Editorial: If Maori are to vote, give them the seats

Photo / Glenn Jeffrey

Opinion

Orakei councillor Cameron Brewer put it mildly when he suggested most Aucklanders would be surprised to learn that unelected members of the Auckland Council's Maori advisory board can vote on council committees.

Astonished would be more like it. The Government, having rejected the sensible option of dedicated Maori seats on the council, has breached a fundamental precept of democracy to ensure the Maori voice is heard. Handing full voting powers to appointed advisers - Maori or otherwise - is anathema. It will serve only to breed resentment in the wider community.

Aucklanders will also be startled to learn of this unsatisfactory state of affairs so late in the day. It becomes obvious only with a close reading of the 2010 Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act.

That legislation does not spell out the voting right of the Maori advisers as such. It says merely that the iwi-selected Maori Statutory Board "must appoint a maximum of two persons to sit as members on each of the Auckland Council's committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources". Membership bestows the same voting rights as those representatives elected by ratepayers have.

This is a far from academic matter. As Labour spokesman Phil Twyford has pointed out, it is easy to envisage a situation in which a committee is evenly split.

The non-elected Maori advisers will then have the casting vote. In effect, they will not be acting in an advisory role. They could be decision-makers, although the full council can overturn any committee decision.

There is an air of unreality about much of this. A council spokesman talks of the act creating an atmosphere of "perplexed amusement".

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide says, with much justification, that he is surprised the Maori Statutory Board is appointing people to sit on all council committees, rather than only those dealing with resource management issues, as indicated by the legislation.

The act also dictates that the Maori Statutory Board must seek the council's views on the skills and experience that its committee appointees should have. The board put that question before Christmas.

Having received no response in a relatively short period, probably because the council has much on its plate, it has charged ahead anyway. Unilaterally, it has decided what skills and experience will be required, and put names forward for each of about 20 committees.

Clearly, the board is seeking to gain the best possible foothold as the council settles into its work. It can hardly be blamed for that.

Having been denied the place at the full council table recommended by a royal commission, and warranted by the distinctive character and interest of the Maori community, it is making the best of the cards it has been dealt. If the council is struggling with the act, that is not the board's fault.

It is, however, the Government's problem. If handing voting rights to non-elected Maori advisers is its idea of a compromise, it is one founded on a woebegone notion of democracy.

The shortsighted remedying of one ill has created the potential for a festering grievance. To placate the majority of Auckland ratepayers, repairs will have to be made.

Two dedicated Maori seats, elected by Auckland residents on the rolls of the Maori parliamentary electorates covering the Super City, are the best solution.