Before I make some general comments about Maori in general seats, can I begin by noting where I whakapapa to? My background in itself I believe sheds some light on some of the differences between Maori in general seats today and Maori in Maori seats. My mother’s history is simple. She comes from British stock who came to New Zealand and were dairy farmers in Waikato. My father’s background is more exotic. His father was a Pakeha plasterer, Alf Bridges, also of British stock, but his mother was Naku Joseph of Ngata Maniapoto. She grew up in rural Oparure near Te Kuiti, and as I learnt upon a recent visit there my (I think) great-great-grandfather on her side was in fact a Jewish man who in Aotearoa gained himself a couple of Maori wives, from one of whom I come. Politics was in his blood, and I understand he eventually left New Zealand and was a reasonably successful local body politician in Sydney.
As I said in my maiden speech, Naku Joseph remained in an unhappy relationship with her hard-living husband, but did so because in those days, early last century, she thought marriage to a Pakeha man was bettering herself and her children’s prospects. She continually told my father that she wanted her children and grandchildren to have letters behind their names, without really understanding what that meant. I think her move from Oparure to Hamilton, where my father grew up, severed the link in my family to matters Maori until reasonably recent times.
With that personal background, can I turn to discuss Maori in general seats? A basic point I make is that Maori in general seats are different to Maori in Maori seats. We, I think as a general rule, want to be different, but even if we didn’t want to be, we have to be. I think the nature of general seats is such that we have to do things differently.
The Hon. Shane Jones, while not a Maori who has held a general seat, has previously made – I think – related points to those I would like to make. Namely that Maori in the two large parties must be pragmatic and prepared to compromise. We must appreciate that to most of our colleagues what might be called Maori issues are but one very small set of issues in most MPs’ minds. That then raises an issue of one’s integrity: does one do what Tariana Turia did and leave the tent because you can’t keep going if things get so inconsistent with what you believe? How much compromise is too much?
Let me come back to those themes relating to the difference between Maori in Maori seats and Maori in general seats shortly. But first a point that surprised me upon looking into the issue of Maori in general seats: the rarity of such MPs. By my count, there were none in the last Parliament, and there have only been eleven ever. I am tenth equal with the Hon. Paula Bennett, both of us having won general seats this last election.
I think that these numbers hold even when we take a fairly broad view of who can be said to be Maori. The eleven in order are:
- James Carroll – Waiapu then Gisborne in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
- William (Rex) Austin – Awarua 1975–1987
- Ben Couch – Wairarapa 1975–1984
- Winston Peters – Hunua then Tauranga from 1978 onwards until 2005
- Leslie Ian Peters – Tongariro 1990–1993
- Clem Simich – Tamaki 1991–2005
- Sandra Lee – Auckland Central 1993–1996
- Jill Pettis – Wanganui 1993–1996
- Georgina Beyer – Wairarapa 1999–2005
- Paula Bennett – Waitakere 2008–
- Simon Bridges – Tauranga 2008–
The rarity of Maori in general seats runs up against another contrary generalisation, in my view. Of the eleven, five have been ministers, so far! And I say ‘so far’ because I am reasonably optimistic. That must be better than the general proportion for members, at nearly half.
This leads me to a tentative conclusion that Maori in general seats find it harder to get there but once there do well. Put another way, there are not many of us, but if I can say so immodestly, those of us there are of high calibre. Arguably, we have to be to make it. We have got through the rigours of a tough selection process, and in my case, and in Winston Peters’, where the seat is ‘blue ribbon’, that’s often the hardest battle. We’ve been selected by all ethnicities in our electorate. From then on we are prepared for anything.
Another interesting factor is that of the eleven I would argue that eight were clearly right of centre, or at least started political life that way! Moreover, those who were left of centre did not hold their general seats for long. With the exception of Georgina Beyer, it was only for one term each.
I want to stress that I am exceptionally tentative about the potential significance of this. But it may say something about the kind of Maori that put themselves forward for general seats, and of course the kind of Maori general seats are prepared to accept. So is it Maori self-selecting or general seats self-selecting? Are Maori who want to stand in a general seat more likely to be conservative? I am, so is that how that works, or is it that electors in general seats prefer conservative Maori? Or is the reality that because there have only ever been eleven Maori in general seats we cannot say either thing safely – and I am clutching at straws?
Whatever the case, these are interesting issues that I would like to flesh out with reference to my own and other MPs’ experiences. I recall back earlier in the 2000s when the Maori Party was considering whether to run candidates in general seats: an argument against was that doing so could potentially water down the party’s core principles. In Maori seats one can run as being solely or mostly for Maori interests. Such a position is impossible in general seats, where you represent everyone. As I say, the Hon. Shane Jones has made related points previously regarding making it in one of the two big parties, where you have to be for everyone’s interests and not running solely on a Maori platform.
As was often said about Winston Peters, arguably Maori in general seats may tend to play down their Maori-ness, and more often than not have not been fluent in te reo. I, for example, do not see myself as a Maori politician the way my Maori Party colleagues do. Rather I am a politician who is Maori. I believe there is a difference, although it is one that’s difficult to pinpoint.
In my maiden speech I quoted from Winston Peters’ maiden speech, in which he said: ‘I am a New Zealander, I am a Maori, and I am also a lawyer. New Zealand is not a monotonous garden where every flower is the same; it is a garden where the diversity of the blooms enriches the view.’ This is a lovely quote, but for my purposes today note the order in which Winston Peters stated matters. New Zealander first (perhaps even then he knew what he’d be calling his future party?), Maori second. Interesting – and different I think to the view of some Maori in Maori seats.
Lastly, can I note a few points about the history regarding Maori seats. I do so because in thinking about Maori in general seats I came across this history, and it was news to me – and perhaps even to others. From 1896 until 1967 Maori (except ‘half-castes’ such as James Carroll) were not allowed to stand as candidates in European seats. The law was changed that year by a National Government, but it was not until 1975, when National’s Ben Couch and Rex Austin were elected, that Maori were successful in general electorates. The 1967 changes were important.
In the debates in the House at the time of the changes, J R Hanan, the then Minister of Justice, stated:
<Q>It has been said on many occasions by Maori spokesmen [sic] both inside and outside this House that they would consider a change in the system of Maori representation only when they saw Maoris [sic] nominated as candidates for European electorates where they had a chance of being elected, and this is not an unreasonable attitude. If that happened it would prove that European voters were prepared to vote for a Maori candidate.
I think this argument, combined with the rarity of Maori in general seats, even in 2009, provides a strong justification for the retention of Maori seats, accepting that MMP party lists also provide an avenue for Maori into Parliament.
Can I say in conclusion, Maori in general seats are different to Maori in Maori seats. Of course neither is more important than the other, except perhaps if they come from Tauranga. But maybe given the differences, by having both, we ensure all Maori across the spectrum are represented, and Maori representation is not a monotonous garden where every flower is the same. |