23.1. This chapter addresses the issue of how best to encourage involvement in local government by people from a broad range of backgrounds. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 16, “Local Councils”, which comments in detail on the role of local councils, and in particular, on the place-shaping role of local councils. It should also be read in conjunction with Chapter 22, “Māori”.
23.2. There are two aspects to this issue: representation – encouraging talented people from a wide range of backgrounds to become elected members of local councils participation – ensuring effective consultation and engagement mechanisms are in place so that the voices of Auckland’s diverse communities are heard and taken into account. 23.3. In this chapter the Commission considers the importance of representation and participation by a diverse range of people, and examines the composition of Auckland’s councils, which in many respects do not reflect the composition of Auckland’s society.
23.4. The Commission concludes that while it is undesirable to provide separate representation for specific groups (other than Māori) on either the proposed Auckland Council or on local councils, effective consultation and engagement is essential. Māori are a special case because of their status as a partner under the Treaty of Waitangi, and their obligations of manākitanga1 and kaitiakitanga.2 This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 22.
23.5. Where there are effective structures for formal engagement already in place, the Commission recommends that these continue. It also recommends the establishment of two advisory panels at the Auckland Council level:
23.6. In preparing this chapter, the Commission has consulted with representatives of Pacific and other ethnic minority communities in Auckland, and with various organisations, including the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Office of Ethnic Affairs.
Māori, Pacific peoples, and other ethnic groups, children and young people, older people, those with disabilities, and those with low incomes represent the majority of Auckland’s citizens, yet their particular needs and interests can slip out of focus in the usual planning and priority-setting processes.3
23.8. By way of example, physical safety, the cost of services, and housing are issues that are often of particular concern to the elderly; the design of public spaces can have a significant impact on those with disabilities; and many ethnic groups, such as Pacific peoples, face particular issues of concern:
Pacific peoples are concentrated in the poorer neighbourhoods, where there is a high concentration of liquor outlets and fast food shops, limited areas for children to play, and few transport facilities. Shop owners rarely live in the area, and treat it as simply a way to make money, contributing little to civic pride.4
23.9. Another example is families with young children, who are often high users of council-provided services, such as parks, zoos, libraries, playgrounds, swimming pools, and community events and festivals.
23.10. But the issue is deeper than simply ensuring that councillors have a direct and personal understanding of their constituents’ concerns. Representative councils also assist communities to feel connected to local government processes, and to feel that they can make a difference:
Councillors from a wide variety of different backgrounds not only bring a range of voices directly into the council chamber but also enable a richer myriad of networks to be connected with council members, useful not only for the council but in turn also to maximise people’s sense of efficacy and engagement which we have identified as a crucial ingredient of effective participation and local democracy.5
Current composition of Auckland’s councils
23.11. The composition of Auckland’s local government does not reflect Auckland’s society. There is, for example, a predominance of older men and people of European descent in local government.
23.12. Ethnic minorities are under-represented on Auckland’s councils. After the 2007 elections, 84% of the members of Auckland’s councils identified as European, 9% as Māori, 4% as Pacific, and 4% as Asian. (Although still very European-dominated, this was a marked improvement on the results of the 2004 elections, following which 93% of Auckland’s council members identified as European, 3% as Māori, 2% as Pacific, and 2% as Asian).6 Surprisingly, after the 2007 elections the composition of Auckland’s community boards was slightly less ethnically diverse than the composition of councils.7
23.13. Figure 23.1 is a comparison of the ethnic breakdown of Auckland’s councillors after the 2007 elections, compared with the ethnicity of Auckland’s population at large. This graph shows that Europeans are over-represented in Auckland’s councils, Māori are slightly under-represented, and Pacific and Asian people are significantly under-represented.
23.14. Some territorial authorities have a better level of representation of councillors from particular ethnic groups (such as the four Pacific councillors from a total of 17 councillors in Manukau City), but across the board the under-representation of minority ethnic groups is pronounced.
23.15. Women are also under-represented on Auckland’s councils, although less so than in councils in the rest of the country. Figure 23.2 demonstrates that although the number of women councillors on Auckland’s councils (especially the Auckland Regional Council) tends to exceed the national average, they are still proportionately under-represented.
23.16. The age composition of the region’s councillors is also of concern. According to post-election survey data8 after the 2007 elections, 63% of the members of Auckland’s councils (that is, the ARC and the seven territorial authorities) were aged over 55.9 Of course, there are many benefits in having older councillors. Age can bring with it both wisdom and perspective. Nonetheless, it is important to have a balance. It is crucial that we attract young people to become involved in local government.
23.17. The failure of Auckland’s local government to reflect its diverse society mirrors nationwide (and international) trends. Nationally, after the 2004 local government elections
23.18. In the UK, detailed research has been carried out in relation to barriers to participation in local government.13 It concluded that some of these barriers disproportionately disenfranchise specific groups. For example, women often face additional time-related barriers because of caring responsibilities; employed people find it difficult to balance being a councillor with work; people from ethnic minorities may be disproportionately affected by barriers related to deprivation and social exclusion; and people with disabilities may face additional access and mobility-related barriers.14
23.19. It is likely that similar barriers exist in Auckland, and throughout New Zealand.
23.20. Against this background, the Commission has considered whether there is a need to provide specific representation for certain groups, in order to engineer more diverse and representative councils.
23.21. Some submitters to the Commission thought that specific representation would be useful.15 In particular, the Commission received a number of submissions supporting some form of specific representation for Pacific peoples. Various ideas included23.22. A report obtained by the Commission relating to social well-being in the Auckland region concluded that
Pacific stakeholders considered their needs and interests were not well served by the current arrangements. Guaranteed representation for Pacific peoples was supported by most.16
23.23. In the context of ethnic minority communities more generally, the report concluded,
Communities increasingly want representation, especially the more settled communities, who increasingly want to be part of the civic structures, and are looking for ways to upskill so they can engage. Different communities are at different stages, with refugee communities strongly focused on settlement and needing considerable community development. Those who have suffered torture and trauma rely heavily on central government services – health, housing, social development, and education.17
23.24. There are also a number of disadvantages associated with providing specific representation for certain groups on Auckland’s councils, however. For example, establishing specific representation for certain groups is likely to be highly divisive. A major problem is how to define the group. Some groups encompass people from quite diverse backgrounds and interests. For example, the terms “Pacific peoples” and “Asian peoples” each include people from many different countries, whose interests may or may not align on certain issues.
23.25. In addition, Auckland is made up of many different groups, such as ethnic, cultural and religious groups, people of different employment status, the young, the elderly, people of different family status, people of different sexual orientation, people from different socio-economic groups, and so forth. Although it would be desirable for Auckland’s local government to reflect all of these different aspects of society, plainly it would be unworkable to achieve this by way of providing specific representation for every group. A simple numerical “headcount” approach to representation is impracticable.
23.26. Most submitters on this topic believed that it is important for Auckland’s governance arrangements to enable increased access and participation by Auckland’s diverse communities.18 There was a clear consensus that, at the very least, effective engagement and consultation is essential. This is consistent with the Local Government Act 2002, which requires councils to consider the social, environmental, economic, and cultural well-being of communities as part of taking a sustainable approach to development.19
23.27. Many Auckland councils already use formal structures, such as advisory groups, to ensure that the voices of certain groups in society are heard. Of the seven territorial authorities in Auckland, many have established or work with advisory groups that represent Pacific peoples, and/or groups that represent ethnic minority groups generally.
23.28. These advisory groups take various forms. In some cases, they are part of the relevant territorial authority, whereas in other cases they are completely separate from council structures.
23.29. One example of an advisory body that sits within local government structures is the Manukau City Pacific Island Advisory Committee. Manukau City is home to around 86,000 Pacific people, which is the largest Pacific population in New Zealand and represents around 28% of Manukau City’s total population.20 This committee has 15 members made up of representatives from Manukau’s Pacific communities, namely Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Niue, Fiji, and Tokelau. A seat is also allocated on the committee for a representative of small Pacific nations.
23.30. There is also a memorandum of understanding between the Manukau City Council and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs.21 It sets out a framework for better cooperation between the council and the ministry to improve economic, social, cultural, and environmental outcomes for Pacific peoples in Manukau City.
23.31. The Commission has been impressed by the way in which Manukau City has brought Pacific culture and Pacific issues to the fore and incorporated these as part of its “mainstream” policy and operations. According to the submission received from the Manukau City Pacific Island Advisory Committee, in 2006 Manukau City Council adopted the Pacific Peoples Policy and Action Plan.22 It provides a framework and process for Pacific peoples to voice their aspirations, needs, and priorities, and for Manukau City Council to develop policies and strengthen the capacity of Pacific peoples to participate in all aspects of life in Manukau.
23.32. The Commission was advised that there is a very good relationship between Manukau City Council and the Pacific Island Advisory Committee. The chief executive officer, mayor, and deputy mayor regularly attend the committee’s monthly meetings. The Commission was also impressed to hear that the committee keeps in close contact with its Pacific community via Radio 531PI, a Pacific radio station which has coverage over all of the greater Auckland region. This innovative method of community engagement is apparently highly effective.
23.33. An example of a model that sits outside local government structures is the Waitakere Pacific Board. The Waitakere Pacific Board was incorporated in 1989 (at which time it was called the Pacific Islands Advisory Board) as a result of an initiative of the Waitakere Pacific communities.
23.34. Pacific peoples resident in Waitakere City vote for the chairperson, deputy-chairperson, secretary, and treasurer of the Waitakere Pacific Board.23 Each specific Pacific Island community elects a representative of their nation, as well as practitioners who are co-opted to specific sectors such as education, economic development, gender, arts, and justice.
23.35. Waitakere City Council consults with the Waitakere Pacific Board on a very broad range of issues, not just those issues that relate solely to Pacific peoples. For example, the council has recently consulted with the board in relation to its car parking policy. The board raised concerns such as the affordability of parking in the city for people on lower incomes, and the monopolisation of free car parks by workers who get in early and stay the entire day, forcing retirees, the unemployed, and caregivers with children who arrive in the city later in the day to pay for expensive metered car parking.
23.36. The Waitakere Pacific Board is wholly independent of Waitakere City Council, and it values this independence. It believes that if it were established, for example, as a standing committee of Waitakere City Council, this would potentially result in undue council control. It values the ability to criticise the council publicly and vociferously should it consider this necessary (for example, if it believes it has not been consulted with adequately in relation to a particular issue). It also values being able to lobby council and other groups freely. In one instance, the board strongly supported the Waitakere Ranges Bill, and lobbied Members of Parliament accordingly. In addition, the community’s perception of the board as an independent body can sometimes assist in building up trust among its community.
23.37. Although it sits outside Waitakere City Council, and is independent from it, the Waitakere Pacific Board has a close working relationship with the council. Waitakere City Council employs a Pacific Strategy Advisor who attends the board’s monthly meetings and is a key point of contact between the board and the council.
23.38. The relationship between the Waitakere Pacific Board and Waitakere City Council has also been formalised through, variously, a memorandum of understanding, a community partnership agreement, and a service and funding agreement. The Waitakere Pacific Board has also entered into a tripartite relationship with Waitakere City Council and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs.
23.39. The Commission observes that there seems to be a genuine sense of partnership and mutual goodwill underpinning these arrangements. The Commission has described these models in some detail because they are useful examples of successful community engagement. They are also adaptable to other significant groups in the community such as the elderly.
23.40. While the Commission considers it essential that councils consider and address the needs of our diverse communities, it does not recommend the establishment of specific, safeguarded seats for certain groups (other than Māori) on either the Auckland Council or at the local level.
23.41. There are a number of factors that weigh against the provision of specific representation.
23.42. In some cases, specific representation may be seen as unnecessary and/or patronising. For example, the Commission was told by certain Pacific leaders that they believe increased Pacific representation and participation via “ordinary” electoral processes is just a matter of time as the confidence and presence of Pacific communities increases, and that this is beginning to happen already. Certainly, there are success stories, such as the Samoan leader who was until recently the Deputy Mayor of Manukau City. The Commission was told (and agrees) that those communities would be assisted by “citizen education” and support programmes covering matters such as how to vote, how to stand for council, and advice for candidates as to how to maximise their chance of getting elected.24 In Chapter 16, “Local Councils”, the Commission recommends that the role of local councillors should involve fewer hours, which will make it more compatible with employment or caregiving responsibilities. It anticipates that this should also encourage a broader cross-section of society to stand as candidates.
23.43. From a practical point of view, the Commission notes that deciding who should represent certain communities, and how those people should be elected, would be fraught with difficulty. If representatives from, say, Pacific communities, were to be elected to serve as councillors, this would involve difficult issues such as who would be eligible to stand as representatives, and who would be eligible to vote for them. Presumably, a separate voting roll would need to be established. Alternatively, an appointment process would raise its own difficulties, such as identifying who should be responsible for making the appointment and ensuring that the representatives were accountable to their communities, particularly as Auckland’s Pacific population comprises many different cultures.
23.44. A further reason weighing against the establishment of specific, safeguarded seats is the difficulty of making distinctions between the various interest groups who claim that they should have particular representation on Auckland’s councils. The Commission received submissions advocating for special rights and/or representation not just for Pacific peoples and other ethnic groups, but also other sectors of society, such as the elderly, the young, the unemployed, and even for food-producing farmers.
23.45. Chapter 10 , “Culture, Recreation, and Diversity” of this report discusses the “open cities” vision and the importance of attracting and valuing diversity. An important part of this is encouraging input into local governance from various diverse communities.
23.46. The Commission notes that a number of Auckland councils have opted to establish or work with advisory groups representing Pacific and other ethnic minority interests. The Commission considers it sensible to replicate these current arrangements at the regional level of the Auckland Council. This will help to ensure that the voices of those communities are heard at a strategic, regional level of decision making.
23.47. It recommends, therefore, the establishment of two advisory panels to the Auckland Council representing, respectively
23.48. It may become necessary for additional advisory panels to be established as society’s needs change over time. For example, Auckland’s population is ageing steadily, and it is possible that at some stage an advisory panel representing the interests of older people will be required.
Along with the rest of New Zealand, Auckland faces a future in which ageing will slow labour force growth, reshape residential preferences, and change the demand on public services.25
23.49. It is anticipated that these advisory panels will provide information and advice to the Auckland Council concerning the rights and interests of their communities, and will act as champions for those rights and interests.
23.50. Whether or not these panels should sit inside or outside the Auckland Council structures, and how their membership should be determined, are matters for the relevant communities themselves to decide. The Auckland Council should carry out further consultation in relation to these issues as part of the establishment process for the two advisory panels.
23.51. The Establishment Board will need to make provision in the organisational design and budget of the Auckland Council for the establishment by the Auckland Council of these two advisory panels.
23.52. As noted in Chapter 9, “Promoting Social Well-Being”, the Commission recommends the establishment of a new body, the Social Issues Board, which has the power to make decisions on the social well-being strategy for the region; to identify critical areas of need; and to decide on redistribution of resources. Its members will include the Mayor of Auckland Council, and the chairs of the Auckland Council committees. It will also include representatives from central government and in particular the chief executives of the major social agencies, such as Health, Education, Social Development, Justice, Police, and Housing New Zealand.
23.53. It is expected that the Social Issues Board will form a close working relationship with the advisory panels recommended in this chapter.
23.54. The Commission does not consider it appropriate to recommend whether or not there should be any formal structures, such as advisory panels or committees, at the local level.
23.55. The composition of the Auckland region is not homogeneous. For example, North Shore City is home to a large Korean community; the central city houses large numbers of Chinese students; Mt Albert and Mt Roskill areas have strong Indian communities; and parts of Manukau City are home to various Pacific communities.
23.56. In each area, the local representatives themselves, in consultation with their communities, should apply their local knowledge and expertise to determine the best way of engaging with ethnic and other groups.
23.57. Different methods of engagement are likely to be appropriate in different places. These may include formal structures, such as advisory panels, but not necessarily. Other options include meeting regularly with community leaders; holding small focus groups; holding public meetings; asking local schools, church groups, or other organisations for input and suggestions; or a combination of all of these.
23.58. The Commission appreciates that many territorial authorities have put considerable effort into engaging with various groups within their communities, and have achieved considerable success. It is important that none of this hard-won expertise and goodwill is lost. It is anticipated that where formal structures such as advisory boards and committees are proving to be effective, they will continue where applicable.
23.59. Local councils must also continue to be vigilant, however, to ensure that their engagement with community groups is both genuine and effective. Simply establishing advisory panels is not, in itself, sufficient engagement. Such structures can be a useful procedural mechanism, but are no replacement for a deeper, ongoing dialogue.
23.60. In many ways, therefore, it is the attitude of the local council – and how it perceives its role – that will determine the success or failure of its engagement with communities, not the formal structures that are in place. The Commission expects that the refocusing of local councils on community engagement will lead to deeper and more effective partnerships with various community groups.
23.61. One of the strengths of smaller “communities within communities” such as ethnic and other groups is that they are often closely knit and enjoy strong community leadership.
23.62. An important role for local councils is to liaise with, and listen to, those existing community leaders. As we have said in previous chapters, making communities work effectively is not the exclusive preserve of local government. We need to think about how to support and draw on the leadership that already exists within communities. The Commission expects that local councillors will talk regularly with community leaders, and will take opportunities to recognise their work.
23.63. Local councillors should also take active steps to develop and foster the development of community leaders.
23.64. Internationally, there are many examples of community leadership development programmes designed to bring together leaders and potential leaders from different sectors to engage in shared learning and idea exchange.26
23.65. At a less formal level, this development can take place in a number of ways, from steps as simple as providing places for community groups to meet; ensuring that local government officials and managers implement an “open-door” policy; and assisting community leaders to take on elected or other types of leadership roles should they wish.
23A Local councils should
23B The Auckland Council should appoint
1 Manākitanga – a sacred obligation to care for all people within your rohe (area), including taura here (Māori with ancestral ties outside the area) and non-Māori.
2 Kaitiakitanga – guardianship, the responsibilities passed down from the ancestors for tangata whenua (people of the land) to take care of the places, natural resources, mauri (life force), and other taonga in their rohe (area).
3 Rowe, Elizabeth, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, pp. 131–189 (p. 172) (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
4 Ibid., p. 175.
5 Councillors Commission, Representing the Future, Communities and Local Government, London, December 2007, p. 15 (available at www.communities.gov.uk, accessed February 2009).
6 All of the statistics in this paragraph are from voluntary surveys of elected members conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs, and therefore are subject to a margin of error.
7 After the 2007 elections, 88% of community board members identified as European, 4% as Pacific, 5% as Māori, and 3% as Asian. Data are based on voluntary surveys of elected members conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs, and therefore subject to a margin of error.
8 The data are based on voluntary surveys of elected members conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs, and therefore are subject to a margin of error.
9 Auckland council members were, however, slightly younger than the national average. Nationally, 66% of members were aged over 55 after the 2007 elections.
10 Human Rights Commission, “A Snapshot of New Zealand’s Diversity” (available at www.hrc.co.nz, accessed February 2009).
11 Shi, Yanjie, “Description and analysis of the overall profiles of elected members following the 1998, 2001 and 2004 local government elections”, Local Government New Zealand Working Paper, September 2005 (available at www.lgnz.co.nz, accessed February 2009). These data are based on surveys conducted by Local Government New Zealand, which had a participant return rate ranging from 79% to 86.7%.
12 Ibid.
13 Councillors Commission, Representing the Future.
14 Ibid., p. 79.
15 Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009, pp. 275–277.
16 Rowe, “The Role of Local Government in Achieving Social Well-Being for the Auckland Region”, in Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 176.
17 Ibid., p. 176.
18 Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, p. 275.
19 Local Government Act 2002, section 14(1)(h).
20 2006 Census data.
21 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from the Pacific Island Advisory Committee (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
22 Ibid.
23 See www.waitakere.govt.nz/ourpar/pacificisland.asp, accessed February 2009.
24 By way of example, in 2007 the United Kingdom city of Leicester turned around its problems of too few candidates coming forward to stand as councillors by running an education campaign. The council put posters across the city. Articles appeared in the local press. Voluntary and community groups were emailed, open evenings were held, and an informative website answered questions. The Mayor also hosted events. The campaigners stressed that no formal qualifications were required to become a councillor, and that life experience is one of the best things that candidates could bring to the role. As a result of the campaign 15 new candidates came forward, seven of whom were elected to serve as councillors (see www.leicester.gov.uk, “Councillors”).
25 McDermott, Philip, “Auckland’s Population”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, p. 55.
26 For example, the UK-based organisation Common Purpose, which has over 150 staff across the United Kingdom and runs a large number of leadership programmes, from programmes for teenagers to advanced programmes for experienced leaders.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |