Auckland reform: Maori seats
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEwMDJYMXrboK4hM1IagMACsDZkYdwEX6Iq7lD79ChQswySBUznVSpOMnHzPc9Q8z4rwIvz3WS37kPZNCc2gcRXaSAGHPp-HaiArwjoh6B4I2KxzyepvA3GNMKL3gB66HYhRU/s400/tamaki-makau-rau-oldmap.jpg)
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.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM9WGWgZhMnhaE7uxW46cJWpbHhcG_HMD6Ld8_rAkHS16D0vjOAZ_F3nz_MSa-a6dagv5iEYbn-OfizOcmobNWIXhM6UElIQKsjdPJt58tolhSxenRgbxr7gTPhgjTGxhgLT0/s400/tamaki-iwi.jpg)
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. [...]
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTP5JelbOVUZiaeEQdgt9D9TOMdTNMm9SfH7YCcvNc_19t6vgrmulm8JfpHrXYISQ0D9VB9lX2hqJQ5QVTCznMhzFBHVZUEWygy_Am8rJzp47cDYPNKYq_goxYgVn1zp0E238/s400/waitangitrib-map.png)
Labels: Auckland/Tamaki
11 Comments:
Would you please refrain from using the word 'Pakeha' to ddescribe people who were born here. I prefer to be known as a New Zealander.
To Hell with race based tokenism. Maori have the same rights as any other NZ citizen.
No Tim. It is you who are racist for suggesting that different rules apply to different people. Shame on you.
Oi!
Just you get back into your Waka and row back from where you come from.
My parents were born in Briton and then moved here to live. I was born and grew up and married a beautiful Maori lady. We have 2 children and we are happy.
There is NO disrespect in relation to "pakaha" in our house.
What you write is inked with tainting from the dark ages.
Shame on you.
Anon 5:03pm: Would you please refrain from using the word 'Pakeha' to ddescribe people who were born here. I prefer to be known as a New Zealander.
- The term Pakeha refers to European/white people in NZ - that is the group I am talking about in the context of the power relationships and history with Maori - if you want to use the term "New Zealander" to refer to this group then that would be incorrect and meaningless. If you are using the term New Zealander to refer just to Pakeha then that is also wrong.
Anon 7:18pm To Hell with race based tokenism. Maori have the same rights as any other NZ citizen.
- What rights are you talking about? Maori rights to go to court over customary rights in the foreshore and seabed (property rights) were taken away by the government in 2004 for example - this benefits Pakeha at the expense of Maori. Maori have a right to be Maori and live their life in a Maori way in their own country - protected by the Crown - there's a Treaty to that effect that was signed in 1840. The protection of Maori rights is - or rather was - for Maori the whole point in having a government - not the erosion of those rights. Rights to be Maori don't have to come at the expense of the legitimate rights of non-Maori - that's a misrepresentation implicit in your talkback squawk.
Anon 8:25pm No Tim. It is you who are racist for suggesting that different rules apply to different people. Shame on you.
- No, it's racist to suggest that your rules - rules that you came up with that advantages your group be applied to another group that actually pre-dates you and has rules of their own already.
Besides, do different rules not apply to just about every class of person in NZ? The resident, the permanent resident, the citizen, children, adults, landholders, tenants, professions? All have different sets of obligations and rules. Are you bleating that Waiheke Island has a suggested different rule? Do the Americans and (to some extent) Canadians have it wrong when they acknowledge the sovereignty of Indian nations and respect their autonomy on their own 'reservations' and their own forms of representation on larger local authorities? I am arguing here that Maori land be the basis for their own communities because they are the pre-existing order who constitute their own form of local authority. I equate that to a community board in my submission - the Commission says collectively the Iwi be recognised through a 'forum'.
Anon 9:12pm: Actually I know three British immigrants...
- I don't care if you know the Three Stooges, what I said was that the British especially are the most vocal - that doesn't mean every man jack of them is in the National Front! I never said all British are racists.
"I don't care if you know the Three Stooges, what I said was that the British especially are the most vocal "
Actually tim I think you're just making this up.
"If you are using the term New Zealander to refer just to Pakeha then that is also wrong."
Sorry but I will never agree to be a 'Pakeha'. If you want multiple degrees of racial citizenship in this country then it should be decided on the basis of language fluency and having predominant blood of that ethnic group.
I think Pakeha is the perfect term to describe who I am as a NZer, I embrace the term where as 'European New Zealander' just sounds so anal
Which is fine for you Bomber but why deny the rest of us a chance to decide what to call ourselves?
Which is fine for you Bomber but why deny the rest of us a chance to decide what to call ourselves?
Knock yourself out champ, I'm just saying 'European NZer' just sounds so anal
Arne't people really wanting to say 'white' New Zealander when they say European New Zealander?
Moriori people also deserve a seat on this new tribal council.
Post a Comment
<< Home