Governing Body

28 August 2014
2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and
Review of Representation Arrangements
File No.: CP2014/18538 E
C l )

-
Purpose
1. To advise the Governing Body of the opportunity to change the electoral system for the 2016
elections, establish Maori wards and to undertake a representation review.
Executive summary
2. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for the opportunity to review the electoral system, the
establishment of Maori wards and a review of representation.
3. Each of these reviews has specific timeframes and processes. The Governing Body should
be aware of the implications of initiating reviews on these matters.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
i) agree that the status quo prevail for the electoral system, electoral wards and
representation.
Comments
Background
4. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the opportunity for local authorities to consider:
changing the electoral system (for example from FPP to STV)
establishing Maori wards
reviewing representation arrangements.
5. That Act sets out deadline dates in relation to each of these, if they are to take effect at the
next elections. A summary of these dates is:
12 September 2014 for a resolution to change the electoral system
23 November 2014 for a resolution to establish Maori wards
31 August 2015 for a resolution making the council's initial proposal on representation
arrangements.
Electoral system
6. Under the First Past the Post system (FPP) a candidate can be successful at election by
winning more votes compared to other candidates.
7. Under the Single Transferable Voting (STV) system, a voter casts a single vote but ranks his
or her preferences. First preferences are used to establish whether any candidates are
elected by reaching the required quota of votes. If not, the system provides a method for
transferring second preferences and other preferences until all vacancies are filled.
2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 17
Governing Body
28 August 2014
An argument in favour of STV is that it is a fairer system, in that if a voter's first preference
would otherwise be wasted, the voter's second and other preferences can be recognised.
An argument against STV is that it is more complex than FPP and more difficult for voters to
understand - with a possibility of more "informal" votes (votes not properly entered so not
counted). Some councils which moved to STV have moved back to FPP, on the basis that it
is easier to understand for voters and that STV did not affect the outcome. There is some
evidence that informal votes are due to mixed electoral systems on the one voting paper,
rather than STV per se, and that when all issues on a voting paper are decided through STV
there are fewer informal votes.
9. The legislation setting up the Auckland Council prescribed FPP for the 2010 and 2013
elections: When the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee reported the Local
Government (Auckland Council) Bill it said:
'The majority of us are of the view that the disadvantages of STV, particularly its
perceived complexity (and therefore its propensity to discourage voting), outweigh the
disadvantages of FPP for the 2010 elections. "
10. The J ustice and Electoral Select Committee has recently published its inquiry into the 2013
local government elections. It notes the mix of FPP and STV as follows:
"Local authorities can choose between the first past the post (FPP) voting system or
STV. In 2013, 90per cent of local authorities used FPP in their own elections.
Therefore, voting in most local elections involved acombination of FPP and STV. We
understand that generally the STV councils have ahigher turnout, but the incidence of
invalid voting is usually far higher in District Health Board elections, because people
tick their preferred candidates rather than ranking them.
8.
In 2008, the Local Government Commission conducted apost-election survey of
voters; 52 per cent of the respondents said that having two systems was confusing,
while 46 per cent said it was not. A large majority of respondents (82 per cent) said
they would prefer asingle system."
11. The committee did not make a specific recommendation.
12. A further aspect of STV is that, on election day, the result is delayed, due to the need to
have all votes in prior to transferring preferences.
13. The guidelines issued by the Local Government Commission state:
'The Commission notes, for example, the argument that to gain the full benefits of
proportional representation under STV, multi-member wards or constituencies of at
least three members, but preferably five to seven members, are required. Clearly this
should be considered by alocal authority using STV when undertaking its
representation review. "
14. Governing Body member wards are either one member or two member wards, and therefore
STV would not likely have a significant impact.
15. Local boards are multi-member bodies and local board members were invited to a briefing
on these issues. There was not a strong desire expressed for change.
16. Whether or not the council resolves to change the electoral system, it must give public notice
of the right of electors to demand a poll.
2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 18
Governing Body
28 August 2014
Maori wards
17. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a Governing Body E
comprising of the mayor and 23 councillors, two of whom would be elected at large from the c u
Maori electoral role and one of whom would be appointed by Mana Whenua. :::
18. However, Parliament legislated for a Governing Body comprising of the mayor and 20
councillors with no Maori seats and the creation of an Independent Maori Statutory Board
(IMSB).
19. Nevertheless, the general provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 with respect to
Maorl wards still apply to Auckland Council. Thus, as the legislation stands, the IMSB would
continue to exist if Maori wards were established.
20. The legislation provides for councils to establish Maort wards by passing a resolution by
23 November 2014. This is discretionary, council is not required to take any action
21. On the basis of statistics supplied by Statistics New Zealand, two members of Auckland
Council could be elected through Maori wards. The total number of Governing Body
members is set in legislation at 20 plus the mayor and so the number of general members
would be reduced to 18 if Maori wards are established. There could be two separate Maori
wards with one member elected in each, or there could be one Auckland-wide ward with two
members.
22. Should the Council resolve to introduce Maori wards then the timeframes are as follows.
8y23 A local authority MAY resolve to introduce Maori Section 19Z of LEA
November representation for the next triennial election.
2014 If a resolution is made after this date then it takes
effect at the subsequent triennial election.
It has effect for two triennial elections and continues
unless changed.
8y30 IF a resolution has been made by a local authority to Section 19ZA of LEA
November introduce Maon representation, a local authority
2014 MUST give public notice of the right of 5per cent of
the electors to demand a poll on Maori
representation.
By 28 IF a resolution has been made by a local authority to Section 19ZC of LEA
February introduce Maori representation, a certain period
2015 MUST be given following the public notice on Maori
representation allowing electors to gather sufficient
signatures to demand that a poll be held on Maori
representation for the next two triennial elections.
By28 A local authority MAY resolve to undertake a poll of Section 19ZD of LEA
February electors on a proposal that Maori representation be
2015 introduced for the next two triennial elections.
23. Through various engagement and consultation processes there has been a call for direct
Maori representation on the Governing Body and greater involvement by Maori in council
decision making processes.
2016 Local Government Elections -Review of Electoral Systemand Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 19
Governing Body
28 August 2014
24. This is reflected in the IMSB's schedule of issues of significance and Maori Plan:
"Meori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their ability to actively
and meaningfully contribute to the development of Auckland, in becoming the world's
most liveable city by acouncil that actively engages, consults and includes Maori in
decision making processes and future plans".
"Maori are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised as playing an important
role in the development of local communities by acouncil that recognises the role of
Maori in local board decision making".
25. In the IMSB's view the establishment of Maori wards are an important part of contributing to
these outcomes. The board is of the view that direct representation on the Governing Body
through Maori wards is distinct from the IMSB's role as an independent statutory authority.
From the board's perspective the two roles are not mutually exclusive.
26. The establishment of up to two Maori wards, would have the effect of triggering a
representation review. The transfer of Maori voters from the general roll to the Maori roll,
would impact on the remaining number of voters in each general ward in a manner that
would not be uniform. This would affect the plus or minus 10 per cent rule and mean the
redrawing of most, if not all, ward boundaries. The Governing Body ward boundaries would
then not be contiguous with local board boundaries unless they were to be reviewed as a
consequence.
27. The representation review provisions which apply to councils generally and to Auckland
Council's Governing Body with respect to ward boundary changes do not apply for local
board boundary changes. Proposed changes to local board boundaries must be dealt with
as a reorganisation proposal in the same manner as proposed boundary changes between
local authorities.
28. The following section of this report draws the conclusion that there are no compelling
reasons to undertake a representation review for the 2016 election, although one must be
undertaken for the 2019 election. However, the establishment of Maor! wards would result
in such a review being undertaken for 2016 and is therefore not recommended.
29. If the council were of a mind to consider the establishment of Maori wards in the future it
may well want to consider advocating changes to legislation as to the maximum number of
members, and the process for considering local board boundaries. Such a review could not
be completed within the timeframe required for the 2016 elections.
Review of representation arrangements
30. Each territorial and regional council must conduct a review of representation arrangements
at least once every six years. If the council decides to not conduct a review for the 2016
elections, it must conduct a review for the 2019 elections.
31. If the council decides to conduct a review, it must resolve its initial proposal by 31 August
2015. Investigations would need to commence this calendar year to meet that deadline.
32. The total number of members of the Governing Body is set by legislation. The review could
propose to amend the number, names and boundaries of wards; the number and names of
local board subdivisions and the number of local board members in each board. As stated
above the boundaries of local boards can only be changed through a reorganisation
process.
2016 Local Government Elections -Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 20
Governing Body
28 August 2014
33. The legislation requires effective representation of communities of interest and fair
representation (the people represented by each councillor should not deviate from the
average by more than 10 per cent). When the Local Government Commission set the
current boundaries it accepted some deviations over the 10 per cent threshold. The
commission was directed by legislation to create a single member ward for the former
Rodney district and a single member ward for what remained of the Franklin district after the
southern part of the district was transferred to Waikato District Council. On current statistics,
there would be an under-representation problem in the Waitemata ward. This is primarily
brought about by the number of residents now residing in apartments in the CBD and CBD
fringe. Attached is a table of changes based on information from the 2013 census.
34. Adjusting the boundary of the Albert-Eden-Roskill boundary to include some of the current
Waitemata ward could address this variance. Changing the boundaries of one ward can
have a flow-on effect into other wards.
The timeframes should the council choose to undertake a review this term are as follows.
By 31 August 2015 Representation Arrangements Review Section 19H of LEA
completed by local authority. Local
authority resolves its proposals.
By 8 September 2015 A local authority MUST give public notice of Section 19M of LEA
the resolution containing the representation
arrangements reviewproposals. One month
submission period.
By 8 October 2015 Close of submissions. Section 19M of LEA
By 19 November 2015 Submissions heard by local authority. Section 19N of LEA
By 19 November 2015 A local authority MUST give further public Section 19N of LEA
notice of its proposals. One month
appeals/objection period.
By 19 December 2015 Close of appeals/objections. Section 190 of LEA
By 15 January 2016 Forward all representation and boundary Section 19Q of LEA
reviewmaterial to LGC (if
appeals/objections received).
By 10 April 2016 Determination by LGC Section 19R of LEA
We are not aware of significant problems with the current arrangements and do not intend to
recommend a review for the 2016 elections.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
35. A workshop was held for local board members. Those attending did not express a desire for
change in relation to the electoral system. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has also
advised their preference for maintaining status quo (WTKl2014/11 0).
Maori impact statement
36. There has been no consultation with Maori specifically in relation to this report. However,
the matter has been raised through previous engagement processes and been the subject of
advocacy to the council by the IMSB (see paragraphs 23-25).
2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 21
Governing Body
28 August 2014
37. Maori wards are one mechanism for increasing Maori participation in council decision
making. However, there are a range of other mechanisms which are not reliant on a
representation review. These are the subject of advocacy through the IMSS's schedule of
significance and Maori Plan, and the council is actively striving to advance enhanced
involvement in decision making through a range of initiatives.
Implementation
38. If the Governing Body resolves to change from FPP to STY, the council's current provider of
election services will be able to make the appropriate Changes.
39. There would need to be an extensive awareness campaign to ensure all voters were aware
of the change.
40. The cost of a poll would be in the order of one million dollars.
Attachments
I
-NO-- --1 -1 T_itle 1pa
g
2
e
3
1
A Wards 2010 and 2013 . .
Signatories
Author Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services
Authorisers Grant Taylor - Governance Director
Stephen Town - Chief Executive
2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 22
Governing Body
28 August 2014
Wards in 2010 and after the 2013 census results.
%dttvl ation
from Gl IW.age
p6WOOl otl
pet,
tou ndl l ot
%d v 'Uonfr:om
a\/egge
population por
l ;:O!.l l l C l l (l ('
No. or
cwndtlol"1ll
PfII'wl u d 201 3
201 3
Ro d n e y 54,1 00 -24.B 54.B79 -22.5
Albany 137,800 2 -4.2 1 43,502 +1.4
<C
-
~
NortihShore 1 43.200 2 -0.5 1 37,961 -2.5
Q)
E
..c :
(J
Waitakere 1 58,700 2 +10.3 1 56,081 +10.3
ns
-
-
<C
Whau 76.400 1 +6.2 1 2,594 2B
Albert-Eden-Roskill 1 54,900 2 +7.7 1 47,633 +4.3
Wail.emata and Gulf 79.300 +10,2 86.41 5 +22.1
Orakes 81 ,1 00
+12.8 79.539 +12.4
Maungakiekie-
Tamaki
73,000 +1.5 70.002
,
2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 23
Governing Body
Auckland ~t1
28 August 2014 _9~~~::
C D
~
E
Q)
Howtck 1 28.1 00 2 -10.9 1 27.1 25 -10.2
~
Manukau 156,200 2 8 . 6 146,622 +3.6
Manurewa-Papakura 131.500 2 -8.6 1 27.878 -9.7
Fmnklin 64.200 1 -1 0.1 65,31 9 -7.7

Total 1 ,438,500 20 1 ,41 5,550

2016 Local Government Elections - Review of Electoral System and Review of Representation
Arrangements
Page 24