Getting serious about Māori wards: Whanganui council edges closer to decision

'We have a gap in our representation at the highest governance level locally,' says Whanganui district councillor Josh Chandulal-Mackay. Photo / Bevan Conley

Whanganui District Council could introduce Māori wards as a way for Māori to achieve representation at the council table. Thirty-five councils around the country have Māori wards or constituencies. If adopted in Whanganui, they would come into effect in the 2025 local elections.

The council must decide by November 23 under the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill whether to have “specific Māori representation”. The decision is also part of a Local Electoral Act requirement for all councils to review representation arrangements at least every six years.

Consultation has included talks with iwi, hapū and Māori groups, as well as an online survey inviting views from the wider community and a Community Kōrero public meeting, which appeared strongly in favour of guaranteeing representation for Māori.

Local Democracy Reporter Moana Ellis asks councillor Josh Chandulal-Mackay how the debate is stacking up.

Q: Were you surprised at the direction the Community Kōrero hui took in demanding constitutional change on behalf of Māori in relation to Māori wards?

A: It didn’t come as a shock at all. It spoke to a wider issue around how many inequities there are within the proposed framework. A lot of that meeting was around the fact that introducing Māori wards would potentially disenfranchise Māori electoral roll voters from being able to have a say on the composition of the majority of the council.

Because the number of Māori seats would be based on the proportion of people on the Māori roll versus the general roll, we would have two Māori seats and 10 general seats assuming we retain a council of 12. That means anyone on the general roll would get a say over 10 seats and anyone on the Māori roll would get a say over two. There’s an argument that there’s an inequity of voting power under the system and that’s where the heart of the debate lies for me.

We have the opportunity now to provide seats for iwi on our committees, but there is no way under the current system to give iwi, hapū, marae or Māori the opportunity to sit and vote on the full council, except for Māori wards.

Q: What are other potential drawbacks of Māori wards for Māori communities?

A: Several groups have expressed concern that mana whenua wouldn’t be guaranteed a voice under the Māori ward system. The main reservation from some of our iwi partners has been that someone who doesn’t whakapapa back to Whanganui could win one of those seats and therefore be thought of as representing the voice of mana whenua around the council table. Anyone can stand for a Māori ward seat, including someone who is not Māori. The only criteria is that you’re 18 years old, a New Zealand citizen and you’re nominated by two electors on the Māori roll.

Q: Are there potential drawbacks for the broader population?

A: From my perspective, there are only advantages. You’re creating a mechanism where there’s more potential for the Te Ao Māori voice to come to the table. A common accusation is that you’re creating seats based on ethnicity not merit – but you could argue the same thing for rural wards.

Around the country we have wards set up for communities of interest. If you’re in an isolated rural area, chances are that under a district-wide election you might struggle to get elected because you’re not necessarily known by the general population – so we create rural wards to ensure that those communities have representation around the council table.

Q: How do you ensure that the introduction of Māori wards is done in a way that is fair and equitable for all residents and doesn’t create divisions within the community?

A: We’re still some way from making a decision yet, but if we do introduce Māori wards we’ve got to be really clear in our communications around what it is that we’re doing. That is, creating wards to ensure that our treaty partners have an opportunity to be represented at the council table.

We would emphasise that this is an enhancement of democracy. Democracy works best where we have as many voices as possible represented in local decisions because we get better outcomes when ideas are tested by the people who are most affected by them.

Q: Is introducing Māori wards a form of affirmative action?

A: I would view it as playing out our obligations under Te Tiriti. We have an obligation to involve and promote Māori participation in local decision-making, and this is one of the mechanisms by which we can do that.

Q: In what ways do Māori currently have political representation at the council, and what disparities or challenges do they face in achieving representation?

A: Over the past three elections we’ve had some 90 candidates stand for council and every councillor elected has been non-Māori. So we have a gap in our representation at the highest governance level locally.

We have partnerships with two key iwi here in Whanganui via the Tamaūpoko Link and the Tūpoho Working Party. We have an established relationship with the Whanganui Land Settlement Negotiations Trust and we work with hapū on the port revitalisation project and a whole lot of other policies and strategies that have developed in partnership with iwi. For instance, the climate change strategy and Te Kōpuka (the Whanganui river strategy group) through the Te Awa Tupua legislative framework.

If we introduce Māori wards, none of those partnerships are at risk. It would be an enhancement of the system in that you’re creating the potential for the Te Ao Māori worldview to be heard at the council table alongside the partnerships that we already have.

Q: Could Māori wards be seen as a localised form of co-governance?

A: Co-governance speaks to a partnership between Māori and non-Māori at governance level. Introducing Māori wards isn’t a partnership so much as representation. Co-governance is the partnership arrangements we have with our iwi partners. The Tamaūpoko Link, for instance, has myself and a Tamaūpoko representative co-chairing a partnership body. We have three members of council sitting on that body alongside three members of the Tamaūpoko rūnanga. Those co-governance arrangements have been really effective in bringing the view of our Treaty partners to council decisions.

We’re also actively involved in other organisations where co-governance is part of the structure. For instance, the Resource Recovery Centre and the Pākaitore Historic Reserve Board. You’ve also got the Whanganui Regional Museum, which is also co-governance. All of those organisations work really successfully and there’s nothing controversial there whatsoever. How many members of the community would wake up in the night sweating with fear over the governance arrangements of the Resource Recovery Centre?

Those structures will continue even if we did introduce Māori wards.

Q: Is concern about co-governance just political scaremongering?

A: There is some scaremongering. One of the criticisms is that it puts in jeopardy the idea of one person, one vote. That just doesn’t stack up. In a local body election, if we introduce co-governance or Māori wards, you’ve still got your vote for your councillors and your mayor. In a central government election, you’ve still got your party vote and your electorate vote.

What it comes down to is general fear and reticence around change. We’ve grown up over the past 183 years since the signing of the treaty where colonial European culture, dominated by the English language and a colonial European way of governing this country, have been dominant. We’re now saying we got that wrong. We didn’t act in partnership and we’re rebalancing those scales.

People are cautious of change and that’s why we need to take them on the journey with us.

Q: How do you engage with the broader community to facilitate that?

A: One thing that concerns me is the inability or the disinclination of senior politicians in both local and central government to have these conversations. That has meant that people opposed to co-governance – people who are in favour of dog-whistle politics – have been allowed to dominate the conversation and set the narrative.

For people like myself who support the notion of co-governance in a local government space, it’s up to us to facilitate those conversations in social media and turn up to public meetings to promote those concepts, otherwise the narrative is swept up by those who are more interested in generating fear. It’s important that we’re brave and go into spaces where we’re not necessarily met with a receptive response.

If you can get to the nub of the issue then you can start to work through it. This is about doing things better. This is about creating a form of democracy, a form of governance in Aotearoa New Zealand that reflects our cultural worldview. I’m excited by that.

Q: Is it council’s job to engage the community in thinking about contentious issues like co-governance or Māori representation?

A: From a four wellbeings perspective – which is council’s mandate under the Local Government Act – we’re responsible for promoting the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeings of our communities. Co-governance and treaty partnerships fall into all of those. From that perspective, there is absolutely a place for council to facilitate those conversations.

Q: What have you learned from consulting with Māori and the wider community on Māori wards?

A: If we do introduce Māori wards, we need a clear communication plan so that people know there is a consequence for whether you choose to be on the Māori roll or the general roll in terms of who you can vote for (and how many votes you would have).

More broadly, this engagement has got me thinking a lot. For me, it’s about whether or not the inequity associated with not having Māori at the table at all is balanced by creating the potential for the Te Ao Māori voice to be represented through Māori ward seats. I say “potential” because it’s not guaranteed that anyone with a Te Ao Māori lens and with whakapapa to Whanganui would be elected.

Q: Have alternative approaches or solutions been considered?

A: When Hamish [McDouall] was mayor, there were conversations around creating iwi seats on our committees with speaking and voting rights. That never got off the ground – I’m not sure why. Another potential option is a Māori Affairs Standing Committee, where you could have iwi, hapū, marae representatives on a committee alongside councillors and potentially the rural community board. A number of councils follow that path.

Q: Why hasn’t the council considered Māori wards in the past?

A: There’s been a lack of clarity around the position of our iwi partners. Previously, some of our Whanganui iwi have been opposed and others have been in favour. Where I think we went wrong is that we never asked for formal feedback from the rūnanga of each of those iwi and hapū about their preference. This time round we’re getting that formal feedback to inform the decision.

We’re getting feedback from non-Māori as well because there are implications for non-Māori, too. Assuming we keep 12 councillors, anyone on the general roll will see two fewer seats available to vote for, so we thought it was important that everyone get a say on what the structure of their council looks like.

Q: Are there specific objectives you would like to see achieved if Māori wards were introduced?

A: In as much as a Māori ward councillor would have exactly the same duties and obligations as any other councillor, no. Around the potential of bringing Te Ao Māori to the table, I would hope we would see Māori ward councillors who were able to bring a new lens and perspective to decisions – particularly those we make in confidence, where it’s impossible to invite into that space people who are not elected on to council.

* Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air.