By Debbie Bidlake, Senior Policy Advisor
How important are rural wards and how hard should we fight to retain them? With an increasingly urban population (about 87% of us live in towns and cities), a swathe of lifestyle properties straddling both rural and urban worlds, and the introduction of Māori wards, there’s no easy answer.
New Zealand has 11 regional councils, 67 territorial authorities and six unitary authorities (both district and regional combined). In addition, there are 21 local boards (all in Auckland) and 110 community boards. Yes, you read that right, 110!
Community boards are often held to be an effective alternative to rural representation on council. However, they are mostly advocacy bodies, unless a council has seen fit to delegate decision-making power, which they generally do not. Southland and Christchurch get the gong for the most community boards, with 8 and 6 respectively.
Local authorities are required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 to review representation arrangements at least once every six years. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that local government structures are providing “fair and effective” representation for individuals and communities. Council decisions can be appealed to the Local Government Commission, and many are. So far this year, the Commission has made determinations on 31 representation reviews.
Separate processes, prior to a representation review, must be followed if a local authority wants to change its electoral system, i.e., first-past-the-post or single transferable vote, or to establish Māori wards or constituencies. These matters cannot be appealed to the Commission.
What is fair and effective representation?
Effective representation is not defined in the Local Electoral Act 2001, but according to the Local Government Commission, it includes: an appropriate number of councillors and appropriate election basis (at large, wards, or a mix of both). Regional Councils can have between 6 and 14 councillors, and district councils can have between 6 – 30 councillors. There is no one size fits all, but there is a trend toward smaller councils in many districts, possibly to avoid perceptions of “over-governance” (i.e., too many cooks in the kitchen, using too many ingredients).
Fairness is safeguarded by “the +/- 10%” rule in s 19(V)(1) of the Local Electoral Act, where the population of each ward, divided by the councillors in that ward, must be no more than 10% greater or smaller than the population of the district, divided by the total number of councillors. Basically, the rule is designed to ensure that people have roughly equally weighted votes.
Councils can make exceptions to the +/- 10% rule, including where non-compliance is required to provide effective representation of “communities of interest” or isolated communities. Many small rural communities have a dedicated rural councillor because of this.
What is a rural community of interest?
The Local Electoral Act 2001 does not define what a community of interest is. The term is somewhat clarified in Local Government Commission guidelines as being made up of inter-related perceptual (sense of identity and belonging), functional (infrastructure, services), and political dimensions.
In other words, the rural sense of identity could be defined by common geographic features (i.e., proximity to the sea, rivers, mountains, and plains), climate, land use (e.g., viticulture, horticulture, sheep and beef farming, forestry), occupation (physical, hazardous, outdoors, animals, crops), access and shared history.
Rural people have common functional and occupational challenges: isolation, poor connectivity (broadband, emergency services, mental health services etc), poor roads. Small rural towns often provide the essentials rural people need e.g., schools, community halls, groceries, fuel, medical centres, dentist, volunteer fire brigade etc.
From a representation perspective, these differences are vulnerabilities, which make access to local councillors, fully cognisant of the realities of farming and rural issues essential. However, some places are now so interconnected that there are fewer differences between urban and rural communities. The Wairarapa is a useful example; the proliferation of lifestyle blocks, viticulture, tourism and near proximity to towns and cities has meant rural interests are better served by being able to vote for councillors in a single at large general ward.
Federated Farmers’ views on representation arrangements are determined locally by our 24 provinces. In recent years, many provinces have supported the establishment of Māori wards providing it doesn’t decrease representation for rural communities. This year, 35 councils will have Māori wards or constituencies in local government elections. The number of Māori ward councillors a district has is based on the proportion of the population that is registered on the Māori Electoral roll compared to General Roll.
Councils around the country adopt a range of representation models, many of which result in different numbers of votes for people, depending on the ward they live in and/or which electoral roll they are enrolled on. The rationale being that people still have an equal opportunity to cast their vote in an election, even if other people have an opportunity to cast a different number of votes.
Gisborne
In 2021, Gisborne voted to establish Māori wards. This triggered a representation review to reconstitute the Council. The initial proposal was to remove the four rural wards, and instead have a Māori ward with five councillors, and a general ward with eight councillors, both elected at large. There was no appetite to increase the number of councillors (13 plus the mayor).
Federated Farmers mobilised an impressive number of submissions in support of retaining two rural councillors and we were successful. However, the decision was appealed to the Local Government Commission. Surprisingly, many of the objections were from iwi groups that felt rural wards disenfranchised rural Māori on the general roll i.e., they could only vote for two rural councillors, rather than eight in a general ward, and they would struggle to secure representation in a two-member rural ward.
The Electoral Commission overturned the Council’s decision. In a strangely reasoned determination, the Commission acknowledged that there are definite rural communities of interest in Gisborne warranting dedicated representation. But it felt that removing rural wards entirely would be fairer and more effective for rural representation than retaining two rural wards. This makes little sense to Feds. The deciding factor appears to have been the change from a FPT to STV electoral system, the latter works better in at large systems where there are more candidates. And so, Gisborne ventures into new territory.
Rotorua
Rotorua has not had rural representation for many years. This year Rotorua voted to introduce Māori wards. Feds and the Rural Community Board teamed up and urged the Council to also establish a rural ward. With almost 30% of the district in the Māori electoral roll, it made sense for council to comprise three Māori ward councillors, one rural and six general ward councillors. The Council refused to establish a rural ward, believing that a board could fairly and effectively represent rural Rotorua. Feds appealed the decision to the Local Government Commission.
The Commission determined that there was a community of interest and there should be a rural ward. Separate to this process, Rotorua District Council via Tamati Coffey, tabled a bill in Parliament opposing the Commission’s decision and the rural ward.
Feds spoke about our concerns at Select Committee. Although it passed its First Reading with Government support, the bill was stood down at the Select Committee stage after thousands of submissions were made against the Bill and on the basis that it did not satisfy the Bill of Rights test.
The way forward
What can we conclude from these two examples? There is no one size fits all model for fair and effective rural representation. So many factors go into determining whether there is a rural community of interest (geography, population, economy, sense of identity etc). Stratford for example, has a simple yet effective model with a rural and urban ward based on a 60/40 population split. Matamata-Piako has three rural communities of interest, which all identify strongly with their nearest small town, being Matamata, Te Aroha and Morrinsville.
Federated Farmers beieves identifying communities of interest should be within the skillset of councils, but in many cases, Feds is having to rely on the Local Government Commission to make the right call. The introduction of Māori wards is complicating matters because of Local Electoral Act restrictions.
Our learnings from Gisborne, is that the introduction of Māori wards may require Feds to advocate for a larger council (e.g., more councillors) to retain rural representation. And, even if we agree with a council’s final proposal, we need to appeal it to the Local Electoral Commission to keep a seat at the table.
Rural representation in nation’s Council chambers in crisis
By Debbie Bidlake, Senior Policy Advisor
How important are rural wards and how hard should we fight to retain them? With an increasingly urban population (about 87% of us live in towns and cities), a swathe of lifestyle properties straddling both rural and urban worlds, and the introduction of Māori wards, there’s no easy answer.
New Zealand has 11 regional councils, 67 territorial authorities and six unitary authorities (both district and regional combined). In addition, there are 21 local boards (all in Auckland) and 110 community boards. Yes, you read that right, 110!
Community boards are often held to be an effective alternative to rural representation on council. However, they are mostly advocacy bodies, unless a council has seen fit to delegate decision-making power, which they generally do not. Southland and Christchurch get the gong for the most community boards, with 8 and 6 respectively.
Local authorities are required by the Local Electoral Act 2001 to review representation arrangements at least once every six years. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that local government structures are providing “fair and effective” representation for individuals and communities. Council decisions can be appealed to the Local Government Commission, and many are. So far this year, the Commission has made determinations on 31 representation reviews.
Separate processes, prior to a representation review, must be followed if a local authority wants to change its electoral system, i.e., first-past-the-post or single transferable vote, or to establish Māori wards or constituencies. These matters cannot be appealed to the Commission.
What is fair and effective representation?
Effective representation is not defined in the Local Electoral Act 2001, but according to the Local Government Commission, it includes: an appropriate number of councillors and appropriate election basis (at large, wards, or a mix of both). Regional Councils can have between 6 and 14 councillors, and district councils can have between 6 – 30 councillors. There is no one size fits all, but there is a trend toward smaller councils in many districts, possibly to avoid perceptions of “over-governance” (i.e., too many cooks in the kitchen, using too many ingredients).
Fairness is safeguarded by “the +/- 10%” rule in s 19(V)(1) of the Local Electoral Act, where the population of each ward, divided by the councillors in that ward, must be no more than 10% greater or smaller than the population of the district, divided by the total number of councillors. Basically, the rule is designed to ensure that people have roughly equally weighted votes.
Councils can make exceptions to the +/- 10% rule, including where non-compliance is required to provide effective representation of “communities of interest” or isolated communities. Many small rural communities have a dedicated rural councillor because of this.
What is a rural community of interest?
The Local Electoral Act 2001 does not define what a community of interest is. The term is somewhat clarified in Local Government Commission guidelines as being made up of inter-related perceptual (sense of identity and belonging), functional (infrastructure, services), and political dimensions.
In other words, the rural sense of identity could be defined by common geographic features (i.e., proximity to the sea, rivers, mountains, and plains), climate, land use (e.g., viticulture, horticulture, sheep and beef farming, forestry), occupation (physical, hazardous, outdoors, animals, crops), access and shared history.
Rural people have common functional and occupational challenges: isolation, poor connectivity (broadband, emergency services, mental health services etc), poor roads. Small rural towns often provide the essentials rural people need e.g., schools, community halls, groceries, fuel, medical centres, dentist, volunteer fire brigade etc.
From a representation perspective, these differences are vulnerabilities, which make access to local councillors, fully cognisant of the realities of farming and rural issues essential. However, some places are now so interconnected that there are fewer differences between urban and rural communities. The Wairarapa is a useful example; the proliferation of lifestyle blocks, viticulture, tourism and near proximity to towns and cities has meant rural interests are better served by being able to vote for councillors in a single at large general ward.
Federated Farmers’ views on representation arrangements are determined locally by our 24 provinces. In recent years, many provinces have supported the establishment of Māori wards providing it doesn’t decrease representation for rural communities. This year, 35 councils will have Māori wards or constituencies in local government elections. The number of Māori ward councillors a district has is based on the proportion of the population that is registered on the Māori Electoral roll compared to General Roll.
Councils around the country adopt a range of representation models, many of which result in different numbers of votes for people, depending on the ward they live in and/or which electoral roll they are enrolled on. The rationale being that people still have an equal opportunity to cast their vote in an election, even if other people have an opportunity to cast a different number of votes.
Gisborne
In 2021, Gisborne voted to establish Māori wards. This triggered a representation review to reconstitute the Council. The initial proposal was to remove the four rural wards, and instead have a Māori ward with five councillors, and a general ward with eight councillors, both elected at large. There was no appetite to increase the number of councillors (13 plus the mayor).
Federated Farmers mobilised an impressive number of submissions in support of retaining two rural councillors and we were successful. However, the decision was appealed to the Local Government Commission. Surprisingly, many of the objections were from iwi groups that felt rural wards disenfranchised rural Māori on the general roll i.e., they could only vote for two rural councillors, rather than eight in a general ward, and they would struggle to secure representation in a two-member rural ward.
The Electoral Commission overturned the Council’s decision. In a strangely reasoned determination, the Commission acknowledged that there are definite rural communities of interest in Gisborne warranting dedicated representation. But it felt that removing rural wards entirely would be fairer and more effective for rural representation than retaining two rural wards. This makes little sense to Feds. The deciding factor appears to have been the change from a FPT to STV electoral system, the latter works better in at large systems where there are more candidates. And so, Gisborne ventures into new territory.
Rotorua
Rotorua has not had rural representation for many years. This year Rotorua voted to introduce Māori wards. Feds and the Rural Community Board teamed up and urged the Council to also establish a rural ward. With almost 30% of the district in the Māori electoral roll, it made sense for council to comprise three Māori ward councillors, one rural and six general ward councillors. The Council refused to establish a rural ward, believing that a board could fairly and effectively represent rural Rotorua. Feds appealed the decision to the Local Government Commission.
The Commission determined that there was a community of interest and there should be a rural ward. Separate to this process, Rotorua District Council via Tamati Coffey, tabled a bill in Parliament opposing the Commission’s decision and the rural ward.
Feds spoke about our concerns at Select Committee. Although it passed its First Reading with Government support, the bill was stood down at the Select Committee stage after thousands of submissions were made against the Bill and on the basis that it did not satisfy the Bill of Rights test.
The way forward
What can we conclude from these two examples? There is no one size fits all model for fair and effective rural representation. So many factors go into determining whether there is a rural community of interest (geography, population, economy, sense of identity etc). Stratford for example, has a simple yet effective model with a rural and urban ward based on a 60/40 population split. Matamata-Piako has three rural communities of interest, which all identify strongly with their nearest small town, being Matamata, Te Aroha and Morrinsville.
Federated Farmers beieves identifying communities of interest should be within the skillset of councils, but in many cases, Feds is having to rely on the Local Government Commission to make the right call. The introduction of Māori wards is complicating matters because of Local Electoral Act restrictions.
Our learnings from Gisborne, is that the introduction of Māori wards may require Feds to advocate for a larger council (e.g., more councillors) to retain rural representation. And, even if we agree with a council’s final proposal, we need to appeal it to the Local Electoral Commission to keep a seat at the table.