Earlier in the week, I noted that John Key's "new" approach to welfare was just the same old punitive, beneficiary-bashing, demonise-the-poor approach taken by Don Brash and Jenny Shipley, sugar-coated and wrapped in vague platitudes about "opportunity" and a "fair go" in an effort to disguise it. Rather than representing a change of direction, Key is continuing the same old policies; the only difference is the marketing.
The same could be said of his approach to the Maori seats. Don Brash famously promised that they would be gone by lunchtime if he ever became Prime Minister. Key - who declared on becoming leader that he believed in "a tolerant and inclusive New Zealand" - has pushed that back until tea. Under a National government, the Maori seats would be abolished in 2014 - regardless of whether Maori want to retain them. That gurgling noise you're hearing about now is the sound of National's relationship with the Maori Party - and hence its chances of being in government in 2008 - going down the toilet.
National may be doing this for ideological reasons, or they may be doing it simply to create a bargaining chip to surrender to the Maori Party with great reluctance in coalition negotiations - but if they're doing the latter then they are making a mistake and showing that they once again have failed to adapt to MMP. Ten years in, coalition building is not about the sort of electoral one-night stand seen in MMP's first term. Instead it is about building strong cooperative relationships between coalition partners. This is why Labour has not reinstated the carbon tax despite having the numbers to do it: while Dunne and Peters would be unlikely to topple the government over such a move, it would poison the relationship and make it more difficult for the parties to work together in other areas. Doing that before the relationship even starts simply to create a stronger bargaining position means it is unlikely ever to get off the ground, particularly if there are other alternatives available. And National cannot rely on being so dominant in the polls that a labour-Green-Maori Party coalition is impossible.
As for the seats themselves, as I've said before, they are seen as a positive symbol of Maori mana and participation, and they have no more effect on electoral outcomes than any other electorate. And while the recent Maori electoral option did not lead to the creation of another Maori seat, neither did it show a wholesale rush to abandon the seats in favour of the general list (in fact, quite the opposite - far more Maori signed up for the Maori roll than the general one). Under such circumstances, there's no doubt in my mind that they should be retained, at least until Maori decide otherwise.
The Maori seats represent an abberation to the MMP model and I actually think they should be abolished. I think I/S you are being inconsistant here. You call for the abolishing of the 5% threshold to allow for better representation (one wonders how allowing radicals who can garner 1% of the vote into parliament wouldn't lead to another Weimar or Knesset) even though it inevitably would to much poorer governance (I don't believe better democracy is always better governance - common sense should inform of as much). On the other, you argue for the retention of race based seat set up to initially to guarantee the representation of what was then thought to be a dying race. If Tariana Turia, Sharples and co really believe they are the voice of 12% of the population then let them earn the votes proportionally like everyone else, no by a form of elecotoral apartheid that can potentially massively distort MMP. You can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteIt may come as a shock to those calling National racist, but the royal commission on electoral reform which recommended MMP, actually said that the maori seats should be abolished.
ReplyDeletesanctuary: well, I didn't say they had to go together. I think there really would be no need at all for the Maori seats with a lower threshhold - but I also think that Pakeha cannot unilaterally abolish them without the consent of Maori. That is what Key is proposing, and it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnon: Indeed they did. However, they also suggested a lower threshold for Maori parties in an effort to ensure Maori representation. And they were quite clear that the sort of unilateral abolition by Pakeha that National has been pushing is constitutionally unsustainable.
Yes how dare the National Party stand up for the recommendations of the Royal Commission which recommended getting rid of them.
ReplyDeleteNational are standing up for the position of the Royal Commission, DPF?
ReplyDeleteSo the 5% threshold won't apply to the Maori Party under a National-led government then?
"And they were quite clear that the sort of unilateral abolition by Pakeha that National has been pushing is constitutionally unsustainable. "
ReplyDeleteHow would your firstly define a maori party (which woudl benefit from a lower threshold). Do all the people that vote for it have to be maori. Do all its MPS have to be maori.
And how can you identify national with pakeha? Last time I checked new zealand doesnt havent a constitution and parliament can do what is pleases in terms of legislation with a majority. isnt it more hoesnt for national to put its cards on the table and heaven forbid let the voters decide for themselves.
Anon: How would your firstly define a maori party (which woudl benefit from a lower threshold).
ReplyDeleteIIRC, they recognised that it would be problematic, but I don't recall what their solution was. I'll dig up a copy and do a proper blog on it later tonight.
And unless an abolition is supported by a majority of Maori, it will be difficult to paint it as anything other than a unilateral abolition by Pakeha. A Parliamentary majority won't change this, and while it may give the legal power to achieve it, that doesn't make it a good idea, any more than the unilateral denial of Maori access to the courts over the foreshore and seabed was.
If we want lasting solutions, they have to be done together and by mutual consent. National's "fuck you" attitude simply creates problems for the future, while solving nothing.
I like the solution that's already being implemented - the number of Maori seats is based on the number on the Maori roll. That strikes me as entirely fair and reasonable, and it means that when there are not enough Maori interested in having those seats, they won't exist. So Key should IMO be campaigning to persuade Maori voters to get off the Maori roll and onto the general one, instead of wittering on about unilateral changes.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of politics, I fear he may have correctly surmised that the maori party cannot be seen to be too close to Labour, so no matter what he does they have to negotiate with him and at least make it look as though they're taking him seriously. Or justify to even the most rightwing Maori nutbags that National are so obviously racist that there's no way. I don't think they've gone that far yet.
Moz: The Royal Commission also liked that solution, and considered it one good reason to get rid of the seats - the other being if they rose to 10% of the total, indicating that Maori formed a sufficient electoral bloc to not need them any more. And yes, Key should be persuading Maori to join the general roll rather than seeking to abolish the seats - but that would involve acknowledging their shared citizenship, which wouldn't go down well with the rednecks vote he is seeking to court.
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth noting that National has a particularly dirty history year, which is not going to engender trust: in 1976, they reversed a law change by the Rowling government that saw the "Maori option" introduced for the first time. Muldoon decided that having Maori seats set in exactly the same way as Pakeha ones - by their number of voters, rather than government fiat - was "racist", and so forced them back into the electoral ghetto of a fixed number of seats. Which I think tells you all you need to know about National's respect for Maori electoral rights.