Risks

This section is not designed to discuss reasons for excluding dedicated Māori representation from the new Auckland governance structure.

Instead, it looks at risks that could be created through the inclusion of dedicated Māori representation and gives an overview of ways to potentially manage these risks, which have the potential to develop consequences which are wide-reaching.

Low turnout

Given the low turnout in Māori electorates when a General Election is held, there is the real risk that turnout in Māori constituencies at a local government level will be similarly low. Turnout levels in Auckland local authority elections for 2001, 2004 and 2007 are included here.

If voter turnout is low, this means that the policy instrument designed to develop local authorities into more representative bodies may be seen to have failed, according to Dahl’s model presented in section ‎0. However, the primary goal of dedicated Māori representation as a policy tool is to increase Māori representation at local authority level, not necessarily to increase the number of voters from the electorate.

Should the voter turnout in the Māori constituencies be significantly lower than what would be expected in other Auckland constituencies, based on figures discussed in Appendix Two, then the provision seats may be seen as unnecessary. However, a low turnout could potentially reflect a level of satisfaction with the candidates seeking election.

A low turnout could also be influenced by the method of voting. Māori in New Zealand are a highly mobile population, with the 2006 census demonstrating that over 60% of Māori had moved within New Zealand in the previous five years[1]. Further to this, in the Auckland region itself, 47.6% of usually-resident Māori in Auckland had only moved into the Auckland region in the five years preceding the census[2]. Manukau City had the highest number of Māori moving in or out of the Auckland region, followed by Auckland City[3].

Because local authority elections are held by postal ballot, there is the very real chance that the particularly mobile Māori population may not have up-to-date electoral details registered with electoral authorities. A low turnout may not be indicative of political apathy, but a need for better structures to be in place for the collection of electoral details and the distribution of ballot papers. This would be an issue for Elections New Zealand to consider.

Disengagement

A highly mobile population which as a significant amount of movement during the electoral cycle may not see local authority representation as important, given the possibility that they may not be in the region for the full local government term.

This disengagement, when coupled with traditionally low levels of Māori representation may make it challenging to ensure engagement with a local authority. The authority may need to demonstrate its relationship and relevance to its electorate to ensure the Māori population in Auckland becomes engaged with the new council structure.

The Ministry of Social Development acknowledges that the socio-economic disparities within Māoridom can be seen as greater than between the ‘Māori’ and ‘non-Māori’ ethnic markers[4]. Given the diversity of the Māori population, electing two councillors to represent the interests of all Māori in the Auckland region may be challenging and have negative results if a significant part of Auckland’s Māori population do not feel that their interests are being adequately represented by those elected. This can be somewhat mediated by the ability of Māori candidates to seek election on a general roll, but they then are reliant on non-Māori electors for their successful election.

Māori electoral option

There may be Māori in Auckland who would wish not to enrol on the Māori roll, in order to vote for candidates who best represent their interests.

Because the option to switch rolls for those who are already enrolled occurs only every five years and the next choice is not until 2012, there may be dissatisfaction amongst Auckland electors regarding of the roll that are currently on, given the new significance it takes on.

When electors made the decision to enrol on the Māori or General roll, they would have most likely been unaware that the choice would extend to local government elections as well as central government elections. Because of this information asymmetry, there may be electors who wish to switch off the General roll onto the Māori roll to achieve the right to vote for Māori constituencies at both a local and central government level, which enrolment on the Māori roll did not previously offer.

Conversely, there may be Māori in Auckland who do not wish to vote in Māori constituencies at local government level, but would wish to do so at a central government level and are also unable to change. Extensive consultation would be needed on this issue, perhaps with the option to change your enrolment if you are eligible to vote in the Auckland local authority elections. However, this in itself presents risks of electors changing rolls in order to “stack” certain wards for political purposes. Adhering to the 2012 date would prevent this somewhat, but could leave voters dissatisfied.

Further, if electors were allowed to change on or off rolls en masse, this could significantly affect the number of constituencies, both Māori and General, for central government election purposes. This is because the number of constituencies is in part, dependent on the number of electors registered on the respective rolls. Based on 2001 census data, if all eligible Māori enrolled on the Māori roll, there would be twelve Māori seats, compared with the current seven[5]. Although it is unlikely that the number of Māori electorates will decrease, there is a risk that local body electorates will have an undue impact on central government elections. This will need to be managed in 2012, regardless of whether there is an option before the 2010 elections.

Should electors be dissatisfied with the roll they are on following the 2010 election, this may result in a significant shift during the 2012 choice. During the last three choice rounds (1997, 2001, 2006) there were significant increases in the number of electors shifting to the Māori roll. In 2006, all General electorates experienced a larger shift from the general roll to the Māori roll than from the Māori roll to the General roll. This included all the Auckland electorates[6]. Nationwide over 20,000 Māori changed their electoral roll one way or the other in the 2006 round. This shows that Māori as a population are not averse to changing electoral rolls and have a familiarity with the process.

Possibility of Removal

Just as the Māori seats at central government level are not entrenched in New Zealand law, neither would the seats at local government level be. As outlined earlier in section ‎6, the Auckland Regional Authority had dedicated Māori representation, but it was repealed in 1989. The same issue could arise in Auckland in the short-term or long-term future, depending on a number of situations.

Other Risks Proposed During Environment Bay of Plenty Consultation

Although many arguments for and against were presented during the consultation, three risks from the Trapski report stood out as being valid for Auckland specifically:

Creating conflict or an apartheid situation.
Extra constituencies have the potential to increase the overall running cost of local government.
Relegating issues of Māori concern to only being the business of the Māori constituency councillors.

For the Homepage, click here.

For Risks & Opportunities At A Glance, click here.

For information on ‘technical issues’, such as definitions, click here.

For information related to Māori representation as a public policy issue, click here.

For more information about Māori representation and Auckland specifically, click here.

For information related to opportunities created by dedicated Māori representation, click here.

For other methods of indigenous minority representation, click here.