RIS Constituency Arrangements for District Health Board Elections under STV

Regulatory Impact And Compliance Cost Statement
Constituency Arrangements for District Health Board Elections under STV

Statement of the nature and magnitude of the problem and the need for government action

Under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (the NZPHD Act), elected members of District Health Boards (DHBs) must be elected using the Single Transferable Voting (STV) method from 2004 onwards.

Options relating to the method of electing DHB board members under STV were previously considered by Cabinet in July 2000. At that time, Cabinet noted that using a constituency system with STV – when there are only seven elected members across the whole district – would take away almost all of the benefits of STV. In 2001, as a transitional measure, elected board members were elected under the First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system, using constituencies (similar to local authority ‘wards’). Cabinet confirmed its earlier approach to at-large STV for DHBs on 20 October 2003.

The current constituency system does not adequately provide for the election of Māori and minority groups to DHB boards. In 2001, very few Māori candidates were elected (even though close to 130 stood as candidates) and no candidates who described themselves as being of Pacific or Asian origins were elected to boards.

Also, if current constituency structures remain in place under STV, a candidate in a one-member constituency would need just over half of all electors’ votes to win that seat. In a two-member constituency, a candidate would require just over a third of the vote to gain a seat. Given that 58 of the current 76 constituencies elect only one or two members, the current constituency structures are therefore likely to hamper more balanced representation on boards.

Statement of the public policy objective

The Government has indicated its desire to see more diversity in the elected membership of DHB boards.

Statement of feasible options (regulatory and/or non-regulatory) that may constitute viable means for achieving the desired objective

Status quo

DHB boards comprise seven elected members and up to four members appointed by the Minister of Health. Elected members are elected triennially, in conjunction with local authority elections. STV will be used by 10 local authorities and all 21 DHBs at elections in 2004. DHBs are required to use STV pursuant to clause 9A of Schedule 2 to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (the NZPHD Act).

The Health (Constituencies of District Health Boards) Order 2001 currently divides DHBs into a number of constituencies for electoral purposes. These guaranteed a measure of regional representation on boards elected under FPP, but would serve to hamper public policy objectives if left in place for STV elections. Pursuant to the Order, DHB constituencies are currently in place and will remain so unless the Order is revoked.

Regulatory options

Some DHBs use constituency structures while others use at-large structures

This option would see different DHBs employing different representation structures, and would require the development of an amended Order-in-Council under the NZPHD Act.

This option is not preferred as it is important that election arrangements are consistent across all DHBs, especially with the introduction of a new voting system.

Rural and urban constituencies

Under this option, each DHB would have two constituencies: one urban-based one and one rural-based. This option would also require an amended Order-in-Council under the NZPHD Act to be promulgated.

This option is not preferred, as in predominately urban DHBs (such as Auckland) a meaningful division would be very difficult to make. Board structures like this risk creating an artificial division without addressing the issue of representing real geographic communities of interest.

At-large structures (preferred option)

Under at-large structures, each DHB’s current constituencies would be merged to form a single district-wide structure in which all of the district’s voters would elect all seven elected board members.

This is the preferred option, as it is likely maximise the potential benefits of the move to STV in the DHB environment.

The key features of this option include the potential for improved Māori and minority group representation, providing greater voter choice and flexibility, encouraging an environment of collective responsibility on boards, and equalising levels of representation across each district.

Statement of net benefit of the proposal, including the total regulatory costs (administrative, compliance and economic costs) and benefits (including non-quantifiable benefits) of the proposal, and other feasible options

Government

Given that STV operates quite differently to FPP, it is considered important to maximise the potential for it to deliver results that better reflect the interests of an area’s resident population. Under STV, the potential for more balanced representation tends to increase as the number of members elected from each electoral area increases. It also provides the best opportunity to improve elected Māori and minority group representation.

Under at-large structures, DHBs would expect to have more balanced and diverse elected membership, levels of representation for communities would be more equal across each district and an environment of collective responsibility at the board table is more likely to occur. Risks relating to achieving these benefits are similar to those outlined for Government. Boards are able to effect regional representation within their own governance structures, for example by ensuring specific community representation on each of its statutory advisory committees, or by constituting separate rural health or community committees.

It is acknowledged that the potential effects of at-large structures are necessarily somewhat theoretical until widespread STV elections in New Zealand have been held. While it is likely that policy objectives will be realised, there is no guarantee. If at-large structures do not deliver the proposed benefits, the Government may face criticism from rural populations and the media.

DHBs are required to bear and pay for the costs of their elections. It is expected that at-large STV elections will cost DHBs the same or less than STV elections using constituencies.

Society

Under at-large structures, the potential exists for greater choice and flexibility for voters. Voters would not be obliged to select candidates based solely on how many vacancies their constituency elects to the board. Voters are able to rank as many candidates as they wish, and give higher preferences for those candidates from around the region who they feel will best represent their individual concerns (be they based on geographical factors, gender, ethnicity, community profile, relevant experience or any other ground). Voters would therefore have the opportunity of influencing the whole board’s elected membership.

Under at-large structures, there will be no guaranteed representation for particular geographic areas on DHB boards. At-large structures also raise certain practical issues for the voting process itself, such as large lists of candidates on voting documents may discourage voting. Candidates may also feel that they need to campaign across the whole district under at-large STV, which may discourage participation as candidates.

Business

There are no compliance costs for business arising from this proposal.

Statement of consultation undertaken

In October 2003, DHBs and local government representative bodies were issued with a consultation document on this matter, and were invited to comment by 19 November 2003. Comments were also received from members of the public and community groups. The consultation document was made available on the Ministry of Health’s website and officials attended the board meetings of 13 DHBs to discuss STV, constituency arrangements and general election matters.

The main concerns raised in submissions surrounded a loss of guaranteed rural representation on boards, the domination of elections by urban-based candidates, the difficulties associated with a new voting method, increased costs of electioneering for candidates, worries that the benefits of at-large structures were only theoretical, and doubts over Ministerial appointments being able to ensure totally balanced membership.

However, many concerns raised in submissions reflect a general lack of familiarity with the mechanics of STV and the roles and functions of DHBs (particularly the fact that under the NZPHD Act, all board members’ are directly responsible to the Minister of Health).

The following government agencies were consulted: the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Rural Affairs), the Office of Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Social Development, The Treasury, and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Some of these agencies offered comments on the proposal but overall no concerns were raised.