🔗 Share this article

The number of guaranteed positions for Indigenous council members on NZ local authorities is set to be cut by over 50%, after a controversial law change that required municipal councils to put the fate of hard-earned Māori seats to a public vote.

Historical Context on Māori Wards

Indigenous electoral districts, which may have multiple elected officials based on local population numbers, were established in 2001 to give Indigenous voters the option to elect a guaranteed Māori representative in local and regional authorities. Originally, local governments were only able to establish a Indigenous seat by initially putting it to a public vote in their area. Local populations frequently devoted considerable time building community backing and pushing their councils to create Indigenous representation.

Legislative Shifts and Administrative Decisions

To address this concern, the former administration allowed local councils to set up a Māori ward without first requiring them to put it to a public vote.

But in 2024, the current administration overturned the policy, stating communities should decide whether to introduce Indigenous representation.

Voting Outcomes

The coalition’s law change mandated councils that had established a ward under Labour’s rules to hold binding referendums alongside the municipal polls, which ended on October 11. Of 42 councils participating in the public vote, 17 voted to keep their seats, and 25 to disestablish theirs – showing numerous areas against reserved Indigenous seats.

These outcomes represented “a crucial move in reinstating local democratic control.”

Critics however have condemned the government’s law change as “discriminatory” and “against Indigenous interests”. After assuming power, the coalition government has ushered in extensive reversals to measures designed to improve Māori health, wellbeing and representation. The government has stated it wants to end “race-based” policies, and says it is dedicated to improving outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders.

Urban-Rural Divide

The results of the public votes were split down urban-rural lines – six of the seven urban centers required to vote supported Indigenous seats, while countryside areas leaned strongly towards disestablishing them.

“It's unfortunate for the Indigenous seats that had recently been established – they’re just beginning to find their footing.”

Voter Turnout and Concerns

This year’s municipal polls registered the lowest voter turnout in over three decades, with under one-third of eligible voters casting a vote, leading to demands for reform.

The process had been “a farce”.

Comparative Treatment

Local governments are able to create different electoral districts – such as countryside seats – without first requiring a public vote. The disparate requirements applied to Indigenous representation suggested the administration was singling out Indigenous inclusion.

“Ultimately, they were unsuccessful. Numerous localities have given the government a middle finger response.”

This remark referred to the 17 areas that voted to keep their seats.