MURIEL NEWMAN: A CRITICAL DECISION
- Administrator
- 1 hour ago
- 9 min read
Forty-two councils are set to hold pivotal referenda on the future of local body Maori seats in October, yet few New Zealanders appear to grasp just how high the stakes actually are.
Proponents of Maori sovereignty understand the gravity: losing these seats would deal a crushing blow to their push for control over local councils.
More critically, it could jeopardise their race-based parliamentary seats and their He Puapua plan to dominate “Aotearoa” by 2040.
Race-based council seats had a controversial origin.
Unlike the Parliamentary Maori seats, which were established in 1867 as a temporary measure to give Maori men the right to vote, local body Maori seats are a relatively new invention.
They were introduced in the early 2000s around the time Helen Clark’s Labour-led Government was reforming the 1976 Local Elections and Polls Act to modernise and streamline council elections.
During that period, Parliament had also been considering a Private Members Bill promoted by the Green Party’s Rod Donald to introduce proportional voting into local government to increase council diversity.
As a result, the Single Transferable Vote was included as an option in the Government’s Local Electoral Bill, to enable councils to switch between First Past the Post voting and STV, but because this changed the electoral system, a legal safeguard was required.
Under New Zealand’s democratic conventions, voting systems are deemed to be of such constitutional significance that they are afforded special protection in law. These safeguards, to ensure electoral changes can only be undertaken with the express approval of voters, are to prevent those in power from manipulating the voting system for their own advantage.
In central government, the democratic safeguard comes in the form of entrenched electoral law provisions, which means they can only be changed through a supermajority vote in Parliament of 75 percent of MPs, or through a nation-wide binding referendum.
In comparison, the democratic safeguard in local government is petition rights: if a council alters the voting system without a community mandate, then, if five percent of electors support a petition challenging the decision, the council must hold a binding referendum of voters.
Accordingly, the 2001 Local Electoral Act not only included the STV voting option, but the petition right safeguard as well.
Another Bill making its way through Parliament at the time was the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill. This Local Bill, introduced by Labour MP Mita Ririnui, created dedicated Maori seats on the council.
During the first reading of the Bill, then Alliance MP Willie Jackson told the House:
“In 1998, despite Maori being 28 percent of the population, Maori had no representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. That would suggest the system has failed Maori, big time. That is not a system that caters for all New Zealanders. It is a system that caters for Pakeha New Zealanders.”
The truth of the matter was revealed by local electorate MP, National’s Max Bradford:
“If we look over the history of recent elections in the Bay of Plenty, we see that there has been no difficulty for Maori to find representation on the regional council. From 1989 to 1991, there were two Maori out of 12 representatives. From 1992 to 1995 there was one. I do not think any other Maori stood. In the third triennium, 1995 to 1998, there were no Maori representatives, but I am not sure anybody stood. In the present triennium there are two Maori out of 11 representatives.
Those who argue that Maori find it difficult to get representation because there are no separate Maori seats, deny the facts. The facts are this. Those who choose to stand for representation in the area have been welcome. I know that each of those people who has been elected found it easy.”
In other words, the real reason Maori did not have representation on the Regional Council at the time in question is that no Maori candidates had put their name forward for election!
The Bill was therefore introduced under false pretences.
Max Bradford outlined its sinister implications: “The one thing this bill is not is an innocent little local bill. It is a bill that will have a profound impact not just in the Bay of Plenty but right throughout the country. What it seeks to do is establish a new basis of voting and representation that we do not have in the present law.”
ACT MP Ken Shirley was more forthright:
“What this bill is all about is institutionalised separatism. There is another name for that - apartheid. What we have is, effectively, a stalking horse to impart separatism to local government throughout this country. This is a very dangerous pathway. This inevitably leads to polarisation of both accountability and responsibility. The members elected off the Maori roll will feel beholden to Maori. Therefore, this measure will inevitably promote more strident separatist issues, as those members respond to the Maori roll rather than to what is in the collective general interest of the electorate at large.”
Ken Shirley was critical of the lack of leadership of Regional Council members, who opposed the Bill in private, but ‘buckled’ under pressure from iwi: “They have been caught by a very carefully crafted agenda.”
That “very carefully crafted agenda” continues to this day.
Even though the Bill was based on the lie that it was too difficult for Maori to get elected to the council, it was nevertheless voted into law.
And, as Ken Shirley warned, it was indeed a stalking horse for Maori wards across the country – as he pointed out in a debate on the Bill introducing them in 2002:
“The bill proposes race-based electoral rolls for local government. That is apartheid. The bill will prove to be socially divisive, but the Labour Government is determined to drive it through. We knew that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act was the stalking horse for this measure. The Government denied it at the time, but here is the proof.”
How prophetic Ken Shirley’s words were.
Because the creation of Maori wards required the introduction of the Maori electoral roll, it too was a measure that would alter the voting system. As a result, the same petition right safeguard that had been applied for STV voting in the law, was also applied to Maori wards.
This democratic safeguard was not needed for any other ward changes undertaken by councils, because none of the others alter the voting system.
By 2020, 24 councils had attempted to introduce Maori wards against the wishes of their communities. Only in Wairoa in 2016 had Maori seats been supported in the mandatory referendum - although, as the Mayor later explained, they were not really needed.
Nor were they ‘needed’ to increase Maori representation in local government since by 2019, 13.5 percent of all elected Councillors were Maori – the same as the 13.7 percent of Maori in the adult population.
When Jacinda Ardern’s majority Labour Government swept into office in 2020 armed with their He Puapua agenda for the tribal control of New Zealand, they moved swiftly to abolish the Maori ward petition right safeguard.
Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta claimed it discriminated against Maori because it only applied to Maori wards. That was a lie. She also claimed Maori were under-represented in local government. That too, was a lie.
With the democratic safeguard removed, powerful tribal advocates and left-wing activists within local councils took the opportunity to introduce Maori wards without any mandate from voters. As a result, the number of Maori seats after the 2022 election exploded, with Maori membership on councils escalating to 21.6 percent – resulting in a significant over-representation of Maori in local government.
Furthermore, with powerful Maori advisory groups already well established in local authorities, Maori seats gave tribal interests a controlling influence within many councils.
In 2024, the Coalition restored the democratic right of electors, by reversing Nanaia Mahuta’s deception and re-introducing the petition-right safeguard. All councils that had established Maori wards without obtaining a mandate from voters were given the choice of either disestablishing them or holding a binding referendum at the election.
The only council resolving to abolish their Maori ward was the Kaipara District Council.
Frank Newman, a former local body councillor and political strategist, interviewed the Mayor of Kaipara Craig Jepson to assess whether the Maori seat had provided benefits to the community:
“The Maori seats have become radicalised. Our Maori ward councillor continually disrupted and undermined our council. Although she took an oath to work in the best interests of all people, she clearly put the interests of Maori first, at the expense of everyone else.
“It has also cost ratepayers a lot of money because the council has had to respond to frivolous Code of Conduct complaints and legal challenges to our decisions, asserting we have breached our Treaty obligations.
“The simple fact is the Kaipara District Council is not the Crown and does not have duties as a signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi. Our council meets its obligations to Maori as required by the Local Government Act. We facilitate participation by Maori 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.”
Come October, the future of local government Maori seats will rest where it should have remained: in the hands of voters.
Although the battle has yet to be waged, it is clear the campaign of lies perpetuated by Nanaia Mahuta and the Ardern Labour Government, will resurface to justify their retention.
How far that truth reaches into the debate remains to be seen.
The left-wing bias in the mainstream media is already evident and there is no doubt they will pitch a one-sided narrative.
It will be up to people power to counter that media bias and rally support for what we all believe in: open and fair democracy where everyone is treated equally and given the same opportunity.
Here are some facts: Maori are not underrepresented in local councils - or in Parliament. They are over-represented.
Maori also gain substantial influence on Councils through ad-hoc standing committees and special “relationship” agreements that guarantee priority status.
In fact, the list of special rights for Maori in local government is endless - including Mana Whakahono a Rohe Agreements with councils, statutory obligations for Maori engagement, Maori representation on committees and boards, Maori advisory roles and co-governance arrangements, special procurement rules for Maori businesses, along with continuous opportunities to be involved in decisions relating to roading and other infrastructure projects with oversight and monitoring roles.
To suggest Maori do not have influence on councils is plainly absurd - even without having a free pass to the top-table.
Even the justification that sharing sovereignty is a Treaty right is a lie: the historical record clearly demonstrates sovereignty was ceded “absolutely and without reservation”.
It is also a legal fact that local authorities are not the Crown and therefore do not have Treaty of Waitangi obligations.
But let’s not underestimate the significance of the 42 council referendums (see below for the full list of councils).
Should the vote be to retain the Maori wards, then it is inevitable that the country’s remaining councils will follow suit as opponents will be much less willing to go through the onerous task of gathering signatures to challenge the decision.
The consequences would then become increasingly sinister as tribal totalitarianism takes hold.
It’s easy to blame the Government for not doing enough to stop the tribal takeover of New Zealand. But the outcome of these Maori Seat referenda is on us.
This is our opportunity to rally around our friends and family, to use our mailing lists and social media to impress on everyone that a “no vote” in each of those 42 referenda is vital for the democratic future of New Zealand. And don’t forget, anyone owning property is entitled to vote in every area where rates are paid - more details can be found HERE.
*The 42 councils holding a Maori Seat referendum at the 2025 elections are:
Central Hawke’s Bay District Council
Far North District Council
Gisborne District Council
Hamilton City Council
Hastings District Council
Hauraki District Council
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Horizons Regional Council (Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Council)
Horowhenua District Council
Hutt City Council
Kapiti Coast District Council
Kawerau District Council
Manawatu District Council
Masterton District Council
Marlborough District Council
Matamata-Piako District Council
Napier City Council
Nelson City Council
New Plymouth District Council
Northland Regional Council
Otorohanga District Council
Porirua City Council
Palmerston North City Council
Rangitikei District Council
Rotorua District Council
Ruapehu District Council
South Taranaki District Council
South Wairarapa District Council
Stratford District Council
Taranaki Regional Council
Tararua District Council
Tasman District Council
Taupo District Council
Thames-Coromandel District Council
Waikato District Council
Waipa District Council
Wellington City Council
Wellington Regional Council
Western Bay of Plenty District Council
Whakatane District Council
Whanganui District Council
Whangarei District Council
Full details can be found HERE.
This article was first published at NZCPR. Dr Muriel Newman established NZCPR as a public policy think tank in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. A former Chamber of Commerce President, her background is in business and education.