Māori representation in local government and Pākehā liberals.

Submissions on the mixed-model Canterbury Regional Council Bill were heard yesterday, and there was a lot of pākehā liberal surprise that Ngāi Tahu back a mixed-model council, even beyond the next term. In many ways this follows on from earlier liberal surprise that the Māori Party would be backing the Bill, which lead to the surprise that Ngāi Tahu supported the Bill. (Ngāi Tahu’s views being particularly important in the context that the Māori Party will be the swing votes for this legislation, and the party’s kaupapa suggests that Ngāi Tahu’s views, as the iwi most directly affected, will play a substantial role in their voting behaviour.)

In all honesty, it’s not really a big surprise that Ngāi Tahu weren’t huge fans of the elected Regional Council, and nor is it a big surprise that they would advocate a model which places them on an equal footing with central government.

There is, however, some interesting friction here in that traditional liberal thought flinches at any allocation of voting rights on anything other than a one-person one-vote basis, while liberal pākehā are also (ostensibly) committed to the Treaty relationship and iwi governance partnership. While the Māori/General Roll system for House elections is an unusual system, within each Roll voters remain allocated to geographically defined constituencies of equal size using the same voting system as each other. Similarly, the Māori ward system preserves those features at a council level, where it is used (Bay of Plenty Regional and Waikato Regional Councils). Māori wards are also a very difficult structure to implement: only one Council, Waikato Regional, has used the Local Electoral Act provisions to introduce them.

As Ngāi Tahu’s lobbyist James Caygill points out, Māori wards are not iwi representation. Iwi representation will generally have the characteristics that it is non-geographic (i.e iwi membership is not determined by the physical location of voters) and non-proportional (i.e it is unlikely iwi representation will directly reflect the number of iwi members as a proportion of the population of the authority.)

In the Te Arawa Partnership model, Te Arawa elects an independent Board which then nominate members to council committees, including voting members for the Strategy & Finance and Operations & Monitoring committees. The Te Arawa Partnership is therefore non-geographic and non-proportional. The nominees are appointed by the elected members, and the Council is not bound by committee recommendations.

There are precedents for non-geographic constituencies. They were a feature of the British Commons until 1950, in the form of the University constituencies. There is also a great deal of precedent for disproportionate representation of communities of interest at the local government level in New Zealand. The Banks Peninsula ward of the Christchurch City Council is half the size of the other wards in order to better represent isolated rural communities, as is the Stewart Island – Rakiura ward of the Southland District Council. From a liberal perspective these appear anomalous, and personally I have my doubts about them, especially given the tendency to over-represent whiter, richer rural areas — a sort of country quota for our local government. Nonetheless, they are a feature of our local democracy and do ensure that certain kinds of community are represented when they otherwise would not.

Ngāi Tahu argue that as they hold mana whenua in the Canterbury region, the Treaty relationship indicates they should have a direct voice at the Council table. But, as Ngāi Tahu also observe, iwi representation is not Māori representation. Does the Treaty partnership call for non mana whenua Māori to be represented at the local government level? How can this be accomplished alongside mana whenua representation? In Auckland, the Independent Māori Statutory Board represents mana whenua and other Māori (mātāwaka) with specific positions tied to mana whenua and mātāwaka, while in the future Te Arawa will look to build mātāwaka representation into their structures for the purposes of the Partnership. The IMSB has had difficulties implementing urban Māori representation, and Willie Jackson is challenging certain decisions in the courts, while Te Arawa have not yet revealed how they will achieve this.

These are hard questions, particularly when put alongside dominant pākehā traditions that value geographic constituencies of equal size. Liberal pākehā need to be more aware of the complexity of these issues: “Māori wards” are not the answer to every question of representation, and may in fact be actively unwanted by iwi. At the same time, iwi representation does raise difficult legal and political questions. Canterbury Regional Council will only have full members appointed on an iwi basis as a result of an ad hoc Act, and it is unlikely that other councils would be able to act in a similar manner. There are also real questions about how the legitimacy and authority of members appointed on such a basis will be managed within the context of a political system that presumes legitimacy derives primarily from direct election by the residents of a district.

As Māori seek to take on an active partnership role in more aspects of government, these questions will keep coming up in relation to major urban authorities, with significant political responsibilities. In order for representation and governance models to be sustainable, they will need to enjoy broad based support. Resolving these questions proactively and effectively will be an important part of successfully transforming rhetorics of Treaty partnership into governance realities at the local authority level.

The author is the chair of the People’s Choice in Christchurch, but the views expressed are entirely personal.

Christchurch Central Selection

Nominations close for Labour’s Christchurch Central candidate today, and so far two people have publicly put their name forward: Tony Milne and James Dann. I know both of them, and they’re both top blokes who’d make great MPs.

Central is a very winnable seat for Labour. Boundary changes, even a slight nationwide swing towards Labour, and an aggressive, solid campaign could result in a Labour pick-up. However, even with those factors, it will remain very marginal.

Tony Milne is a party stalwart, if you can be a stalwart when you’re in your early thirties. He’s been involved in Canterbury Labour circles for the past ten or so years, including a stint working for Tim Barnett in Parliament, as well as heavy involvement in several key campaigns. Outside of the party, he’s active on queer issues, and was involved with the campaigns for civil unions and marriage equality, and is currently employed by the Problem Gambling Foundation.

James Dann (who also blogs here) is a very smart guy, with a touch of the showman. He’s got links to the transitional city folks, has a top-notch twitter account, and good relationships with media figures. The most important thing James brings to the table is a really serious engagement with the post-earthquake environment. His blog has been one of the key sites for analysis and critique of what’s going on in the Christchurch rebuild.

The selection is in just over a week’s time, on the 8th of March. At the moment, I would say that Milne is the front runner. However, whoever gets selected, I am sure we’ll hear a lot more from both these candidates.

Edited to add: I understand the third candidate is Gavin Smith. Will update with the nominee when we know who it is.

Further edited to add: Tony Milne was selected — congratulations!

Christchurch local government results

The under-reported story about the Christchurch elections has been the rise of the Labour-linked People’s Choice ticket. The People’s Choice now has 6 Councillors out of 13, outright majorities on two of the six metropolitan community boards, and the chance to build working majorities on three more.

There’s two aspects to this: firstly, how did it happen, and secondly, what should the new People’s Choice dominated council do?
The People’s Choice ran a campaign based around hard work, clever strategy, and Labour values. It wasn’t a campaign driven by money or media profile. From memory, only one People’s Choice candidate appeared on the front page of the Press, and that memory’s not a happy one. The spending figures aren’t available yet, but I’d be surprised if any People’s Choice candidate spent anywhere like as much as Erin Jackson, Raf Manji, or Aaron Keown, let alone the representatives of Merivale money, Jamie Gough and Paul Lonsdale.
Instead, the People’s Choice worked hard in the community, getting out there, doorknocking and meeting voters. They focussed their efforts on those communities where progressive values are important, and made sure that those communities were able to turn out and vote. And they talked about Labour and Labour values.
Not every People’s Choice candidate is Labour, but many are, and the People’s Choice’s values are very much Labour values. Voters know what values are important to them, and we need to communicate that we share those values. Being clear about our political position is good strategy. Hiding behind “independence” or, worse, “non-political groupings” isn’t just kinda weird and creepy, it doesn’t work. Being honest and upfront does work.
Now the People’s Choice has won elections, what should they be aiming for?
The People’s Choice should be expecting to have a say in how the council works. They have several senior figures, people like Yani Johanson, Phil Clearwater, and Glenn Livingstone, who are capable of taking on leadership roles within the council. They should be pushing for their key policies, especially around healthy homes, openness and good government, a living wage, better public transport, and more. And Lianne will need solid support to make sure her mayoralty’s the success it should be.
They’ll also need to stand up against proposals that go against the values of equality and justice the People’s Choice represent. With six councillors, they can expect to have a say in every key decision, and should make sure they use that power. Voters will be unimpressed if the People’s Choice doesn’t deliver.

Down with the kids?

This just in from Christchurch.

The right-wing local government ticket, “Independent Citizens” have undertaken a bold new re-branding exercise to ensure they are relevant to the youth of the city.

Ladies and gentlemen… I give you… iCitz!

 

If you live in the Riccarton-Wigram ward, then this alone should be reason to vote for Natalie Bryden, the People’s Choice-Labour candidate for the current local board by-election. Get out there and vote!

Christchurch – Making Progress

I’ve sat down a number of times to write about what I saw, felt and thought on 22 February 2011.

I was in town having lunch…I crossed it to get back to work and check on staff … then trekked out again on foot to get home and deal with flooding and liquefaction.

I saw things I’ll never forget.

I can’t or won’t watch a great deal of footage – it’s still way too raw. But really I think I’m just sick of the damn day, and I’m especially sick of the media treatment of it, as though that’s the bit that matters. So I’m not going to inflict another overwrought account of that day on you. It’s not 22 February that truly matters – as a progressive, it’s what comes after that matters.

Following the quake “munted” quickly became the word of the moment; hell it became the word of the last year. But as a friend reminded me when he visited from Melbourne, “munted” just doesn’t cut it.

There is no other way to say it: Christchurch is fucked.

We need Christchurch to work. Calls to abandon it, move it, or supplant it are idiotic and ill informed. The nation needs an effective alternative to Auckland and for all sorts of reasons that place is and will remain Christchurch.

But I’ve spent much of the last year angry, upset, and generally frustrated with what I see as the failure of many, and especially our leaders (local and national), to engage with what’s actually happened in Christchurch. That goes double for those who ought to know better – those on the left.

Plenty of people have been working hard – I don’t accuse anyone of laziness. But way too many continue to confuse heat with light, energy with results – just because you’re busy, doesn’t mean you’re doing any good.

What I’ve found particularly frustrating is that Christchurch is a city full of need and opportunity. It’s a city full of fear and anger – crying out for those of us on the left to turn that into hope and action.

Certainly, I have my own views about a large number of policy issues including Transport, Environment, Housing, Health, Small Business, Arts, and Local Government to name but a few. I’m sure I’ll write about them over the next year.

But, on this the anniversary of the quake that broke my city, I want to issue a challenge:

To the Labour Caucus – every one of you.

You have a year – a year to understand how rebuilding Christchurch presents a challenge to our nation and an opportunity, in your portfolio, for our party and our country to advance our progressive agenda.

In a year’s time I expect all of you to be able to articulate and advance policy that will help rebuild Christchurch, and build a stronger more progressive nation.

You will need to come to Christchurch regularly. It is quite clear to me that one cannot understand what is happening here without seeing it in person.

You must not accept the government’s notion that this can and should be managed through one Ministerial portfolio. Lianne is doing an excellent job of holding the Minister to account, but she alone cannot fix the problems or seize the opportunities before us. You must come to see your portfolio through the lens of Christchurch.

Ours is a city of new horizons, it could be the most progressive city in the most progressive country in the world. We can build it back green, and progressive. We can throw away old models and ways of doing things. It’s simply up to you to grasp this opportunity – every one of you.

I look forward to hearing from you in a year.

Perspective on Christchurch’s local representation

Paul McMahon is a member of the Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board, Chair of the Labour Local Government Committee (Christchurch) and Chair of The People’s Choice (Christchurch 2021): This post is his personal opinion and is not speaking for Labour or Christchurch 2021.

As several other writers have reminded us recently, in the past the Christchurch City Council used to win awards for their community engagement due to the high quality of civic leadership and local democracy: a lot has changed since then. There are serious problems within the Council and in the way it is run and led. The public have a right to feel angry and disenfranchised.

At the protest the feeling of anger and a real desire for change was palpable: this is not a flash in the pan of civic history, it was the beginning of the end of the ruling regime. Change is coming to Christchurch, but what the nature of that change is very much up in the air. We are on shaky ground in more ways than one.

The problems are not new and the current cause is simple: the reigning majority of Councillors, led by the Mayor, have not adhered to the basics of democratic process, oversight and governance. This group has been called the “A-team,” and, according to one local body veteran I know, they are the tightest-knit governing political party Christchurch local body politics has seen within living memory. This grouping has allowed the Mayor and the CEO to dominate our local government, by giving them the votes they need at the Council table and by not requiring due democratic process to be followed. The dysfunction currently under the spotlight is how this ruling party has decided our local government should be run since 2007, but the foundations were laid before then.

Between 2004 and 2007 our local democracy was routed in a pincer manoeuvre of democratic deficit and corporatisation. It was the halving of the number of councillors and the amalgamation of wards (merging wealthier wards with poorer wards) before the 2004 local elections (highlighted by Chris Trotter in a recent piece published in The Press) that delivered the king hit that severely weakened democratic representation on the Council, while the corporatisation (presided over by Mayor Garry Moore and CEO Dr. Lesley McTurk) gutted the Council of its public service ethic, institutional knowledge and, therefore, its capacity to respond adequately to the challenges of the recovery we now face.

Furthermore, I would go as far as to say that the reform programme of the Moore-McTurk era is precisely what has enabled two men, the Mayor and the CEO, to so detrimentally dominate what was once the best governed city in the world. In particular, the dissolution of the standing committee structure, the reduction of the power and role of community boards, the centralisation of service-provision and decision-making, and the proliferation of middle and upper management roles. All of these changes have, directly or indirectly, undermined the supremacy of elected members and elevated the roles of the Executive staff and Mayor.

The solution to the problem is to return to democracy, not to remove it altogether as some are advocating. The prospect of government-appointed commissioners is not one anyone should relish. I understand why it has some appeal, but we have already lost a democratic voice in our Regional Council (Ecan), so losing democratic control of the City Council would mean all the decisions about the recovery of our city would be made in Wellington, disenfranchising us even further.

Christchurch is the people’s city, it is neither the Council’s nor the government’s city, and so it should be the people who decide who governs: and the only way to do that is, whether sooner or later, through elections. Disenchantment with the recovery process will only be heightened, and the democratic deficit increased, if the government installs commissioners. They must be sorely tempted, but it carries with it a lot of political risk: once the government installs commissioners they will shoulder all the responsibility and all the blame.

If there are going to be any radical changes, they should be in-line with the principle of subsidiarity and aimed at giving the community a stronger voice in the recovery from the earthquakes. Rather than centralise decision-making in Wellington, the government should go completely the other way. Instead of concentrating power, they should disperse it into the community through strengthened and empowered community boards, whose job it is to be representatives and advocates for their communities.

Decisions about the recovery should be made as close to the people they affect as possible, as openly as possible and with as much participation by the people of Christchurch as possible. If the government appoints commissioners they will be depriving us, the people of Christchurch, of our local democracy and of the ability to determine the shape of the recovery: that is precisely why people feel frustrated with the Council now!

As people who already feel powerless in the face of over 10,000 earthquakes, losing local democratic representation, even for a time, will rob us of even the little voice we currently have. Change is needed, but it must be democratic and it must be empowering to our suffering communities. If the majority of the Council will not change, then an early election is the only answer.

Letter from Christchurch – Local Government Frustration

Local government seems to be rising up the ladder of issues people are taking an interest in.

Patrick posted earlier in the week about the Shape the Future group in Wellington.

Aucklanders got briefly interested in how their city’s governed over the last couple of years, but it seemed like a passing fad – and sadly far too few Aucklanders engaged, or continue to be engaged, with what were and are extremely important issues. A pity – the Royal Commission papers and report were fascinating.

Local government has certainly occupied the minds of many residents, ratepayers and citizens here in Christchurch for a number of years, and it’s been a large part of our frustration (still growing btw) with how things have been managed since the earthquakes began. (For those keeping count we just passed 10,000 quakes since September 2010 – here’s the map)

Continue reading “Letter from Christchurch – Local Government Frustration”