🔗 Share this article

The count of guaranteed positions for Indigenous council members on NZ local authorities is set to be cut by over 50%, after a divisive legislative amendment that required local governments to put the fate of hard-earned Indigenous wards to a popular referendum.

Background Information on Indigenous Representation

Māori wards, which may have multiple councillors depending on local population numbers, were created in 2001 to provide Māori electors the option to elect a guaranteed Indigenous council member in local and regional authorities. Initially, local governments could only create a Indigenous seat by first putting it to a public vote in their region. Local populations frequently spent years building community backing and pushing their councils to create Māori wards.

Legislative Shifts and Administrative Decisions

To remedy the issue, the former administration allowed municipal authorities to establish a Indigenous seat without first requiring them to subject it to a public vote.

But in 2024, the right-wing coalition government reversed the change, saying local residents ought to determine whether to introduce Indigenous representation.

Referendum Results

The new legislation mandated councils that had established a electoral district under the previous policy to hold binding referendums concurrently with the local body elections, which concluded on 11 October. Of 42 councils participating in the referendum, 17 voted to retain their wards, and twenty-five to disestablish theirs – revealing numerous areas opposed to guaranteed Māori representation.

The results represented “a vital step in reinstating community self-determination.”

Opposition parties nevertheless have criticised the new policy as “discriminatory” and “anti-Māori”. After assuming power, the current administration has ushered in sweeping rollbacks to measures designed to enhance Māori health, wellbeing and representation. The government has said it wants to terminate “ethnic-specific” policies, and asserts it is committed to enhancing results for Indigenous people and every citizen.

Geographical Splits

The results of the public votes were divided down city-country divisions – six of the seven cities required to vote supported Indigenous seats, while countryside areas leaned strongly towards disestablishing them.

“It's unfortunate for the Māori wards that had only just come in – they’re only just starting to hit their stride.”

Electoral Participation and Criticism

The recent municipal polls registered the smallest electoral participation in 36 years, with less than a third of citizens participating, prompting calls for an overhaul.

This approach had been “a farce”.

Differential Standards

Local governments are permitted to create other types of wards – including countryside seats – without initially mandating a community ballot. The disparate requirements applied to Māori wards suggested the government was singling out Indigenous inclusion.

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

This statement referred to the 17 areas that chose to keep their seats.