14 M Ä ORI REPRESENTATIO N IN LO CAL GOVE R N M E N T people who enrol on the Mäori roll. I suggest that council must further be persuaded by the fact that this situation was reviewed in 1986, by a Royal Commission, the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, and that it regarded Mäori seats “as an important symbol to Mäori people of their special status as the indigenous people of New Zealand”. Far from recommending the abolition of those Mäori seats, the Royal Commission considered that four seats were inadequate to ensure proper Mäori representation (ibid, p.6). Judge Trapski further quoted the Royal Commission as follows: Although they were not set up for this purpose, the Mäori seats have nevertheless come to be regarded by Mäori as an important concession to, and the principal expression of, their constitutional position under the Treaty of Waitangi. To many Mäori, the seats are also a base for the continuing search for more appropriate constitutional and political forms through which Mäori rights (mana Mäori in particular) might be given effect. It is because of this that many Mäori who opt to go on the general roll continue to support the retention of the Mäori seats. It is in this context that Mäori views concerning the seats should be understood. These principles constitute what we believe to be the conditions under which an important minority might reasonably expect to enjoy a just and equitable share of political power and influence in a decision-making system which is subject to the majority principle and over which the political parties hold sway (ibid, p.6-7). The passage of the Electoral Act 1993, which provides for the continuation of Mäori seats and the determination of their number by the proportion of voters on the Mäori electoral roll, is described by Judge Trapski as “Parliament’s declaration concerning the way in which democracy is delivered in New Zealand" (ibid, p.7). He said the Bay of Plenty proposal “appears to be in total conformity with that declaration, and may therefore be regarded as constitutionally sound and democratic.” He said the proposal “would give Mäori no more voting power than the general population. Like everyone else, Mäori will only have one vote" (ibid, p.8). Judge Trapski recommended the council should continue to promote the establishment of a Mäori constituency, based on his conclusions that: 1. For whatever reason, the fact is that in some places 16 per cent of the population in the Bay of Plenty, and in others, up to 58 per cent of that population, clearly perceive that they are unrepresented at the council table. 2. Adoption of the proposal would deliver to Mäori the same voting rights as others. Their electoral rights would be no greater than those afforded to any other voter in the region and I can see no way in which the proposal would enable Mäori to “outvote” the other members of the regional council as a block. The proposal would, in my view, not disadvantage anyone. 3. The proposal is in line with the delivery of the democratic process in New Zealand, and in conformity with New Zealand’s constitutional principles (Trapski, p.8-9). The council accepted Judge Trapski’s recommendation. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Mäori Constituency Empowering) Bill was drafted in early 1999 and introduced to