Professional Diversity Practice: Maori Seats in New Zealand Parliament

This report delves into the ongoing debates surrounding the Maori seats in the New Zealand parliament, analyzing the historical context of the Treaty of Waitangi and its implications for bicultural policy. It examines the arguments for and against the viability of these seats, considering issues of equality, race, culture, and the role of the Treaty in contemporary New Zealand. The report discusses how neoliberal perspectives influence these debates and the challenges faced by Maori in navigating the political landscape. It explores the potential consequences of removing Maori seats, including the impact on Maori health and social services, and emphasizes the importance of Maori representation in parliament for maintaining their voice and achieving their goals. The paper references relevant literature and provides insights into the complexities of Maori representation and the ongoing negotiation of cultural and political identities in New Zealand.

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY PRACTICE
Maori seats in the New Zealand parliament
Author's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction

PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY PRACTICE 2
The paper offers an understanding of how bicultural policy through the partnership
between Māori and European settlers during the earliest decades of colonization. Throughout this
historical span, Maori had limited political rights. The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand was
first signed in 1840 and is an agreement made between the British and Māori chiefs (New
Zeeland Government, 2018). Currently, Winston Peters is proposing a two-part referendum to
consider the contemporary viability of Maori seats in the New Zealand parliament. The paper
discusses how the referendum may ‘disrupt the debates’ about equality, race, culture, and the
role of the Treaty.
New Zealand parliamentary debates offer useful insight into neoliberal perspectives for
indigenous people. New Zealand political parties are either cultural or racial, and it is up to the
Maori members how they represent their indigenous interests. Maori hold a special place in this
country, and te Tiriti’s place holds a vital place in the improvement of Maori health. The
Ministry of Health remains te Tiriti while Taonga demands a commitment to Maori and Maori
health services (King-Tamihana, 2017). Parliaments and Legislators debate about legislatures
and contest definitions on social inequity, historical injustice, and political compromise.
Parliamentarians in New Zealand address the culture bearers and use neoliberal logic to limit
culture’s challenges (Gershon, 2008). The focus is more if culture should be allowed to become a
legislative object as not everyone possesses the skill set. Maori MPs have criticized the New
Zealand parliament and work towards undoing the restrictions their parliamentary colleagues
have built around culture itself as asserted by Gershon (2008).
As asserted by Fleras (1998), the aim of bi-nationalism discourse honors the importance
of original occupancy from the perspective of languages, common agendas, and institutional
frameworks. Still, the commitment to bi-nationalism must not override the needs of other

PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY PRACTICE 3
multicultural minorities and ignore the ethnicity in New Zealand. Bi-nationalism must not any
point dent equal democratic rights to any citizen of New Zealand, ether it is the right to be the
same or different. Both should co.-exist and work together within the Treaty principles without
defaulting on the cultural commitments. A bi-national state that acknowledges the multi-cultural
society can encourage the society building in the post –colonizing Aotearoa New Zealand
(Fleras, 1998).
The foundation of the Maori Party allows the Maoris to have an independent voice in the
parliament and negotiate with other parties. The other parties realize the importance of the
support of Maoris during elections (Christine O'Brien and Belgrave, 2009). With the viability of
Maori seats questioned in the New Zealand parliament, Maori may lose their seats. It can have an
impact on their health and social services. The challenge for Maoris is that as they have placed
too much confidence in the capitalist marketplace, they often get marginalized in the fluctuating
economy (Christine O'Brien and Belgrave, 2009). They need to find a way of managing their
resources carefully and enjoy tribal ownerships within the legal and economic frameworks set by
the private and public companies. Removing the Māori seats may lead to significant unrest and
the Māori communities may lose their route to achieve a real voice in the parliament and the
country. Māori seats are a symbol of the bicultural past of contemporary New Zealand. While
abolishing the seats may represent the way to a unified nation, it raises risks for the Maori and
their economic and social status.

PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY PRACTICE 4
References
Christine Cheyne, C., O'Brien, M. and Belgrave, M. (2009). Social Policy in Antearoa New
Zealand, (cn .7) Individualism, collectivism and the recognition of Te Tino
Rangatiratanga. Oxford University Press, 4(1), 144–162.
Fleras, A. (1998). Working through differences: reconciling the politics of “ISMS” in Aotearoa.
Practice, 1(1), 59–77
Gershon, I. (2008). Being Explicit about Culture: M¯ aori, Neoliberalism, and the New Zealand
Parliament. American Anthropologist, 110(4), 422–431.
King-Tamihana, G. (2017). Hearing the Native in the Narrative. Kotaku Manawa Te Runagana
O Aotearoa(1), 1–14.
New Zeeland Government. (2018). Treaty of Waitangi, New Zeeland history Retrieved from
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty-of-waitangi