In brief
- Mainstream media often portrays opposition to Māori wards as racist and expensive to disestablish, offering little context on genuine concerns.
- Opponents argue Māori wards are divisive, unnecessary, and undermine democratic principles.
- Kaipara Mayor Craig Jepson believes race should not be a criterion for elected office, citing successful Māori leaders elected without special wards.
- The debate contrasts equity (ensuring representation) with equality (equal opportunity in elections).
The mainstream media is biased against opponents to Māori wards
In our opinion, the reasons why Māori wards face disestablishment receive little attention by mainstream media who prefer to cast opposition to them as racist and costly.
The mainstream media hardly explains why some people are against Māori wards. They just show statements without giving much background or letting people defend their views.
For example, Kaipara mayor Craig Jepson’s rationale for advocating scrapping the ward because he does not believe in race as a criteria for elected office receives hardly any mention.
Yet, the media gives prominence to voices opposing the removal of Māori wards. Calls for Jepson’s resignation are front and centre while framing the debate as primarily about racism.
The media uses loaded language; Jepson “pushed to get rid of” Māori wards in an effort to “wind back Māori participation”, which is “absurd and cruel,” etc. Meanwhile, a slew of articles focus on the costs to the ratepayer to either disestablish the ward or to run a poll putting the ward’s future to voters.
The message from the mainstream media appears to be clear: Only a wasteful racist would oppose Māori wards.
In reality, Māori wards are viewed as divisive and redundant by the general public who dislike race-based policies
Genuine concerns of many voters about race-based policies are sidelined. The concept of separate wards for Māori is seen by many as counterproductive to the goal of unity, leading to tension and resentment among voters.
Māori already have the same opportunities as other New Zealanders to participate in the democratic process. Since there is no barrier to preventing Māori from standing for public office, the argument is there is no need to have special race based wards that are exclusively for Māori. Why should they not, like all other New Zealanders, simply participate in general elections on the strength of their policies and persuasion?
To many voters, maintaining Māori wards based on race undermines democratic principles and would, in fact, be perpetuating racism.
Equity vs equality
Proponents of Māori wards are in a sense advocating for equity of outcomes. They argue that these wards ensure fair representation for Māori in local government, reflecting their unique status as tangata whenua (indigenous people) and addressing historical and ongoing disparities.
They contend that standard electoral processes often do not provide sufficient opportunities for Māori voices to be heard and represented proportionately, particularly in regions where Māori populations are significant but underrepresented in governance.
However, Jepson said the proponents of Māori wards are following a ‘false narrative’ and advocates for what is essentially ‘equality of opportunity’:
“I feel it’s condescending to Māori to suggest they need a dedicated ward to be elected, as if they aren’t capable of succeeding on their own merit. If you are the best candidate, your background shouldn’t matter—you will be elected, as history has shown in our nation’s local and central government,”
Jepson backs up this argument by citing successful Māori leaders like mayors Tania Tapsell and Moko Tepania, as well as well-known politicians Winston Peters, and Shane Jones.
