Questioning Wayne Brown’s case for unelected votes

In brief

• Wayne Brown fairly challenges the government’s changed position on Houkura, whose committee voting rights face removal.

• But he fails to explain why appointed members need votes, rather than an advisory role, or how voters hold them accountable.

• The comparison to list MPs or appointed British royalty do not hold up. 

Answer the objection

Wayne Brown has a fair complaint about the government’s handling of Houkura, Auckland’s Independent Māori Statutory Board. He says removing its voting rights was supposedly “off the radar”. 

The government’s June announcement expressly exempted statutory appointments; its September announcement specifically included Houkura, the board’s current name.

He is also right that appointed bodies such as NZTA exercise public power. But defending this board’s voting rights requires an explanation of how those exercising that power should be held accountable.

Instead, Brown attacks its critics’ motives, warning of a “pool of anti-Māori votes to be chased”. That does not answer people who support Māori participation, and elected representation but oppose this appointment mechanism. Their objection cannot simply be dismissed as hostility to Māori.

The government says the board would retain its advisory role. Brown therefore needs to answer what would fail without voting rights, and why would that justify giving unelected representatives votes? In our view, his column never supplies a convincing answer.

The list MP comparison collapses

List MPs are elected, but Brown says they are “solely there because their party put them there”, dismissing them as “voter rejects”.

Parties select their lists and voters determine how many candidates enter Parliament through the party vote. Party bosses cannot simply award themselves seats. 

Losing an electorate contest does not cancel the separate mandate provided by the party vote. That is how MMP works. 

Calling list MPs unelected is like declaring that a list MP is considerably less worthy. Yes, a candidate could fail in an electorate and still enter via the list but they could also choose to only run via the list. The rules are laid out in advance and the candidates and parties choose their strategy under those rules. 

Whose mandate?

He asks voters to trust a selection process he cannot adequately explain. Board members emerge from “apparently a highly contested selection process” following “rules not immediately understood by the rest of us”.

But competition for an appointment does not establish democratic accountability. A fiercely contested job interview is still a job interview. Houkura explains that a mana whenua selection body chooses nine members. That establishes a representative structure, but it is not an election by Auckland’s general electorate.

“Māori choose their leaders by a different process,” Brown writes. Māori communities can have legitimate ways of choosing their representatives. That does not, by itself, settle what powers those unelected representatives should exercise over everyone else. 

Choosing leaders within a community and giving representatives authority over wider public decisions are separate questions. A selection process can be legitimate for the first purpose without automatically justifying the second. 

His comparison with choosing the Māori Queen misses that disputed step by treating the legitimacy of choosing a community’s leaders as if it settles the question of their authority over everyone else. 

It is the same as pointing to the British monarchy to justify unelected representation. The monarchy has authority in name only and gives effect to decisions made by democratically accountable politicians. But Houkura members participate directly in making committee decisions. His description of the King as someone who “leads our government” is not a fair comparison. 

Being useful is not a mandate

Brown says board members “seem more middle of the road and sensible than some of my councillors” and credits their committee input with “saving the council time and money”.

Take every compliment as true. Perhaps those qualities speak to Houkura’s usefulness. But they do not answer legitimate questions about accountability. And, as complimentary as Brown is of the board’s contributions, constitutional arrangements have to work when its members are people Brown dislikes, too.

Brown correctly notes that board members do not vote at the governing body that sets rates and adopts the annual plan. Their voting rights sit on council committees instead. Accept his point about rates. That limits their power, but it does not make their other votes inconsequential. Houkura lists participation on committees covering transport, planning, budget and performance. What powers do those committees exercise?

Receive our free newsletter here