Auckland reform: Maori seats

In reply to the legitimate concerns expressed by many Pakeha (although it's usually racists and British immigrants who are most vocal) on Maori representation on any new council for Auckland: Coming out of the Royal Commission's report currently under consideration by the government - and debate by the public - is the relevant recommendation:

22A Two Maori members should be elected [by] parliamentary electoral roll.

22B There should be a Mana Whenua Forum, the members of which will be appointed by mana whenua from the district of the Auckland Council.

Each recommendation has its own issues - firstly, Maori roll seats (as they have on the BOP Regional Council) and secondly an "appointed" (that's the word used) system to elect a Councillor. My Royal Commission submission ('City of Auckland') dealt with both issues —

Firstly underlying any changes:

Any change from the status quo should be ultimately put to a referendum in the areas affected by any change.

That may not happen at all at the rate of knots the changes are likely to be swept through, but it is important for Auckland to own the reform rather than have it thrust on them "from Wellington" (Aucklanders will claim) and the ill-will and cynicism that goes with it. And changing boundaries of the various units of local government in existence to a new boundary should also be up to the people in the area if it is a significant change.

Iwi having mana whenua within the region must be able to assert a territorial jurisdiction as a discrete unit of local government having equivalent status as other autonomous sub-divisions (inter alia Community Boards) upon and over their own tribal lands at the very least. Maori representation on an ethnic basis alone (ie. the "Maori roll") can not adequately represent tangata whenua as they are in a minority position in the region.

Now reflecting on that last point further - that could be ameliorated by having the candidate and/or nominators be Tangata Whenua of the Auckland district (not my position, but a reasonable one in meeting the twin demands the Commission has made plain exist - Maori representation, and Tangata Whenua representation - which are very different things in Auckland where the local iwi and hapu are completely out-numbered by other Maori - and indeed everyone else.

Councillors elected by Ward:
The communities constitute the wards.
4 Wards: Tangata Whenua Ward, Waitemata Ward, Tamaki Ward, Manukau Ward.
The last three wards will be of approximately even population and the boundaries would be expected to correspond to near the portages on either side of the isthmus.
[...]
The Council:
1 x Mayor
9 x Councillors elected at large
5 x Councillors Waitemata Ward
5 x Councillors Tamaki Ward
5 x Councillors Manukau Ward
1 x Councilor Tangata Whenua Ward
26 TOTAL

That's the context: 1 member out of the total.

Mana Whenua/Tino Rangatiratanga
Hapu/iwi should be given the option of forming their own community boards on their own tribal land (ie. land in their rohe held in Maori title by their members) and that they could then form (since there are a few tribes in the Auckland area) their own ward if they wanted (rather than joining other wards) so they could then be represented through this ward at the council level.

Possible rotating representatives from each community in turn could be a way of making sure each iwi is fairly represented without unduly increasing the numbers on council. The issue of defining the boundary of each rohe must be resolved through a process, but it is quite likely that they may overlap and that they may agree that it overlaps - this need not be a problem.

Every member inside the rohe should be entitled to vote for their community board. Whether every non-member resident on tribal land should be entitled to vote is another question - perhaps left up to the community concerned to work out. It may be that there are more non-members living on tribal land than members, and so that risks changing the nature kaupapa/tikanga of the community should non-members not be integrated with the community and vote for representatives who do not uphold the kaupapa/tikanga. There is a possible remedy to this via the ratepayers roll, where if every member of the hapu/iwi can vote as land owners they could out-vote the non-members.

The issues are complex, but the Commission should not shy away from making some form of acknowledgement of Tino Rangatiratanga for the Tangata Whenua. Perhaps viewing any initiative as a pilot scheme - rather than a template - for other local bodies and iwi would be the right way to think about this.

And that is what they have done. All city councillors should be elected - not appointed - unless it is by a group (like an electoral college) that is itself entirely made up of elected members. The democratic stem ought to go as deep down to the core as possible for the most public legitimacy.

As my submission states it is possible to have elected Iwi representatives serve as Councillors - no need for "appointments" no need to use the parliamentary Maori roll. No need to skew the ratios either because - like any smaller autonomous entity (eg. the current Hauraki Gulf Islands ward) - they must be represented by at least one single member despite the low population. I don't see a problem with this - it does not significantly distort the population ratios.

By having a rotating system and acknowledging the Tangata Whenua as possessing their own communities (that long pre-date 'Auckland' anyway of course) it gives a logical strata into which those Tino Rangatiratanga aspirations - and the concerns about proportionality and Maori representation - can be addressed.

And - anticipating the critics mentioned in the first sentence of this post - I will repost the relevant dialogue from the comments section in that original post:

At 7/7/08 1:40 PM, Bryan Spondre said...
This is completely racist:
"Iwi having mana whenua within the region must be able to [...]

At 7/7/08 1:55 PM, Anonymous said...
How so Brian?
[...]

7/7/08 2:00 PM, Bryan Spondre said...
Anon: if you can't see it then there is no point explaining it. Which probably shows just how far we have gone down the apartheid road in New Zealand.

At 7/7/08 6:24 PM, Tim Selwyn said...
Racist?

Racism is the Crown actively destroying the already existing and functioning jurisdictions because they stand in the way of Pakeha interests, ie. land-grabbing and political and cultural domination. That, I would say, is racist. Moves to address that unconstitutional imbalance are to be welcomed. However, the solutions should be practical and fair. I hope mine were.

The commissioners told me that they had consulted with iwi and they had suggested some sort of Mana Whenua forum to appoint a councillor. I suggested a rotating system might be an option to make sure everyone gets a say if there is only one seat. I think the commissioners grasped the idea that all Maori aren't the same and that Tangata Whenua rather than Manuhiri - I think it was the Chair who corrected me on this point - are the one's who decide in this matter. At least that was the impression I got. Who knows what they think.

A Maori idea of local governance is something that must be the domain of the people who exercise common law custom rights - or kiatiakitanga. I emphasised that although their terms of reference did not say so, what they recommended for Maori may become a template for all local bodies if central government were willing to back it. [...]