Auckland Council's Māori seats consultation dissected
After Stuff published an article earlier this week, I thought a deeper dive in the statistics around Auckland Council's consultation was in order.
Auckland Council’s governing body failed us earlier this year when, instead of choosing to simply sign off on Māori seats in alignment with the previous governing bodies, it sent the idea to public consultation.
In 2017, the then-Phil Goff-led governing body agreed 2-1 to approve a dedicated Māori seat but only if the government changed the legislation that guides how Auckland Council operates. Basically, no one around the governing body table was willing to move aside for the creation of a seat for Māori.
The current governing body, and more specifically the right-leaning councillors rolled back that agreement in principle earlier this year and what we saw last month is what former Mayor Goff said in 2017 a referendum would deliver - a decision that was “divisive and unlikely to approve the seat”.
Consultation on Māori seats was always going to be problematic because, by and large, we are historically ignorant and illiterate as a society. This includes how we as a society understand Te Tiriti.
Added to this ignorance and illiteracy are some bad-faith actors who intentionally stir up the predominantly older Pākehā, with things like co-governance being akin to theft by Māori. These bad-faith actors include Hobson’s Pledge and Julian Batchelor. Unfortunately, their ideas and tactics have made their way into politics with at least two of the parties about to form our next government actively pushing fear as a way of trying to derail a process that is all about honouring Te Tiriti.
But enough of the context. Whether we like it or not, we have a consultation.
So what does a deep dive into that consultation show us?
We got a glimpse into the consultation with Todd Niall’s piece in Stuff earlier this week, but I think there is more that the statistics can tell us.
First up, a comparison of views across all 21 of Auckland Council’s local board areas with both the median income and Pākehā population proportions included.*
Breaking this information down, you get the following statistics for the anti-Māori seats views:
Likewise, you get the following statistics for the pro-Māori seats views:
Finally, how do things look when proportions of Pākehā and Māori in the populations are taken into account?
These statistics and figures look good but how to read these tables and figures?
Well here are my seven key take-homes from these statistics:
Local board areas with high proportions of Pākehā were against the introduction of Māori seats (see Figure 4). Rodney, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays and Ōrākei have four of the five highest proportions of Pākehā across the mainland part of the Auckland region. These 4 local boards had some of the highest “no” submissions in the consultation.
Local board areas with low proportions of Māori were equally against the introduction of Māori seats (see Figure 4). Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays, Ōrākei and Devonport-Takapuna all have low Māori numbers and equally had high levels of “no” submissions.
Two of the local board areas are included in both statistics - Hibiscus and Bays and Ōrākei.
Local board areas with high median incomes were equally against the introduction of Māori seats (see Figure 1). While Ōrākei, Devonport-Takapuna, Upper Harbour and Howick are in the top 5 of Auckland’s wealthiest areas, they are almost equally the most anti-Māori seats areas in the region. The only place that slightly bucks that trend is Albert-Eden in that despite being the second wealthiest area inTāmaki Makaurau, has more than double the Māori seats supporters proportionally than the other wealthiest (however, it does rank 5th in the number of “no” submissions during the consultation).
The six local board areas with the biggest number of anti-Māori seats views - 3,960 (Ōrākei, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Rodney, Albert-Eden and Franklin) had more anti-Māori seats views than the remaining 15 local board areas - 3,357.
These same six local board areas saw 4,986 submissions in total compared to 5,250 for the remaining 15 local board areas. That means that views heard during the consultation were disproportionately from just six local board areas that account for only 620,000 Aucklanders, or 37% of the population (this year being a non-census year, the population is an estimate but very conservative estimates have it at 1,648,500).
The four local board areas most in favour of Māori seats (percentage-wise - see Figure 3) are the ones with the lowest median income on the mainland part of the region. Those local boards were Ōtāra-Papatoetoe (84% in favour and 19th in median income - $17,000 lower than the median income across the whole region); Māngere-Ōtāhuh (72% in favour, 18th in median income); Manurewa (58% & 16th); and the Whau (53% & 17th). Interestingly, Ōtāra-Papatoetoe has almost equal proportions of Pākehā and Māori in the population.
Three of those LB areas in favour of Māori seats are in South Auckland (Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Manurewa) and have the highest proportions of Māori and also the lowest proportions of Pākehā on the mainland part of the region.
What does this mean?
The biggest thing that I take away from this all is that the fear stirred by lies and misinformation from the bad-faith actors has fed into already held views.
It highlights the real importance of education in Tāmaki Makaurau around what Te Tiriti actually means, what has happened in our nation’s history, how that impacts us today and why adhering to Te Tiriti is not some form of take-over or theft by Māori.
It also highlights that as a nation we are not ready for a conversation on what the principles of Te Tiriti are because most of us have no idea.
As a nation, we have a lot of work to do.
Every action towards honouring Te Tiriti to date has been hard-fought for and instead of getting easier, it feels like it is getting more challenging.
But it can be done and must be done. For the sake of our children, our grandchildren and the future of our beautiful nation, we must keep striving to honour Te Tiriti and elevate Māori to the position that was promised to them in that sacred covenant signed in 1840 - that status of equal partners.
Māori seats in Tāmaki Makaurau will come.
We just have a bit more work to do to ensure more Aucklanders understand that their introduction is a win-win for us as a region, as Aotearoa’s biggest city and for us as a nation.