When New Zealand adopted a new electoral system for parliamentary elections in 1993, the country retained its tradition of separate districts for the descendants of New Zealand’s aboriginal Maori population. This unique electoral feature has guaranteed Maori representation in the New Zealand legislature for more than 125 years.
Electoral System
In 1993, New Zealand replaced its first-past-the-post (FFP) method of plurality voting in single-member districts with a German-style, mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system for elections to its single chamber legislature, the House of Representatives. As in other MMP systems, each voter cast two ballots: one for a representative elected by plurality from a single member electoral district and one for a national party list. Following the German compensatory principle, seats that parties win in districts will be subtracted from a party’s list allocations, so each party’s overall representation in Parliament will be proportional to the vote for its list.
The single-member districts consist of two types of constituencies – General and Maori. The dual-constituency feature can be visualized as a map with two overlays – one dividing New Zealand into numerous General electorates[2], the other apportioning the same territory into a smaller number of geographically larger Maori electorates. Members of Parliament (MPs) elected from both types of electorates serve in the chamber with equal rights and privileges.
Maori Representation
Maori representation was guaranteed though the establishment of separate Maori electorates as early as 1867. These electorates, separate and distinct from the General electoral districts, are drawn overlaying the General electoral districts. The three maps appended to the end of this case study, showing the 2002 electorates, illustrate this point: the first map shows the 46 General electoral districts covering the North Island; the second map shows the 16 General electoral districts covering the South Island; and the third map shows the seven Maori electoral districts covering both the North and South Islands. (See Appendix A)
Although separate Maori electorates were established only 13 years after New Zealand’s first parliament met, the periodic review of their boundaries did not become the responsibility of the Representation Commission until 1983[3]. Even then, the number of Maori electoral districts remained fixed at four. It was not until the adoption of the MMP electoral system, in 1993, that it was determined that the number of Maori electoral districts should be calculated on exactly the same basis as the General electorates.
The number of
Maori electoral districts largely depends on the number of Maori who choose,
during the Maori Option period, to be registered on the Maori electoral roll.
The Maori electoral option period begins shortly after the census is conducted,
and continues for approximately four months. This option provides all Maori of
voting age with an opportunity to declare which electoral roll they wish to be
registered, either the Maori or the General. Once the option has ended, and the
proportion of Maori electors opting for the General and Maori rolls is known,
the Maori electoral population (MEP) can be calculated.
The Maori electoral option held during the latter half of 1994 resulted in a significant number of Maori opting to be registered on the Maori electoral roll, and the number of Maori electoral districts increased from four to five. The Maori options held before the 1998 and 2001 electoral distributions also led to increases in the number of Maori electorates: from 5 to 6 in 1998 and from 6 to 7 in 2001.
Legal Framework for Redistribution
Electoral redistribution[4] in New Zealand has had several distinguishing characteristics in additional to the separate Maori districts; three of which are particularly important to the New Zealand redistribution process, and all three of which are protected by reserved provisions [5] of the 1993 Electoral Act:
- An independent commission is given sole responsibility for delimiting electoral boundaries. Once it publishes a final plan, the plan has the force of law and cannot be challenged.
- Redistributions must take place following every five yearly census.
- Electoral districts are based on total population and no electorate can vary by more than plus or minus five percent from the electoral quota.
Boundary Authority Redistributions are undertaken by an independent seven-member statutory body known as the Representation Commission. Four of the members are ex officio (that is, they are members by virtue of the positions they hold within New Zealand’s public service): the Surveyor-General, the Government Statistician, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chairperson of the Local Government Commission. Two members are appointed by the Governor-General, following nomination by parliament; one represents the party or parties in Government and the other represents the party or parties in Opposition. The seventh member of the Representation Commission is nominated by the other member of the Commission and is appointed by the Governor-General. This person serves as the chairperson. Since the present Commission was first constituted in 1956, the chairperson has always been a member of the judiciary.
There are six voting members of the Representation Commission; the Chairperson of the Local Government Commission, who is appointed by the government, is a non-voting member of the Commission. When the Commission redefines the Maori electorates, it is augmented by three additional members: the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Maori Development ex officio, and two additional members appointed by the Governor-General, each of whom must be Maori. One represents the party or parties in Government, and the other represents the party or parties in Opposition. These three members are included on the Commission to provide a Maori community of interest perspective.
The four
ex-officio members of the Commission provide expertise in the areas of
topography and mapping, population distribution, electoral administration, and
the relationship between proposed electoral district boundaries and local
government boundaries. While the original intention was that the two
“political” members would act largely as scrutinisers to satisfy themselves and
their parties that the redistribution process had been conducted fairly and
with the established rules, in more recent years these members have become much
more active participates in the process. They (or their appointed deputies)
must both be present at a commission meeting before the quorum requirement is
met, and both have votes to cast. The independent chairperson commissions
meetings and contributes, at a minimum, such skills as an interpreter of the law
and meeting facilitator.
The Representation Commission has no more than six months after it commences formal deliberations to publish its final redistribution plan. Once published, the decision has the force of law and cannot be challenged. While the High Court accepts that it has a responsibility to ensure that the Commission operates within the powers granted to it by parliament, because the Commission is a creature of statute, the High Court has held that it has no jurisdiction “to inquire into the merits of the decisions of the Commission adjusting electoral boundaries.”
Frequency of Redistribution Redistributions are conducted every five years following the population census and the Maori Electoral Option. Since the length of the parliamentary term is restricted to a maximum of three years, each redistribution applies to, at most, two elections.
Census night (the first Tuesday in March of every fifth year) provides the trigger but the actual timing of the redistribution is dependent on when the next general election is scheduled. Redistributions must be completed within six months of the Commission’s first formal meeting so when an election falls in the same year as a census, the redistribution is delayed because there is insufficient time between the census and the last possible date that an election can be held for a redistribution to be completed.
Redistribution Criteria There is only one mandatory redistribution criterion: no electorate can vary more than plus or minus five percent from its appropriate electoral district quota. A further restraint, applying only to General electorates, is that no electorate can be constructed that is located partly in the North Island and partly in the South Island. [6]
Provided the electoral quota is met, the electoral boundaries are redrawn using the criteria that are outlined in Sections 35 (f) and 45 (6) of the 1993 Electoral Act. These criteria include taking account of:
- Existing boundaries of the electoral districts
- Communities of interest (including such factors as tribal affiliations for Maori electorates)
- Facilities of communications
- Topographical features
- Projected variations in electoral populations including anticipated changes such as large increases or decreased in the size of the population over the next five years
Of these criteria, no order of priority is specified. It would appear, however, that existing electoral boundaries may take precedence – certainly an effort is made to modify the existing plan as little as possible given population constraints [7]. In the report issued by the 2001-2 Representation Commission, the Commission indicated that it “recognises the importance of equality of representation thorough the life of the Electoral Districts (in the view of this Commission, probably through to 2007) and the desirability of changing existing boundaries as little as possible. The proposed boundaries published in November 2001 made greater use of the quota tolerance than did the commission in 1998 in order to meet these specific considerations while best balancing the other criteria of the Act.” Because of the strict tolerance limits of +/- 5% [9], however, a large proportion of electorates require redrawing every redistribution. The table below lists the percentage of electorates that fell outside tolerance limits over the last few redistribution cycles:
|
Year
|
Total Number of electorates
|
Number of electorates outside the tolerance limits
|
% outside the tolerance limits
|
|
1977
|
83
|
50
|
60.2
|
|
1983
|
88
|
42
|
47.7
|
|
1987
|
93
|
|
|
|
1992
|
97
|
33
|
34.0
|
|
1998[10]
|
65
|
26
|
40.0
|
|
2002
|
67
|
29
|
43.3
|
The number of electorates that were changed, however, was actually much greater – at least in part due the “ripple” effect
[11].
Allocating Seats and Calculating the Electoral Quota The boundaries are drawn based on the total number of ordinarily resident people in each electorate. This includes adults and children and is not based on the number of people who have enrolled as Parliamentary electors.
The General electoral population is the total number of people from the last census minus the Maori electoral population. The Maori population is calculated by taking the ratio of the number of people registered in the Maori electoral rolls compared to the total number of people on all electoral rolls (General and Maori) who said they were of Maori descent when they last enrolled. The Government Statistician then applies that proportion to the total number of people who said they were of Maori descent at the most recent population census.
The number of General electorate seats in the South Island is fixed at 16. The General electoral population (GEP) in the South Island is divided by 16 to give the General electoral district quota for the South Island. This quota is used to calculate the number of North Island General seats and the number of Maori seats. According to Section 35 (3) of the 1993 Electoral Act:
(a) The South Island shall be divided into 16 General electorate districts:
(b) The General electoral population of the South Island shall be divided by 16, and the quotient so obtained shall be the quota for the South Island:
(c) The General electoral population of the North Island shall be divided by the quota for the South Island, and the quotient so obtained shall be the number of General electoral districts in the North Island. Where that quotient includes a fraction, the fraction shall be disregarded unless it exceeds a half, in which case the number of such General electoral districts shall be the whole number next above that quotient:
(d) The quota for the North Island shall be ascertained by dividing the number of General electoral population of that Island by the number of General electoral districts in that Island, as ascertained under paragraph (c) of this subsection…
And Section 45 (3) of the Act:
(a) The Maori electoral population of New Zealand shall be divided by the quota for the General electoral districts in the South Island determined pursuant to section 35 (3)
(b) of this Act, and the quotient so obtained shall be the number of Maori electoral districts:
(b) Where the quotient includes a fraction, the fraction shall be disregarded unless it exceeds a half, in which case the number of Maori electoral districts shall be the next whole number above the quotient…
The following table lists the population figures for the North and South Island General electorate and the Maori electorate, as well as the number of electorates and the electoral district quotas as calculated by the 2001-2002 Representation Commission [12]:
Each electorate must have an electoral population that is within +/-5% of its appropriate electoral district quota. Appendix B lists the population of each of the 69 electorates (the 16 South Island electorates, the 46 North Island electorates and the 7 Maori electorates) in the 2002 Redistribution Plan, along with each district’s percent deviation from the quota.
Redistribution Procedures
There are ten clearly identifiable stages in the redistribution process in New Zealand:
- The number and distribution of the total population is derived from the five-yearly census. The analyses of this data can take up to a year after census night.
- The Maori option is held over a four-month period beginning shortly after the census. Persons of Maori descent are given the opportunity of deciding on which electoral roll, Maori or General, they wish to register.
- Data from the census and the Maori option are combined to allow the Government Statistician to calculate the General electoral population for each of the North and South Islands, the number of General electorates the North Island is entitled to (the South Island has a fixed number of seats), and the Maori electoral population and number of electorates.
- The Surveyor-General distributes the General and Maori population data across the existing electorates using small statistical units called mesh blocks. Each mesh block usually contains up to 200 people. Several alternative sets of “provisional” electorate boundaries are produced using these mesh blocks as the basic building units.
- The Surveyor-General convenes the Representation Commission and presents the Commission with the provisional electoral boundaries he has developed and explains and justifies his proposals. The Representation Commission has six months from the date of its first formal meeting to complete its work and publish its final plan.
- Before commencing its detailed scrutiny, the Representation Commission invites the political parties represented in parliament, and any independent MPs, to make submissions. Because the provision boundaries are confidential at this point, the submissions tend to focus on how each party thinks the rules of redistribution should be interpreted.
- Once submissions have been completed, the Commissioners examine the draft plan and vary it where necessary. Although confidentially is still demanded at this stage, the “political” appointees are permitted to discuss the proposals with a very small number of people from the parties they represent as the Commission develops its proposed plan.
- Maps of the Commission’s proposed plan are published along with a summary of the reasons for the Commission’s initial decisions, and public comment is invited. Any individual or organization has one month to object to the proposed boundaries and to suggest alternative boundaries. The Representation Commission publishes a summary of all of the objections it receives. Following this, the public then has two weeks to make counter-objections [13]. Objections come from a variety of sources: political parties, individual MPs, statutory and ad hoc authorities, community groups, individual electors and, occasionally, administrators involved in running elections.
- Once the counter-objection period has closed, public hearing are held wherever there are a sufficient number of objectors, usually in the larger population centers [14]. These hearings allow the public to put their objections directly to the Commission.
- The Commission’s proposed boundaries are then reconsidered in light of the objections and counter-objections, and the definitive electorates are determined. Detailed maps of the electorates covering all parts of the country and legal descriptions of each electorate are prepared to accompany the Commission’s report. Publication of the report marks the conclusion of the redistribution process. (The Commission remains in existence, however, until the night of the next five-yearly census.)
Although not formally part of the redistribution process, a complete re-registration of eligible electors takes place after the Representation Commission has announced its final decisions. Registration as an elector is compulsory and the State, through its agency, the Electoral Enrolment Centre, re-allocates all registered electors to their new electorates. A re-registration card is sent to each elector; its completion and return confirms re-registration.
Computerizing the Process Redistributions were traditionally carried out by physically drawing boundaries on paper maps and manually calculating electoral populations. In 1998, computer technology was used for the first time. All Commissioners were provided a laptop computer loaded with GIS software, and population and statistical data as well as the boundaries of existing electoral and administrative boundaries. Using the GIS software provided, Commissioners were able to develop various options interactively, with immediate feedback as to the effects of these changes. According to the report published by the Commissioners:
The use of this technology reduced the time that otherwise would have been taken by the Commission to formulate proposed boundaries and then to reach final decisions. It also enabled objectors and counter objectors to gain a clear appreciation of the matters being discussed by them at the hearing of objections and counter objections.
Conclusion
Overall, the timely, efficient and professional approach taken to the redistribution of electorates in New Zealand has resulted in general acceptance of the process and the outcome.
Even before replacing the FFP electoral system with an MMP system, redistributions in New Zealand were not considered particularly politically charged. The reason for this is at least threefold:
- New Zealand’s politicians have a very limited role in the redistribution process: they do not draw the electorate lines, nor do they have a vote on the plan to be enacted, nor can they prevent a redistribution from being implemented.
- The membership on the Representation Commission is dominated numerically by non-political appointees. The “political” appointees to the Commission cannot outvote the non-political members.
- The decisions of the Representation Commission have the force of law and cannot be challenged.
On the other hand, while the redistribution process is designed to ensure that partisan influence does not dominate, the presence of political appointees on the Representation Commission guarantees that political input is not ignored. This is important if partisan bias, however unintentional, is to be minimized.
More generally, the success of the redistribution process can be attributed in large part to two important factors: the establishment of an independent Representation Commission – with a majority of the members being politically neutral public servants – and a detailed set of rules governing the mechanics of the process. As one commentator concludes:
The success of New Zealand’s redistribution procedures rests squarely on a number of inter-related pillars. The regularity and frequency of redistributions, over which a government has no control, limits keeps any distortions stemming from changes in population distribution to a minimum. These five-yearly revisions guarantee that nearly every election will be fought within electoral district boundaries that meet the prescribed population criteria. The rules governing redistributions are also clearly defined, and while there is some flexibility in applying the discretionary criteria, the mandatory arithmetic criterion and the accompanying narrow tolerance range severely restricts the opportunity to manipulate electorate boundaries in the interests of any particular group or party. Further, the opportunities for public and party input, and the requirement that the Representation Commission explains clearly the reasoning behind its proposals and its ultimate decisions, makes the redistribution process very transparent. And, at the conclusion of the redistribution process, the automatic application of the commission’s final decisions prevents any aggrieved party, community group, or individual, from challenging those decisions in an attempt to prevent their implementation [16].
Perhaps the most unique element of New Zealand’s redistribution process, the establishment of separate Maori electorates overlaying the General electorates, is also its most important element – at least with regard to “lessons to be learned.” This feature has served to promote fair and effective representation for the country’s indigenous minority population.
Notes:
[1] This case study was written by Alan McRobie for the Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. It was updated by Lisa Handley, in large part based on a paper by Alan McRobie entitled “An Independent Commission with Political Input: New Zealand’s Electoral Redistribution Practices” prepared for the conference “Redistricting from a Comparative Perspective” held at the University of California at Irvine, 6-8 December 2001. The website of Elections New Zealand (found at www.elections.org.nz) was also very useful in updating this case study. Updated materials provided courtesy of the USAID sponsored Delimitation Equity Project.
[2] In New Zealand the terms “electoral districts” and “electorates” are used interchangeably. These terms are the equivalent of “districts”, “constituencies” and “ridings” as used by other countries.
[3] While the non-Maori electorates were redistributed frequently and at regular intervals by the Representation Commission, any changes in the boundaries of the Maori electorates were made by government proclamation, and this occurred only rarely.
[4] “Electoral redistribution” is the term used in New Zealand to describe the delimitation of electoral districts.
[5] No amendments can be made to a reserved provision unless 75% of all MPs, or a majority of voters approve the change in a referendum.
[6] Outlying islands such as Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands are, however, included in one of the mainland electorates.
[7] But in producing the first set of electorate boundaries following the move the MMP electoral system, when the number of electorates declined from 97 to 65, other criteria played a more important role. For example, because of the rugged terrain – the South Island’s main axial ranges are nearly 400 miles long and have numerous peaks over 7,500 feet, and the North Island ranges, although lower, are still formidable – and the impact this landscape has on transportation and communication across the country, topography (and to a lesser extent, communication) played a significant role in redistributions.
[8] Report of the Representation Commission 2002, pages 6-7. The Report is posted online by Elections New Zealand under the section “How electoral boundaries are drawn.”
[9] A number of submissions from political parties and individual objectors have supported increasing the tolerance, and Parliament has considered this issue, but to date no change has been made; +/- 5% remains the electoral quota tolerance.
[10] The 1992 Representation Commission was re-activated in 1993 to reduce the number of electorates from 97 to 65. The 1998 Commission simply redrew the 65 districts created by the 1992 Commission.
[11] In 1977, the number of electorates left unchanged was five out of 88, in 1983 it was six out of 91, in 1987 it was 14 out of 93 and in 1992 it was 27 out of 99.
[12] This table is from the Report of the Representation Commission 2002 which was posted online by Elections New Zealand under the section “How electoral boundaries are drawn.”
[13] The Commission received 199 objections and 80 counter-objections to the proposed boundaries released in November of 2001.
[14] The Commission held hearings in Wellington, Christchurch, Auckland, Hamilton and Te Awamutu during the 2001-2002 redistribution.
[15] Report of the Representation Commission 2002, page 16. This report is posted online by Elections New Zealand under the section “How electoral boundaries are drawn.”
[16] Alan McRobie, “An Independent Commission with Political Input: New Zealand’s Electoral Redistribution Practices” paper prepared for the conference “Redistricting from a Comparative Perspective” held at the University of California at Irvine, 6-8 December 2001.
