🔗 Share this article

The count of guaranteed positions for Indigenous council members on New Zealand local authorities is set to be slashed by over 50%, after a controversial law change that forced municipal councils to put the fate of hard-won Indigenous wards to a public vote.

Historical Context on Indigenous Representation

Indigenous electoral districts, which may have one or more elected officials based on local population numbers, were created in 2001 to provide Indigenous voters the option to vote for a assured Indigenous council member in local and regional authorities. Initially, councils could only create a Māori ward by initially putting it to a community referendum in their area. Communities often devoted considerable time building community backing and pushing their local governments to establish Indigenous representation.

Policy Changes and Government Actions

To remedy the issue, the previous Labour government allowed local councils to establish a Māori ward without first requiring them to put it to a popular ballot.

However, this year, the current administration reversed the change, saying communities ought to determine whether to introduce Māori wards.

Voting Outcomes

The new legislation mandated councils that had established a electoral district under Labour’s rules to conduct binding referendums alongside the local body elections, which ended on October 11. Out of 42 local governments taking part in the referendum, 17 decided to keep their seats, and 25 to disestablish theirs – revealing numerous areas opposed to reserved Indigenous seats.

These outcomes represented “a crucial move in restoring community self-determination.”

Opposition parties however have condemned the new policy as “racist” and “against Indigenous interests”. After assuming power, the coalition government has implemented sweeping rollbacks to policies designed to improve Māori health, wellbeing and representation. Officials has said it aims to terminate “ethnic-specific” approaches, and says it is dedicated to enhancing results for Indigenous people and every citizen.

Urban-Rural Divide

Outcomes of the public votes were split down urban-rural lines – most cities required to vote backed Indigenous seats, while rural regions leaned strongly towards removing them.

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

Electoral Participation and Concerns

This year’s municipal polls registered the lowest voter turnout in 36 years, with less than a third of citizens participating, leading to calls for an overhaul.

The process had been “a mockery”.

Comparative Treatment

Local governments are permitted to establish other types of electoral districts – such as rural wards – without first requiring a community ballot. The disparate requirements placed on Indigenous representation suggested the administration was targeting Indigenous inclusion.

“Well, they failed. Many communities have given the government a middle finger response.”

This remark concerned the 17 regions that voted to keep their wards.