spinofflive
A person speaks into a megaphone during a protest, holding a sign that reads "Māori wards matter!!" The image is overlaid with red and yellow graphic elements.
Design: Liam Rātana

PoliticsJanuary 15, 2025

The fate of Māori seats on councils lies with those who vote

A person speaks into a megaphone during a protest, holding a sign that reads "Māori wards matter!!" The image is overlaid with red and yellow graphic elements.
Design: Liam Rātana

With dozens of Māori seats up for referendum, this year’s local elections will reveal where Aotearoa truly stands on representation.

Last year, the government introduced legislation requiring all local authorities that had established Māori wards and constituencies to hold a referendum on these seats during this year’s local government elections. The policy, which faced strong opposition from councils and Māori communities, has resulted in a total of 42 authorities set to hold a referendum on Māori wards in October. 

The cost of these referendums is estimated to exceed $2 million, with the Greater Wellington Regional Council alone projecting costs of $350,000. This financial burden, coupled with the likelihood of anti-Māori representation outcomes, has fuelled frustration among advocates of Māori representation.

The move reverses a Labour government policy that had removed citizen-initiated binding referendums on Māori wards. Critics see this shift as a blow to Māori wards, given the anticipated majority opposition in October’s votes. The challenge for them now lies in mobilising enough public support to retain these wards through the ballot box in local elections with notoriously low voter turnout.

In a December High Court ruling, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua’s appeal against Kaipara District Council’s decision to abolish its Māori ward was dismissed. Among New Zealand’s 78 councils, only Kaipara District Council and Upper Hutt City Council opted to disestablish Māori wards. Councils that established wards through votes were not required to hold referendums, and others, like the Far North District Council, continue to explore the ramifications of avoiding a public vote.

A street scene at dusk with a lit-up historic building and the text: "Every vote helps shape our future. Make sure you have your say. Next local elections October 2025.
Part of the campaign to increase voter turnout at this year’s Local Elections. (Image: votelocal.co.nz)

Six months ago, I wrote about the evolution of Māori activism, emphasising the need for collective efforts beyond hīkoi and grassroots protests. Late last year, one of the largest ever hīkoi to parliament took place, opposing perceived anti-Māori policies. The movement led to a record number of submissions on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill – which is apparently “dead in the water” – and a surge in Māori voter registrations. Over 3,000 people enrolled on the Māori electoral roll during the hīkoi, driven by calls from prominent Māori leaders.

Stats NZ data from June 2023 compiled by the Local Government Commission indicates that if all eligible Māori voters registered on the Māori roll, and all local authorities had Māori wards, there could be 113 Māori seats across local authorities, which would make up approximately 13% of all council seats. With the growth in the Māori electoral population in the year and a half since, that number is now likely to be even higher. However, civic engagement remains a challenge. Despite growing awareness, voter turnout at local elections has steadily declined in recent years.

In the last general election, total voter turnout was 78.2%, down from 82.2% in 2020. Turnout for Māori voters on both the general and Māori rolls was 70.3%, slightly lower than the 72.9% in 2020. Yet, young Māori voters defied the trend. Turnout among 18 to 24-year-old Māori rose to 70.3%, marking a significant increase over previous years.

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor

In 2023, parliament published an inquiry into the 2022 Local Elections, with low voter turnout being a primary focus. A statistical analysis conducted by Auckland Council found that those who identified as being of Māori descent when enrolling were less likely to vote than those of non-Māori descent, with 25% of Māori likely to vote vs 39% of non-Māori. In 1989, there was an average turnout of 60% across all local authorities. By 2022, that average had decreased to 42%. The inquiry made a number of recommendations to improve a range of areas like resources, processes and even trials for online and electronic voting. The aim was to implement key changes before this year’s local elections.

The referendums on Māori seats are about more than local governance; their outcomes will shape the trajectory of representation and inclusivity in New Zealand for years to come. They serve as a barometer for the country’s evolving views on equity and partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A vote to remove the wards would signal a retreat from efforts to uplift underrepresented voices, while a result that keeps them could bolster momentum for broader structural change. As voters cast their ballots, the implications of their decisions will ripple beyond local councils, influencing debates on national identity and governance in ways that will be felt for generations. 

This is Public Interest Journalism funded by NZ On Air.

Keep going!
David Seymour vs red tape (Photo: Getty Images, design: The Spinoff)
David Seymour vs red tape (Photo: Getty Images, design: The Spinoff)

PoliticsJanuary 15, 2025

What’s all the fuss about the bill to regulate regulations?

David Seymour vs red tape (Photo: Getty Images, design: The Spinoff)
David Seymour vs red tape (Photo: Getty Images, design: The Spinoff)

Thrice thwarted previously, the Act Party’s Regulatory Standards Bill is set to pass in 2025, ushering in a new – and potentially controversial – era for government rule-making. Here’s everything you need to know.

Before public submissions for the Treaty principles bill came to a close on Tuesday, a separate Act Party-led bill some believe to be “flying under the radar” saw a flurry of 11th-hour attention. The Regulatory Standards Bill, to be introduced to parliament in the first half of this year, aims to shake up all levels of government regulation in Aotearoa, and, unlike the Treaty principles bill, is destined to pass into law under the National-Act coalition agreement.

Submissions on a proposal document discussing the bill’s likely key components closed on Monday night after an eight-week consultation period that was largely overshadowed by the introduction of the Treaty principles bill (submissions opened on the day the hīkoi against that bill arrived in Wellington). But with some considering the two bills natural companions, there has been a burst of last-minute social media campaigning against the Regulatory Standards Bill, with some legal scholars issuing grave warnings about its potential implications. 

What’s all this about?

The current iteration of the bill is yet to be drafted, but it will be based on a 2021 Regulatory Standards Bill that Seymour introduced as a member’s bill, which did not pass its first reading. That was Act’s third attempt to introduce essentially the same bill, with the first attempt, 2006’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill, being blocked by Labour at select committee stage. After Act signed a confidence and supply agreement with the new National government in 2008, party leader Rodney Hide became regulatory reform minister, and a “regulatory responsibility taskforce” was set up the following year. It recommended the renamed Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 but it failed to pass amid opposition from Treasury. The original idea for the bill came from a 2001 report titled Constraining Government Regulation by the New Zealand Initiative (then known as the New Zealand Business Roundtable).

Some of the social media campaigns against the Regulatory Standards Bill (Images: Instagram and Facebook)

The 2025 iteration will have one key change from the 2021 version: the establishment of a regulatory standards board to consider complaints about existing regulation being inconsistent with the principles laid out in the bill. The earlier bill gave these powers to the courts. The board would be made up of members appointed by Seymour and would have the power to initiate its own reviews, and provide non-binding recommendations to ministers, though it would not be involved in assessing new regulatory proposals.

Sorry, but this all sounds… kind of boring.

Fair. The eyes of many of us would likely glaze over on hearing the bill’s purpose: its official line is “to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand so regulatory decisions are based on principles of good lawmaking and economic efficiency”. But regulations can impact us in myriad ways and at myriad levels, from ensuring our homes are healthy, to preventing homes from being built at all. These have been kept in check in the past through regulatory impact assessments, the Regulatory Review Committee, judicial review, the Office of the Attorney-General and more recently, the Ministry for Regulation.

With the Regulatory Standards Bill, Act Party leader and minister for regulation David Seymour argues issues with poor productivity, low wages and a lack of transparency in lawmaking will be addressed by setting a benchmark “for good regulation through a set of regulatory principles that all regulation should comply with”. Though some principles are uncontroversial, others have been criticised for their decidedly libertarian flavour, with an emphasis on personal liberty, property rights and “equality”.

The bill will require that “every person is equal before the law”, and that legislation should not reduce personal liberty, security, freedom of choice or action or right to own, use and dispose of property (except when necessary to protect the freedoms and rights of another). Laws would be unable to take or impair a person’s property without consent, or “good justification” or “fair compensation” (the principles do not include a scope of what would be considered reasonable justification or compensation). The will also say that “unnecessary regulatory burdens and undue compliance costs should be eliminated or minimised”.

What are the main concerns?

An interim regulatory impact statement (RIS) on the bill prepared by Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation expressed concerns about embedding rigid principles in legislation as they wouldn’t be able to be adapted to evolving regulatory best practice or societal expectations. It preferred building on the current disclosure statement regime – to assist in parliamentary and public scrutiny of every new bill, a document with information about the development and content of it is published – plus new legislative provisions to support regulatory stewardship and the review and reporting roles of the Ministry for Regulation.

The ministry also released a preliminary Treaty impact analysis, which noted that a lack of any reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi “may be seen as politically significant for Māori and could be perceived as an attempt by the Crown to limit the established role of the Treaty/te Tiriti as part of law-making”.

Legal scholars, meanwhile, have expressed concern over the bill’s apparent goal of embedding ideological principles – some of which Victoria University law lecturer Dean Knight described as “strongly libertarian in character” – in our “constitutional blueprint”. “The key point is that many of these legislative design principles are not above politics or universally agreed – and therefore unsuitable for the type of constitutional blueprint this bill contemplates,” Knight tweeted. “Better ways forward would be to create a legislative design select committee charged with vetting for compliance with constitutional, human rights and legislative quality principles in the Legislation Guidelines, Bill of Rights, te Tiriti, etc.”

Jane Kelsey, emeritus law professor at the University of Auckland, has been a longtime critic of all versions of this bill, and earlier this week reiterated her concerns to RNZ about the potential consequences of light-handed regulation or self-regulation, which she said had “helped deliver the leaky buildings crisis, the Pike River mine tragedy, workplace deaths in forestry and on farms, finance company collapses, unsafe aged care and dangerous adventure tourism, among other failures”.

She also criticised the bill’s focus on private property rights over other considerations. “All of those things that might be precious to many of us, social considerations, environment considerations, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, will be subordinated, if not, deemed irrelevant, in the policy and legislative making processes,” Kelsey said.

Writing in the NZ Herald, Lady Tureiti Moxon, chair of the National Urban Māori Authority, criticised the bill for failing to honour the Treaty and for its focus on equality over equity. “This bill is a regression, a backward step when what we need is a fair and just future built on justice, equity, and respect,” she wrote. 

Photo: Getty Images

The 2011 version of the bill was criticised by former chief parliamentary counsel George Tanner. Though he agreed that “no one would deny the necessity for legislation to be of a higher standard”, he wrote that the bill “suffers from an acute lack of problem definition and does not properly identify and assess workable alternatives”.

A year prior, former Herald economics editor Brian Fallow feared that “radical legislation, gravid with constitutional danger, will be smuggled into the statute book disguised as a measure to relieve business of vexatious red tape”. He noted that a group of lawyers and economists who had been at a presentation for the proposed legislation “almost without exception were critical of the draft bill”.

In 2023, economist Brian Easton wrote of his concerns about Act’s proposal to introduce the bill, saying its focus on private property rights and compensation was particularly “troubling”.

Does the bill have any support?

Business lobby group BusinessNZ has been positive about the forthcoming legislation, with chief executive Katherine Rich saying, “Our members have consistently called for something to be done about poor regulations holding back many businesses from achieving profitability.  They know that excessive regulation holds back productivity and wage growth.” In the group’s draft submission, however, Rich warned that “a strong focus on rights and liberties might conflict with public interest goals, such as safety protection. This could require trade-offs that are politically and socially challenging.” The submission also emphasised that appointments to the regulatory standards board should be based on expertise and not politically motivated.

What happens next?

According to a proactively released cabinet paper, Seymour will report back to cabinet by February on the outcome of consultation and to “seek agreement to policy decisions”. The bill will be introduced to parliament in the first half of the year, and will be open to public submissions at select committee stage.

‘Become a member to help us deliver news and features that matter most to Aotearoa.’
Lyric Waiwiri-Smith
— Politics reporter

Politics