In order to understand the debate regarding the issue of the Maori parliamentary seats in New Zealand politics one has to understand the history surrounding their establishment. In 1840 New Zealand was ceded to the British crown by the Maori chiefs at a small settlement called Waitangi in the far north of the North Island. In return the Maori chiefs were guaranteed British protection, retention of their lands and a stake in the running of the new British colony. Twenty years later the optimism expressed at Waitangi back in 1840 had all but evaporated New Zealand was in the midst of a civil war with Maori declaring that they would never accept European rule so long as they remained shut out of the decision making process governing the country. The settler government maintained that Maori must submit to the rule of law or suffer the consequences. Adding to this situation was the activity of the newly established Native Land Court who's role it was to individualise Maori customary land title. As a result of this process a number of eligible Maori were now qualified to exercise their right at the ballot box. To qualify for the right to vote one had to be male, over 21 years of age and own land over a certain value. What was the reaction of the white settlers to Maori participating in the electoral process? Judging from the newspaper commentaries and letters to the editor at the time the reaction was extremely negative to say the least. What white settlers feared was that Maori participation in the electoral process would hinder the progress of colonisation. Into this story steps Donald McLean who was to play a leading role in the shaping of Maori policy for the next ten years.
Who was Donald McLean? McLean was born in Scotland in 1820 and arrived in New Zealand in 1840 Governor George Grey appointed McLean as a government land agent due largely to his proficiency in the Maori language. At first McLean approached his job in a fair and even handed manner. As Maori resistance to land sales increased McLean became more devious in his dealings with Maori chiefs. It was in one of his dealings between two competing chiefs that sparked off war in Taranaki in 1860 over the sale of the Waitara block. In 1866 McLean became Liberal MP for Napier by this time he owned considerable land holdings in the Hawkes Bay. On hearing the concerns expressed by white settlers over the issue of qualified Maori males participating in the electoral process he responded with the Native Representation Act, 1867. The aim of this act was to disenfranchise qualified Maori from the larger political process by herding them into four so-called Maori electorates. Those Maori already on the general role were removed and placed onto the Maori role unilaterally. The Maori seats were only meant to be a temporary measure however by 1877 they were made more or less permanent. Over the years there was talk about their removal but nothing ever eventuated. In recent years the number of Maori seats increased from four to seven. In 1996 New Zealand changed from a first-past-the-post electoral system to proportional representation where seats in New Zealand's parliament are allocated according to the percentage of votes each party gets provided it crosses the 5% thresh hold.
MMP as the new system is called suddenly breathed real meaning into the Maori seats and Maori representation in parliament. In the first MMP election the NZ First Party led by Winston Peters won four of the six Maori seats. NZ First went into government in coalition with the National party. Maori now had a voice in the corridors of power. Once again this new found taste of political power was resented by the European majority who feared that Maori would use this new found power to take back what had been stolen from them a century earlier. The fact that these fears were never realised or even on the Maori agenda did not lessen the call for the removal of the Maori seats. Going into this election National party leader John Key had stated that he will call for a referendum for the abolition of the Maori seats after 2014. However, since making that statement he has since softened his stance. This is in part due to Mr Key having had coalition talks with the Maori Party since winning office in last Saturday's general election. The rhetoric of calling for the abolition of the Maori seats appears to be off National's agenda at least for now. Why is National appearing to be having a change of heart on this issue? One can only speculate but one expalnation can be found in the make up of National's main ally in government the ACT party. ACT did really in last Saturday's election taking into parliament five MP's an increase of three MP's from the last parliament including former finance minister Sir Roger Douglas. So, perhaps as a foil to ACT's growing influence Key suddenly finds himself needing the Maori Party and the Maori seats to help reinforce his government. Whatever his motives this new marriage between the Maori Party and National can only be good for the future retention of the Maori seats. Or perhaps reality has set in. Maori will never lie down and allow the Maori seats to be abolished without first consulting with them. That would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Maori have fought so hard for a voice in the corridors of power and would not willingly let it go. After all they've been around for 140 years. That' s got to be good for the country.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Last Saturday's General Election
If you are a die-hard labour supporter like me then you would have been extremely dissapointed with last Saturday's election result. Although the result was totally predictable, even from a year ago it still hurt. New Zealanders are a fickle lot when it comes to deciding if a government should remain in office beyond two terms. In New Zealand a government serves a term of three years then is up for re-election. I can only think of one New Zealand government since 1945 to make it to a fourth term in office. That was Keith Holyoake's National government from 1960 to 1972. Helen Clark's Labour government attempted to emulate that feat last Saturday, but failed.
Clarks's failure to secure a fourth term in office appears to stem from New Zealander's fickle nature towards politicians who stay in office too long. It wasn't as if Clark's government had screwed up on either economic or foreign policy issues. During her watch especially the first six years the New Zealand economy boomed, unemployment reached its lowest figure in decades, export prices were good, business confidence was high, wages and salaries had begun to rise and there was a general feeling of pride. The following issues were tackled such as narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots that had occurred as a result of the free market approach pursued by the previous National administration. To narrow the gap Labour introduced Working for Families. The establishment of Kiwi Bank a soley owned New Zealand bank with benefits staying in New Zealand. During Labour's third term in office they introduced Kiwisaver a state controlled pension fund where both employees and employers contibute to. Simply put the Labour government resurected John Maynard Keynes who long advocated that there is always a role for governments in the economy. So, where did Labour go wrong?
Judging from the comments that I've read in various New Zealand newspapers it seemed that most people who voted for the National party wanted change. There was an air of dis-satisfaction in a number of areas. They were Clark's perceived arrogance, and that of her government, the introduction of unpopular laws such as the anti-smacking law. By 2005 there were signs that the world economy was beginning to slow down. This began to impact on New Zealand with its export driven economy. In the summer of 2007 the housing boom in the US came to an abrupt halt with foreclosures hitting record levels which later created the current financial crisis. New Zealand's economy began to falter. There was a belief held by many New Zealand voters that National is better equipped to handle the current financial crisis facing New Zealand. What evidence to support that notion was never explained perhaps the fact that the new New Zealand Prime Minister was a forex dealer seemed to hold sway. I personally seem to think that a lot had to do with New Zealander's belief that a government that stays in office too long is a bad government so for that reason people wanted change. The irony of this desire for change is the fact New Zealand jumped to the right whereas countries of our western democratic persuasion such as Australia, the UK and recently the US jumped to the left. It appears that New Zealand is out of step with the rest of its major trading partners. Only time will tell if Saturday's election result was the right choice.
Clarks's failure to secure a fourth term in office appears to stem from New Zealander's fickle nature towards politicians who stay in office too long. It wasn't as if Clark's government had screwed up on either economic or foreign policy issues. During her watch especially the first six years the New Zealand economy boomed, unemployment reached its lowest figure in decades, export prices were good, business confidence was high, wages and salaries had begun to rise and there was a general feeling of pride. The following issues were tackled such as narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots that had occurred as a result of the free market approach pursued by the previous National administration. To narrow the gap Labour introduced Working for Families. The establishment of Kiwi Bank a soley owned New Zealand bank with benefits staying in New Zealand. During Labour's third term in office they introduced Kiwisaver a state controlled pension fund where both employees and employers contibute to. Simply put the Labour government resurected John Maynard Keynes who long advocated that there is always a role for governments in the economy. So, where did Labour go wrong?
Judging from the comments that I've read in various New Zealand newspapers it seemed that most people who voted for the National party wanted change. There was an air of dis-satisfaction in a number of areas. They were Clark's perceived arrogance, and that of her government, the introduction of unpopular laws such as the anti-smacking law. By 2005 there were signs that the world economy was beginning to slow down. This began to impact on New Zealand with its export driven economy. In the summer of 2007 the housing boom in the US came to an abrupt halt with foreclosures hitting record levels which later created the current financial crisis. New Zealand's economy began to falter. There was a belief held by many New Zealand voters that National is better equipped to handle the current financial crisis facing New Zealand. What evidence to support that notion was never explained perhaps the fact that the new New Zealand Prime Minister was a forex dealer seemed to hold sway. I personally seem to think that a lot had to do with New Zealander's belief that a government that stays in office too long is a bad government so for that reason people wanted change. The irony of this desire for change is the fact New Zealand jumped to the right whereas countries of our western democratic persuasion such as Australia, the UK and recently the US jumped to the left. It appears that New Zealand is out of step with the rest of its major trading partners. Only time will tell if Saturday's election result was the right choice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
