Auckland, Kaipara, and Northland councils and to a lesser extent with Whangarei. In relation to Māori representation on council boards, we were very active in our advocacy to achieve the best outcomes for Ngāti Whātua. We participated in working groups and made written submissions to councils on the subject.”=
These tribal conglomerates, that are manoeuvring themselves into positions of power on councils, have massive resources. That was evident when they orchestrated hundreds of activists to protest at Major Jepson’s earlier decision to halt the use of ‘karakia’ to start council meetings – and now to disestablish the Māori ward.
The coercive abuse of councillors by tribal interests that have engineered direct influence over local authorities is occurring across the country.
In some cases, those who tried to stand up to their bullying – like Councillor Murray Chong in New Plymouth where a Māori ward had been rejected in a referendum in 2018 by 83 per cent of the community – have been subjected to shocking violence and intimidation:
I’m now scared. I’ve had my life threatened several times in letters. I now can’t walk by myself at night because I’ve been told I will be king-hit and I’ll wake up in a hospital. I’ve had people say they will grab my dog, chop it up into quarters and leave it on my doorstep. I’ve had my daughter hassled.
With threats to his family escalating from drive-by abuse to a drive-by shooting, he capitulated:
Fighting back tears, Chong told a two-thirds full council chamber ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ before saying that he would not be fronting any resistance to a Māori ward next year because he feared for his safety. ‘I won’t be saying anything because I believe you’ve won. You’ve won because of the tactics I’ve received over the past five years.’
And with that, he abstained from the Māori ward vote.
These dreadful developments were the result of Labour’s unmandated decision to increase tribal control over local government.
They even legislated for local body co-governance, but once the public realised the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill would have given Māori voters five times the voting power of everyone else, outrage forced it to be withdrawn.
The Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, which increased the influence over the Council of the $2-billion Ngāi Tahu corporation through the addition of two reserved seats, was, however, passed into law. Critics raised concerns that the additional seats would bias the council in favour of iwi initiatives and that certainly appears to be the case.
Fresh from extracting more than $100 million from power generators Meridian and Genesis Energy in return for resource consents for the Waitaki River (an extortionate amount which surely should be subject to a government inquiry) Ngāi Tahu submitted a proposal to co-govern the river. This would give them the power of veto over a vital national resource that supplies three hydro dams and five other power stations. It provides 16 per cent of the country’s electricity and over 50 per cent of the hydro storage.
Both controlling authorities supported the proposal – without consulting the wider community. The Otago Regional Council with its Ngāi Tahu ‘partnership’ board voted eight to four in favour of investigating the scheme, while the Canterbury Regional Council supported it – by 13 votes to three, with the two Ngāi Tahu councillors voting in favour despite what appears to be a clear conflict of interest.
This situation highlights the substantial benefits that can accrue to tribal groups when they secure permanent influence around a council table.
Of the many councils now assessing the future of their Māori wards, in Palmerston North, where almost 69 per cent of the community opposed Māori wards in a May 2018 referendum, the city council not only voted to retain them, but to investigate refusing to hold a referendum.
And in Gisborne, instead of holding their Māori ward meeting in the neutral ground of their council chamber, it was held at the local marae, leading one councillor to vote in favour, saying, “I want to get out of here alive.”
The division created by Māori wards is exactly why most communities have voted against them. They have exposed an ugly side of society.
And that’s the problem. Once powerful tribal groups gain a foothold in council, through their aggressive self-interest, they demand more. Most councillors simply give in to their coercion rather than subjecting themselves to the sort of bullying and intimidation meted out to Murray Chong.
The capture of local government by tribal interests is now having a detrimental impact on the rest of society. This can be seen in Gore, where, after receiving advice from their Ngāi Tahu ‘advisors’ the council has designated their whole district as a “Site and Area of Significance to Māori”!
The only long-term answer is surely for all race-based requirements on local government to be removed.
Kaipara has done the right thing by dis-establishing its Māori ward. The remaining councils will now have to answer to their electorate.
This article was originally published by the NZ Centre for Political Research.
