No Māori seats on the Auckland bus

There is a certain irony in hearing the Māori Party, with its statutorily limited number of seats in Parliament, is arguing, without any real power to insist, that a similar arrangement should be required for the proposed Auckland super city. Why repeat an arrangement which provides no real decision-making power? But that is not how the Māori Party sees the issue, nor how the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, that proposed the Māori seats, considered it. Part of the mandate of the Royal Commission, Te Kōmihana a te Karauna mō te Mana Whakahaere o Tāmaki-makau-rau, was to consider: "what governance and representation arrangements will best – (i) enable effective responses to the different communities of interest and reflect and nurture the cultural diversity within the Auckland region; and (ii) provide leadership for the Auckland region and its communities, while facilitating appropriate participation by citizens and other groups and stakeholders in decision-making processes;"

The terms of reference were careful not to single out Māori in that requirement, nor are Māori referred to in any of the terms of reference.

However, the commission found the terms of reference did not need to spell out the grounds for the exceptional treatment of Māori. It found enough references in the Local Government Act 2002 to Māori as a special group, entitled to special consideration as the other partner under the Treaty of Waitangi, to suggest that separate seats were needed (the terms of reference forbade the commission from questioning the "purposes and principles of local government as described in the Local Government Act 2002") – so it was quite entitled to rely on it.

The commission accordingly recommended a super city council of 23, with two councillors elected by voters on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll and one councillor appointed by mana whenua from a "Mana Whenua Forum ... the members of which will be appointed by mana whenua from the district of the Auckland Council".

The commission reasoned that "the provision of three safeguarded seats for Māori is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires local authorities to establish processes for Māori to contribute to decision making. It will ensure that there is an effective Māori voice at the decision- making table, and that the special status of mana whenua, and their obligations of kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga, are recognised." In the summary of its report, the commission records that its "primary reason" for the recommendation was to "give effect to obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. General considerations of equity and fairness of representation also come into play, but to a lesser extent."

[There is a] trade-off between a fair democratic process, where there is equal representation for all in our region, and the acknowledgement that Māoridom would [have] had a lesser voice without separate representation.

Environment Bay of Plenty councillor.

The commission noted there have been separate Māori seats in the Auckland region in the past. In 1985, the review of local government recommended two Māori seats be established on the Auckland Regional Council. The Local Government Amendment (No 2) Act 1986 actually provided for those seats. However, the reform was short-lived, and was repealed in 1989. It is interesting to note when a deputation visited the regional council in May 1986 to argue the need for Māori seats, an ARA member resigned in the hope that his seat would be filled by a Māori.

The commission proposal is also consistent with current provisions in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. It recorded that, following a report on whether separate Māori wards might be useful in an area where the Māori population in some parts of the region is over 50 per cent, Environment Bay of Plenty currently has three Māori constituencies – the Mauao (West Bay of Plenty), Kohi (East Bay of Plenty), and Okurei (Central/South Bay of Plenty) constituencies – which results in three Māori seats on the 13-seat council. In addition, the Local Electoral Act 2001 currently allows councils to create separate Māori wards.

So the principle of separate Māori representation in local authorities is certainly not new, even if there are limited instances of it operating in fact.

The effectiveness of these seats does not seem to be the voting power they bring to particular issues. Their real worth is summed up in a comment which the commission recorded from an Environment Bay of Plenty councillor, who said that, while he was not in favour of separate Māori representation "Councillors [are] receiving a better understanding of iwi issues than would have been possible without separate Māori representation. This is the trade-off between a fair democratic process, where there is equal representation for all in our region, and the acknowledgement that Māoridom would [have] had a lesser voice without separate representation."

The Royal Commission placed its "Māori representation" eggs in the one basket – at the

super city council level. Its report does not have any strong suggestions for Māori representation at other levels. For example, it recommended that six local councils should be established that would operate as semi-autonomous agencies of the super city council. Their main role will be in "place shaping", that is, operating local services and maintaining the quality of life in their areas through civic improvement projects, stream clean-ups, main street improvements and so on.

They would submit for approval to the super city council three-yearly rolling budgets. They would also meet monthly with the mayor and otherwise very regularly with the super city council and provide their views on local issues.

They would have no local authority powers in their own right, but the super city council would delegate place-shaping func-tions to them, and they would be unchal-lengeable if operating within that delegated authority. Their lack of actual local author-ity status would be reflected in them having no actual mayor, just a chair who was a first among equals. There would be no distinct Māori representation at this level. The commission simply recommended that they should have Māori names "determined by the Local Government Commission after consultation with mana whenua, with the new Māori names used by the Commission being the suggested starting point for consideration."

The Government has rejected the idea of local councils also. It is proceeding with a plan for 20 to 30 local boards that would have little if any status (it has even been hinted that they could hold meetings in local libraries).

This is all pretty ominous for Māori unless some other means for bringing Māori opinions directly to the super city council table are created. A major reason for creating the super city was to deal with Auckland's transport woes. Māori communities have a direct interest in this. The royal commission noted that central and local government combined spend around $12 billion in the Auckland region a year on "social wellbeing".

Māori are "significantly disadvantaged and Māori communities include the most vulnerable citizens". The commission accepted the notion that improvement should focus on "what is working well, utilisation of existing and emerging oppor-tunities and prioritising strategies that enhance resiliency and positive development."

That, it said, requires proper engage-ment with and representation for Māori. A key impediment in the past has been that "the exclusion of Māori from planning processes and decisions, such as those relat-ing to transport, means that opportunities to improve the lives of more marginal-ised citizens (such as Māori) have not been taken."In other words, Māori living in poor Auckland communities need more bus stops. Under the arrangements currently proposed, they are more likely to end up with graffiti-covered overpasses.

He Whakaaro
Opinion
nā
TOM Bennion

Tom Bennion is a Wellington lawyer specialising in resource management and Māori land claim and Treaty issues. Formerly a solicitor at the Waitangi Tribunal, he is currently the editor of the Māori Law Review, a monthly review of law affecting Māori, established in 1993. He recently wrote a book, Making Sense of the Foreshore and Seabed.

Inside Issue 43

Wind of your Homeland

Cyber Connections

Reo Revolution

Keeping Watch Over Mātaitai

Bi-Lingual Tamariki

Chopper Ready

Appetite for Living

Organic Gardening

 

Issue #43 Published July 2009
© Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu