On Maori representation: Trotter loses it

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has criticised my constitutional and electoral reform ideas. Chris Trotter has been ploughing the same field. I/S has firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and jabs it at me. He does not allow comments on his blog anymore (which I understand and respect) so I must respond here. Taking it point-by-point:

He's interested in finding "an electoral system like MMP with no overhangs, that guarantees Maori representation".
- yes, because if the Maori Party and the Tories want to strike a deal on MMP (National were serious about some sort of referendum on the election system; remember it was a Nat - Bolger - who actually delivered MMP in the first place, so they might actually go through with it this time too) we need to have this discussion now. A system with no overhangs (ie. a fixed number of seats) appeals to my sense of orderliness and Maori representation must be assured or else the Treaty would mean nothing and the State would lack legitimacy.

Unfortunately, he then focuses on the latter while pretty much ignoring the former, and the resulting "solution" - SMP plus a return to an unelected upper house - is actively worse than the present system.
- No. The upper house is elected from amongst the number of elected community delegates. If I didn't spell it out it was because popular democratic elections are so entrenched as a concept that I thought I need not have to mention it. Everyone is democratically elected. We don't say that Cabinet or the Executive is unelected - they are elected (in one way or another) from amongst the numbers of elected MPs, and so the legislative council is elected from these elected delegates at an annual hui. Maybe it was that I framed it in terms of being tikanga Maori that made him assume that? Trotter was assuming something similar in his post when he recites the usual humbug about Maori systems, saying they are: "essentially aristocratic in nature, such as the idea that political power flows as readily from lineage as it does from an individual’s capacity to convince others to support him (or her). Such beliefs are deeply embedded in Maori culture." No, ignorance and suspicion and fear is deeply imbedded in Pakeha culture. Did Judith Tizard get to where she is today by her wit and talent did she? The Luxtons, Douglas's, Aclands and the Graham's etc. have all the characteristics that have been ascribed to Maori, but Trotter - who I consider to be a historian as much as a political commentator - fails to view this as part of the context. The context he choses is squarely under the rubric of Maori-bashing. He is wearing his tea planter's hat (to borrow Winston's description of Brash) more often these days it seems. I'll get to his more crimson Kiwi-Iwi hate-mongering later. Back to I/S:

Electorates would be much larger, meaning poorer electorate representation.
- He's the one suggesting abolishing all the electorates - not me! I argue we need them, but he thinks regional requirements through the lists will do.

There would be no proportionality, meaning the system would be unfair and the results would not reflect the will of the people.
- 50 of the seats would be party lists (no threshold, ie. 2%) The other 49 are regional multi-member electorates. There is someproportionality in that, rather than none as he makes it seem.

And his upper house would simply lack legitimacy.
- It has the most legitimacy surely. I will note here that Maori and Pakeha and women and men and independents etc. should all be quota-ised onto the upper house - it must be broadly representative. The idea is that Maori communities (ie the groups that signed the Treaty + others) establish this national hui (hui-a-motu) and then find a way of recognising other communities (on the same basis) so that everyone is in. The House of Representatives has its own tikanga Pakeha traditions and will continue with the same role as it does now, but with only one electoral roll - the "Maori roll" is if you are enrolled in that Maori community. That community, like every other, elects one delegate (or depending on population maybe more) to the hui-a-motu and then that body elects the legislative council for the year.

MMP has flaws, but this is not any sort of answer to them. Fortunately, as Lewis Holden points out, our culture of constitutional incrementalism likely rules out such radical change.
- These are big changes, but I have to offer the whole package up front so everyone knows what they are getting into rather than in dribs and drabs. We should have the debate on the ultimate constitutional outcome/republican settlement at some point. Things must be done in stages in reality, I understand that.

I/S's other ideas about retaining a Maori roll and having that as a list is interesting, but not where we want to end up. I don't see a separate national Maori roll as the ultimate end point. Contrary to what Dr Sharples may think, the seats treat Maori as a race and do not recognise the mana whenua or tino rangatiratanga (autonomy and jurisdiction) of Maori. The Maori seats are tikanga Pakeha whether he likes it or not. The upper house idea I outlined is a possible way of having a parliamentary element that is tikanga Maori - existing in its own right - that is also open to non-Maori, ie. through their community delegates elected on the same basis as every Maori community.

OK, let's deal with Trotter's most recent Brashistic Maori-bashing bullshit:

Also deserving of closer scrutiny, in my opinion, is the fact that the Marae Digipoll reveals that upwards of 70 percent of those questioned do not identify themselves primarily as New Zealanders. First and foremost, the overwhelming majority of those on the Maori Roll identify themselves as Maori.

This statistic has profound constitutional implications. If 70 percent of those availing themselves of the anomalous constitutional phemonenon of the Maori Seats do not unreservedly identify with the state responsible for preserving - and, indeed, augmenting - the institution of guaranteed Maori representation, then on what basis does that state sanction the Seats’ continued existence?

And, can it be at all reasonable for the 70 percent of voters on the Maori Roll who decline to offer their first allegiance to the New Zealand State, to expect its Parliament to accede to Maori Party demands for a significant transfer of public resources from “New Zealanders” to … whom?

Maori iwi, hapu, whanau? A state within the State?

The Maori Party and its followers can be equal, or they can be separate - but I seriously doubt whether their fellow citizens will consent to them being both.

That's the full quote - I wanted to leave everything in. I read that poll too and was astounded. Astounded because it was idiotic.

Ask an Israeli Jew whether they see themselves as a Jew first, or an Israeli, or both. It doesn't matter does it. What are you second, or third? or fourth? The question doesn't even make sense. No-one has ever asked themselves that question. Maybe Trotter thinks Maori are more like Palestinians in his view.

Trotter defines it as one of "allegiance" - I don't think it is quite like that. Fear and mistrust of the other are the underlying symptoms of racism, and Trotter doesn't just dive in there he has thrown himself off the highest platform and bombed. What was the point in him communicating this to us? Does Trotter see himself as a New Zealander first? This isn't a referendum on what Maori think of the colonial NZ state and their relationship to it, but it is an intriguing insight into what Trotter really thinks. People simply don't go round asking themselves these questions because those questions are meaningless.

[UPDATE 6:00PM

Trotter has left this comment on his post:
The Maori Party needs to understand this, and understand it well: If it denies Labour a fourth term by negotiating a coalition agreement with National, that will amount to - and will be taken as - a declaration of war on the whole labour movement - brown as well as white.
And then, if I may paraphrase Gough Whitlam: “You may well say God save the Treaty, because NOTHING will save the Maori Seats.”

And it's that sort of Pakeha ownership and sense of entitlement that could drive the Maori Party away from Labour. Like it did when the Pakeha Labour MPs conspired to pass the confiscation bill and re-confirm Maori as second class citizens. Maori are supposed to stand in the corner and take orders from the Union bosses and Aunty Helen the way Trotter puts it. That attitude is indicative of the sort of entrenched institutional/structural racism that forced Turia to form the Maori Party in the first place. If this is Trotter's way of wooing the Maori Party then his foreshadowed campaigning against them is going to be positively Rwandan.]