maori seats on auckland council

8/11/2019 Maori Seats on Auckland Council

1/8

Go ver ni ng B od y

28 August 20 14

2016 Local G ov e rnm e n t Elec tions Review o f Ele ctor a l System a ndReview of Rep res entati on Arr a nge ments

Fi le No : CP2014/18538 EC l

Pu rpose1. To advise the Governing Body of the opportunity to change the electoral sys tem for the 2016

elections, establish Maori wards and to unde rtake a representation rev iew.

Execut ive sum mary2. The Local Electo ral Act 2001 p rovides for the opportun ity to review the electoral system , the

establishment of Maor i wards and a review of representation .

3. Each of these reviews has specific timeframes and processes. The Governing Body shouldbe aware of the implicat ions of init iat ing reviews on these matters.

Reco m mend ation/sThat the Gove rning Body:

i) agree that the status quo prevail for the electoral system , electoral wards andrepresen tat ion .

Co mmen ts

Backgro u nd

4. The Local Electo ra l Act 200 1 provides the opportunity for local authorities to consider:

changing the electoral system (for examp le from FPP to STV) establish ing Maori wards

reviewing representation ar rangements.

5. That Act sets out deadline dates in relation to each of these , if they are to take effect a t thenext elections . A summary of these dates is:

12 September 2014 for a resolut ion to change the electoral system

23 November 20 14 for a resolu tion to establish Maori wards

31 August 2015 fo r a resolut ion making the council's initial proposal on represen tationarrangements .

Elec tora l sys tem

6. Under the Fi rst Past the Post system (FPP) a candidate can be successful a t elec tion bywinning more votes compared to othe r candidates.

7. Under the Single Trans ferable Voting (STV) system , a vo ter casts a single vote but ranks hisor he r preferences. Firs t preferences are used to establish whe ther any candidates areelected by reaching the requ ired quota o f votes. If no t, the system prov ides a method fortransferring second preferences and other preferences until all vacanc ies are filled.

2016 Local Governme nt Elections - Re view of Electoral System and Revi e w of Representat ionArrange ment s

Page 17


2/8

Go ver ni ng B od y28 Augu st 2 4

An argument in favour of STV is tha t it is a fairer system , in that if a voter 's first preferencewould otherwise be wasted , the voter 's second and other preferences can be recognised.An a rgument against STV is that it is more complex than FPP and more difficult for voters tounderstand - with a possibility of more informal votes (votes not properly entered so notcounted). Some councils which moved to STV have moved back to FPP , on the basis that it

is easier to understand for voters and that STV did not affect the outcome. The re is someevidence that informal votes are due to mixed electoral systems on the one voting paper,rather than STV per se , and that when all issues on a voting paper are decided through STVthere are fewer informal votes.

9. The legislation setting up the Auckland Council prescribed FPP for the 2010 and 2013elections : When the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee reported the LocalGovernment (Auckland Council) Bill it said :

The majority of us are of the view that the disadvantages of STV , particularly itsperceived complexity (and therefore its propensity to discourage voting), outweigh thedisadvantages of FPP for the 2010 elections .

10. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has recently published its inquiry into the 2013local government elections. It notes the mix of FPP and STV as follows :

Local autho rities can choose between the first past the post (FPP) voting system orSTV. In 2013 , 90 per cent of local authorities used FPP in their own elections.Therefore , voting in most local elections involved a combination of FPP and STV . Weunderstand that generally the STV councils have a higher turnout , but the incidence ofinvalid voting is usually far higher in District Health Board elections , because peopletick their preferred candidates rather than ranking them.

8 .

In 2008 , the Local Government Commission conducted a post-election survey ofvoters ; 52 per cent of the respondents said that having two systems was confusing ,while 46 per cent said it was not. A large majority of respondents (82 per cent) saidthey would prefer a single system.

11. The committee did not make a specific recommendation.

12. A further aspect of STV is that , on election day , the result is delayed , due to the need tohave all votes in prio r to transferr ing p references.

13. The guidelines issued by the Local Government Commission state:

The Commission notes , for example , the argument that to gain the full benefits ofproportional representation under STV, multi-member wards or const ituencies of atleast three members, but preferably five to seven members , are required. Clearly thisshould be considered by a local authority using STV when undertaking itsrepresentation review.

14. Governing Body member wards are either one member or two member wards, and thereforeSTV would not likely have a signif icant impact.

15. Local boards are mu lt i-member bod ies and local boa rd members were invited to a briefing

on these issues. There was not a strong desire expressed for change.16 . Whether or not the council resolves to change the electoral system , it must give public notice

of the right of electors to demand a poll.

2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representat ionArrangements

Page 18


3/8

Gov er ni ng B od y28 A ug us t 2014

Maori wards

17 . The Royal Co mmiss ion on Auck land Gove rnance recommended a Gover ning Body Ecompr ising of the mayor a nd 23 co unc illors, two of whom would be elected a t large from the c uMaori electo ra l role and one of whom would be appointed by Mana When ua. :::

18. However , P arli a ment legis lated for a Go ve rning Body comprisi ng o f the mayo r and 20councillors with no Mao ri seats and the creation of an Independent Maori Statuto ry Board(IMSB ).

19. Nevertheless , the general provisions o f the Local Government Act 2002 with respect toMao rl wards still app ly to Auck land Counc il. Thus , as the legislation stands, the IMSB wouldcontinue to exis t if Maori wards were established.

20. The legislation p rovides for councils to establ ish Maor t wa rds by passing a resolution by23 November 2014. This is discretionary , council is not required to take a ny actio n

21 . On the basis of statist ics suppl ied by Statist ics New Zealand , two membe rs of A ucklandCouncil could be elected th rough Maori wards. The total number of Govern ing Bodymembers is set in legislation at 20 plus the mayor and so the number of general memberswould be reduced to 18 if Maor i wards are established. The re could be two sepa rate Mao ri

wards wi th one member elected in each , or there could be one Auckland-w ide ward wi th twomembe rs.

22. Should the Council reso lve to int roduce Maor i wards then the timeframes are as follows.

8y 23 A local aut hority MAY resolve to in troduce Maori Sect ion 19Z of LEANove mb e r representa tion for the ne xt triennia l election.2014 If a resolut ion is made a fte r this da te then it takes

effec t a t the subseq uen t triennial e lection .It has effec t for two trienn ia l elec tions and con tinuesunle ss changed.

8y30 IF a reso lution h a s been made by a local au thori ty to Sect ion 19ZA of LEANovembe r introduce Maon re prese ntation , a loca l autho rity2014 MUST give pu blic notice of the right of 5 pe r cent o f

the electors to de mand a p oll on Mao rirepresen ta tion.

B y 2 8 IF a resolution has b e en ma de by a local aut hority to Sec t ion 9ZC of L EAFe bru ar y int roduce Maor i re presen ta tion , a certa in pe riod2015 MUST be g ive n following the publi c notice on Mao ri

rep resent at ion allow ing elec tors to gather suf ficientsignatures to de man d that a poll be held on Mao rirep resent at ion for the ne xt two trien nial electio ns .

By28 A local au thority MAY reso lve to underta ke a po ll of Secti on 19ZD of LEAFe br u ary electors on a p ropos a l tha t Maori representa tion be20 15 introduce d for the nex t two triennial elections.

23. Through va rious eng a ge ment and co ns ultation processes there has bee n a cal l for direc tMao ri repre s entat ion on the Gover ning Body and g rea ter i nvolve men t by Maori in counci ldecis ion mak ing p rocesses.

2016 Local Governm e nt Elec tions - Re view of Ele ctoral System and Re view of Re pre s enta tionArrangemen ts

Page 19


4/8

Go ver ni ng B od y

28 Augus t 2014

24. This is reflected in the IMSB's schedule of issues of significance and Maori Plan:

Meori are empowered , enabled , respected and recognised in their ability to activelyand meaningfully contribute to the development of Auckland , in becoming the world smost liveable city by a council that actively engages , consults and includes Maori indecision making processes and futu re plans .

Maori are empowered , enabled , respected and recognised as playing an importantrole in the development of local communities by a council that recognises the role ofMaori in local board decision making .

25. In the IMSB 's view the establishment of Maori wards are an important part of contr ibuting tothese outcomes. The board is of the view that direct representation on the Governing Bodythrough Maori wards is distinct from the IMSB's role as an independent statutory authority.From the board 's perspective the two roles are not mutually exclusive.

26 . The establishment of up to two Maori wards , would have the effect of triggering arepresentation rev iew. The transfer of Maori voters f rom the general roll to the Maori roll ,would impact on the remaining number of voters in each general ward in a manner thatwould not be uniform. This would affect the plus or minus 10 per cent rule and mean theredrawing of most , if not all, ward boundaries. The Governing Body ward boundaries wouldthen not be contiguous with local board boundaries unless they were to be reviewed as aconsequence.

27. The representation review provisions which apply to counci ls generally and to AucklandCouncil's Governing Body with respect to ward boundary changes do not apply for localboard boundary changes. Proposed changes to local board boundaries must be dealt withas a reorganisation proposal in the same manner as proposed boundary changes betweenlocal authorities.

28. The following sect ion of this report draws the conclusion that there are no compellingreasons to undertake a representat ion review for the 2016 election , although one must beundertaken for the 2019 election. However , the establishment of Maor wards would resultin such a review being undertaken for 2016 and is therefore not recommended.

29. If the council were of a mind to consider the estab lishment of Maori wards in the future itmay well want to consider advocating changes to legislation as to the maximum number ofmembers , and the process for considering local board boundaries. Such a review could notbe completed within t he t imeframe required for the 2016 elections.

Review of represen tat ion ar rangeme nt s

30 . Each territorial and regional council must conduct a review of representation arrangementsat least once every six years. If the council decides to not conduct a review for the 2016e lections, it must conduct a review for the 2019 elections.

31. If the council decides to conduct a review, it must resolve its initial proposal by 31 August2015. Investigations would need to commence this calendar year to meet that deadline.

32. The total number of members of the Governing Body is set by legislation . The review couldpropose to amend the number , names and boundaries of wards ; the number and names of

local board subdivisions and the number of local board members in each boa rd. As statedabove the boundaries of local boards can only be changed through a reorganisat ionprocess.

2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of RepresentationArrangements

Page 20


5/8

Go ver ni ng B od y28 August 2014

33. The legislat ion requires ef fective representation of communit ies o f interes t and fairrepresentation (the people represented by each counc illor should not devia te f rom theaverage by mo re than 10 pe r cen t). Whe n the Local Gover nm en t Co mmiss ion set thecurrent bou ndaries it accep ted some dev iations over the 10 per cent thresho ld. Thecommission was directed by legisla tion t o c rea te a single me mber ward for the fo rmer

Rodney d ist rict a nd a si ngle membe r wa rd fo r what remained of the F rank lin district afte r thesouthern part of the dis trict was trans ferre d t o Waika to Distr ict Counci l. On cur ren t sta tistics ,there wou ld be a n unde r-representa tion problem in the Wa itema ta ward . Thi s is p rima rilybro ught abo ut by the numbe r of res ide nts now res iding in apar tments in the CBD and CBDfringe. Attached is a table of changes based on information from the 2013 census .

34. Adjusting the boundary of the Albert-Eden-Roskill bounda ry to inc lude some of t he curren tWaitemata wa rd could add ress t his var iance . Chang ing the bou ndaries of one ward canhave a flow-on effec t into othe r wards .

The t imeframes should the council choose to underta ke a review this term are as follows.

By 3 1 A ugus t 2015 Rep resentat ion Arr angeme nts Review S e ction 19H of LEAcomple ted by loca l authority. Local

au thor ity resolves its proposals .By 8 Sep te m be r 2015 A local autho rity MUST give publ ic no tice of S e ction 19M of LEA

the resolution con taining the rep rese ntationa rrangeme nts review proposals. One monthsub mission pe riod .

By 8 Oc to b e r 2015 Close o f submissions. Sect ion 19M of LEA

By 19 N ov e mbe r 2015 Submissions hea rd by loca l authority . Se c tion 19N of LEA

By 1 9 Novembe r 2015 A loc a l au thori ty MUST give further public Se c tion 19N of LEAnotice o f its proposa ls. One monthap peals /object ion p eriod .

By 19 D ece m ber 2015 Close of appeals/objections. Section 190 of LEA

By 15 Jan ua ry 2016 For wa rd a ll represen ta tion a nd bou nda ry Sect ion Q of LEAreview ma ter ia l to LGC (ifap peals/objec tions received ).

By 10 Ap ril 201 6 Dete rminatio n by LGC S e ction 19R of LEA

We a re no t aware of s ignifican t problems w ith the c urren t a rrangeme nts a nd do no t inte nd torecomme nd a rev iew for the 20 16 e lec tions.

Consideration

Loc a l b oard v ie ws and implicat ions35. A wo rkshop was he ld for loca l board membe rs. Those at tendin g did not exp ress a desi re fo r

change in rela tion to the e lec tora l sys tem. The Wa itake re Ranges Local Bo ar d has alsoadv ise d the ir pre fe rence for main ta ining s ta tus quo (W TKl20 14/11 0) .

Maor i impact s tatement36. There has been no consu lta tion w ith Mao ri spec ifica lly in relatio n to this repo rt. Howeve r,

the matte r has been raised through pr ev ious engagemen t processes and been the su bjec t ofadvocacy to the cou ncil by the IMSB (see pa ragraphs 23-25) .

2016 Lo cal Governm e nt Ele ctions - Re vie w of Electoral System and Re view of Repres e nta tionArran gemen ts

Page 21


6/8

Go ver ni ng B od y

28 Augus t 2014

37. Maori wards are one mechanism for increasing Maori participation in council decisionmaking . However , there are a range of other mechanisms which are not reliant on arepresentation review . These are the subject of advocacy through the IMSS's schedule ofsignif icance and Maori Plan, and the council is actively striving to advance enhancedinvolvement in decision making through a range of init iatives.

Implementation38. If the Governing Body resolves to change from FPP to STY, the council's current provider of

election services will be able to make the appropriate Changes.

39. There would need to be an extensive awareness campaign to ensure all voters were awareof the change .

40. The cost of a poll would be in the order of one million dollars.

Attachments

-NO-- T_itle pa g2e

3

A Wards 2010 and 2013 . .

SignatoriesAuthor Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers Grant Taylor - Governance DirectorStephen Town - Chief Executive

2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of RepresentationArrangements

Page 22


7/8

Governing Body2 8 August 20 1 4

Wards i n 20 10 a nd a fter the 2013 census re sults .

% dttvlationfrom GlIW.ag e

p6 WOOlotlpet

to und l lo t

%d v 'Uonfr:oma\/egge

popu la tion porl;:O .lllC l l l

No. orcwn dtlol 1ll

PfII wlud 2013

20 1 3

Rod ney 54,100 -24.B 54.B79 -22.5

Albany 137 80 0 2 -4.2 143,502 +1 .4< C

No rtihS hore 143.200 2 -0.5 137,961 -2.5 QE. .c: J

Waitake re 158,700 2 10.3 156,081 1 0.3n s C

Wha u 76 .40 0 +6 .2 12,594

Albert-Ede n-Roskill 154,900 2 +7 .7 1 47 ,6 3 3 +4 .3

Wa il.em ata and G ulf 79.300 +10 ,2 86 .4 1 5 +22 .1

Orak e s 81 ,100 12.8 79.539 1 2 .4

M aungakiekie -Tamaki

73 00 0 1 .5 70.002

2016 Loc a l Governme nt Elections - Revi e w o f Ele ctor al S yst em an d Revi ew o f Re pres en ta tionArra nge ments

Pa ge 23


8/8

Go ver ni ng Bod y u c k l n d ~t128 Au gu st 2014 _9~~~ ::

C D~

EQ

H owtck 128 .100 2 -10 .9 1 2 7.1 2 5 -10 .2~

Manukau 15 6 20 0 2 8 146,622 +3 .6

M a nurewa -Papakura 13 1 .500 2 -8.6 127 .878 -9.7

F m nk lin 64 .200 1 -1 0 .1 65 ,319 -7 .7

o t l 1,438 ,500 1,415 ,550 c ::QE

oc a

2016 Local Go ve rnment El ec tions - Re view of Ele ctoral S ys tem an d R e vie w of R e pre s e ntatio nArra ng e men ts

P age 2 4

maori seats on auckland council

Documents