Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 22, 2021 17:07:09 GMT 12
THE STATEMENT THAT ELECTED MEMBERS AND TE ARAWA WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HEAR - By Reynold Macpherson (Rotorua District Residents & Ratepayers)
At today’s Council meeting, unlike all other elected members’ statements, I was repeatedly interrupted by the grandstanding Cr Raukawa-Tait and the loyal Deputy Mayor with points of order. When that did not shut me down, the Mayor invented an arbitrary time limit for me alone. So I walked out in protest at the manipulation of meeting procedure – in my view mahi tinihanga.
What do these three have to fear that compels them to suppress my freedom of speech?
The truth? The loss of mana? Losing the next election?
Some elected members and Te Arawa folk have asked me to post my statement because they really wanted to hear my statement, without the interruptions. It follows:
There are many potential arguments for and against establishing Maori Wards in the Rotorua District and for retaining the services of Te Tatau o Te Arawa (Te Tatau). I wish all elected members well in analyzing the complexities involved. And I warmly acknowledge the good works and fine people of Te Tatau and the many members of Te Arawa here today who want to hear all perspectives.
My evaluation of the two recommendations presented by Te Tatau uses democratic, legal, egalitarian, pragmatic and political values to identify six issues that appear to me to be crucial to democratic and effective decision making by us, as required by the Local Government Act.
First, democratic values. It is proposed that Maori Wards be established, with the number proportionate to the numbers on the Maori Roll compared to the total enrolled on the Maori and General Rolls. That would be fair because it would satisfy the democratic principle of equal suffrage – where the votes of eligible voters would have the same value whichever roll they are on. Conversely, it would be unacceptable for the votes of some people to be more valuable than others because we all have the same human rights.
Second, legal values. Having Maori Wards based on proportionate numbers would also be a lawful solution in terms of our Bill of Rights because it guarantees the same democratic and human rights to all our citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity.
Third, egalitarian values. Our nation has long valued egalitarianism. It resulted in the development of social welfare, education and health systems, and universal suffrage, long before most other countries. We got a lot of things right through pragmatic problem solving in the past with a vision of egalitarianism. It follows, from that historical experience, that we continue to use these methods and values to drive innovation in local government.
To be clear, egalitarianism is a political ideology, a doctrine that holds that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Why? Because they are equal in fundamental worth and in moral status.
[At this point Cr Raukawa-Tait angrily raised a point of order - that she didn’t want to be lectured – but was over ruled. It appears that she did not want to learn and wanted to cancel my right to be heard.]
Our long-standing commitment to egalitarianism has been shaken in recent decades by the impact of economic, social and technological changes, most especially by neo-liberalism that disconnected the powerful from the rest of society and strengthened the class structures that favour the privileged.
Fourth, pragmatic values. In more recent years we have revisited our egalitarian values and decided as a nation that inequities in outcomes are wrong, most especially for Maori, women and other under privileged classes of people. Problem solving has focused on understanding the complex causes across the social, cultural, economic and environmental dimensions of wellbeing, and then on redesigning or better customizing our systems, institutions, and the governance and management of professionals. Not just governance.
It is currently popular in some political circles but simplistic to claim that introducing race-based representation leading on to co-governance will prove an effective method of transforming local government, any more than claiming that gender-based or age-based representation and co-governance would prove an effective organizational intervention. After forty odd years as a researcher in organizational reforms I can tell you that it is vastly more complex.
It is also politically naïve to dismiss the significant majority of New Zealanders that loathe race-based representation. Why? Because Kiwis value egalitarianism and respectful intercultural relationships as both the medium and as the required outcome of innovative problem solving.
Having clarified the values I used to contextualize Te Tatau’s recommendations, I now provide a brisk evaluation.
The first issue not raised by Te Tatau is the actual need for additional representation from Te Arawa. The current Council has a Mayor and six councillors that are affiliated with Te Arawa in various ways and who have successfully advanced Te Arawa interests by, for example, investing tens of millions of ratepayers’ dollars in iwi partnership projects.
[The Deputy Mayor protested this point as untrue and was backed up by the Mayor. She demanded that I withdraw the claim. I refused because it is true. She then imposed a time limit, so I walked out in protest.]
Each of these affiliates has the dual advantage of being able to speak for Te Arawa, and with electoral authority, to speak to the public interest.
However, the election of Maori Ward councillors by those on the Maori Roll will allocate a proportionate number of places for more exclusive representation of Te Arawa priorities.
These places could be perceived as giving Te Arawa a significant ‘head start’ in local elections and as potentially capturing a majority on Council in perpetuity.
Tragically, such political action could trigger an equal and opposite reaction from those on the General Roll. They could seek to rebalance representation in the public interest by electing councillors-at-large that will focus on advancing legitimate non-Te Arawa interests.
I said ‘tragically’ because such political dynamics can deepen political divisions on racial fault lines between people and on a Council that is normally and respectfully intercultural.
It is always tragic when elites use race-based politics to try to gain political advantage.
The second issue is the demand transmitted by Te Tatau that the introduction of Maori Wards be considered an interim step towards 50/ 50 co-governance under the Treaty. This demand has been encouraged by the Mayor’s oft-repeated promise to Te Arawa that co-governance will achieve ‘Nirvana’ - meaning the profound peace of mind after release from a state of suffering. One problem here is that this demand, and its probable consequences, are of such huge significance to all citizens that they should have all been consulted before this discussion started.
It is not difficult to imagine objections. 50/ 50 co-governance would mean that about 28% of all eligible voters in our district would elect representatives that would have about 50% of the power. Put another way, that outcome would mean the votes of those on the Maori Roll would have roughly twice the value and power of the votes on the General Roll.
This would be seen by the 72% on the General Roll as elitist, unfair, and trigger political resistance on race lines, something we should all want to avoid. It would also be unlawful in terms of our Bill of Rights which, as I stressed, guarantees the same democratic and human rights to all our citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity.
The third issue is the standing of Te Tatau and the base of its authority. Te Tatau claims to be “a partnership between Te Arawa and Council” that provides a “model of representation for Te Arawa [that] was designed and developed by Te Arawa.” This is political rhetoric. But partnership remains undefined in legal terms.
[During Question Time before elected members’ statements I had asked for a legal definition of the ‘partnership’ because that would define the standing and legitimacy of Te Tatua’s advice. Cr Raukawa-Tait objected to the question being asked as offensive and the Mayor agreed and ruled it out of order. The question is yet to be answered.]
It can mean almost anything, depending on the situation.
The key practical implication is that elected members on Council have been presented with recommendations from a parallel system of sovereignty that challenges their hitherto exclusively democratic authority to make such decisions on behalf of the people of our district.
The legal problem here is that Te Tatau has already assumed the role and powers of co-governors of the Rotorua District to make its recommendations. But we can’t have two systems of sovereignty in one district or in one country without constant conflict over power and authority. Those committed to rule by the people, democracy, would prefer that Te Tatau become a policy advisory board to Council on Maori issues, and not to present themselves as co-governors of the public interest.
The fourth issue regarding Te Tatau’s advice to Council is that Te Tatau has a profound conflict of interest. It has a legitimate and ongoing role as ‘the voice of Maori’ providing its makes some reforms I will come to. Naumai, kakemai, haera mai.
But it is implausible for Te Tatau to also claim that it has a legitimate role of speaking in the public interest on Maori Wards and on its own future.
It is understandable and a bit cheeky that Te Tatau would recommend an increase in its own power and offer to share the power to represent the public interest with elected members. To be fair, members of Te Tatau believe that they were assured by the Chief Returning Officer that “Council would be guided by a recommendation by Te Tatau.”
Since no other legitimate stakeholders were invited to attend the workshop, or to recommend or to be heard on the matter, and the term ‘guided’ remains undefined, elected members’ duty to represent the public interest has been approximately halved by the ‘partnership’ in this matter.
This may also be unlawful. Section 3 of the Local Government Act requires “democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities.”
Section 77 of the LGA requires Councils, in relation to the decision-making process, to “take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.”
But the LGA does not provide an exclusive right to one legitimate but conflicted interest group to recommend on matters of representation, nor require elected members to be ‘guided’ by a recommendation from that interest group. Indeed, the LGA requires Council’s decision making to be “democratic and effective,” and even more specifically, to recognize “the diversity of New Zealand communities.” Te Tatau is silent on how to recognize diversity.
The fifth issue in Te Tatau’s ‘guidance’ to elected members is that it fails to recognize that all citizens and their elected representatives in our community have human and civil rights protected by a Bill of Rights. Like sovereignty, these rights are vested in the individual and may only be aggregated with their informed consent. Te Tatau should not have assumed that their political ‘partnership’ with a majority of the current Council can override the human and civil rights protected by our nation’s Bill of Rights.
The sixth and final issue is that Te Tatau does not appear to support equal suffrage, that is, regarding all votes as having equal value. It has conveyed a nascent challenge to the principle of equal suffrage, stated as follows:
"In presenting this recommendation Te Tatau needs to also articulate the strong views expressed throughout the hui of the need for local government to reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That would equate to a 50/ 50 split of power in any governance arrangement for the Rotorua District.
This position coheres with the controversial ‘He Puapua’ political ideology being considered by government departments across our nation. It champions co-governance under the Treaty for indigenous New Zealanders."
However, allowing Te Tatau the sole right to recommend on Maori representation and on its own future reflects He Puapua’s view that only indigenous people have the right to be consulted on matters of governance that affect them. This is despite the obvious fact that everyone would be dramatically affected if changes to representation mover towards a 50/ 50 allocation of power.
A more pragmatic appreciation of the likely impact of Treaty-based co-governance is that it would also result in ‘one country, two sovereignties.’ As David Lange, former Labour Prime Minister, pointed out:
"Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority, and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both."
Please allow me to summarize my advice to fellow elected members in the hope that they will respect it not as appeal to popularity but as an appeal to rightness, tikangatanga, in the public interest.
Te Tatau’s recommendations should be given wary consideration because they suffer from an acute conflict of interest in a context of an absence of balancing public consultations with other stakeholder groups.
Te Tatau assumes a co-governance partnership without legitimate legal authority in a liberal democracy and uses a different form of sovereignty.
Te Tatau has proposed Maori Wards as an interim step towards consolidating its joint control over policy making in the Rotorua District, knowing that it’s Mayor will have the casting vote if there is a split on sovereignty lines. This would install an unchangeable imbalance of power, thereby enabling a potential tyranny.
Te Tatau’s advice is ominously silent on democratic, multicultural and civil rights and criteria, most especially equal suffrage.
In practical effect, through its ‘partnership’ with Council, Te Tatau proposes to formalize halving the power of elected members to alone represent the public interest. It now proposes to confirm that undemocratic overreach.
My advice is that the power to make democratic and effective decisions should be returned to elected members only, which I accept are currently mandated by the ballot box to favour Te Arawa’s interests over the public interest. But to avoid tyranny, we must leave open the possibility of this balance changing.
Finally, what of the future of Te Tatau? To safeguard equal suffrage and full respect for all citizens’ democratic, civil and human rights in perpetuity, Te Tatau’s future should be as the authoritative Maori policy advisory board of Council.
To legitimate its role in this regard it will need to be restructured to provide equal suffrage to Te Arawa and matawaka constituents, albeit with the chairmanship perhaps reserved to Te Arawa to respect its standing as mana whenua.
No reira e hoa ma, kia ora, kia ora tatau. Thank you for listening.
[Which they were not allowed to do, due, in my opinion, to tyrannical meeting management that cancelled my speaking rights as an elected member. The very point made by Cr Tania Tapsell who was next to speak. Kia ora Tania.]
At today’s Council meeting, unlike all other elected members’ statements, I was repeatedly interrupted by the grandstanding Cr Raukawa-Tait and the loyal Deputy Mayor with points of order. When that did not shut me down, the Mayor invented an arbitrary time limit for me alone. So I walked out in protest at the manipulation of meeting procedure – in my view mahi tinihanga.
What do these three have to fear that compels them to suppress my freedom of speech?
The truth? The loss of mana? Losing the next election?
Some elected members and Te Arawa folk have asked me to post my statement because they really wanted to hear my statement, without the interruptions. It follows:
There are many potential arguments for and against establishing Maori Wards in the Rotorua District and for retaining the services of Te Tatau o Te Arawa (Te Tatau). I wish all elected members well in analyzing the complexities involved. And I warmly acknowledge the good works and fine people of Te Tatau and the many members of Te Arawa here today who want to hear all perspectives.
My evaluation of the two recommendations presented by Te Tatau uses democratic, legal, egalitarian, pragmatic and political values to identify six issues that appear to me to be crucial to democratic and effective decision making by us, as required by the Local Government Act.
First, democratic values. It is proposed that Maori Wards be established, with the number proportionate to the numbers on the Maori Roll compared to the total enrolled on the Maori and General Rolls. That would be fair because it would satisfy the democratic principle of equal suffrage – where the votes of eligible voters would have the same value whichever roll they are on. Conversely, it would be unacceptable for the votes of some people to be more valuable than others because we all have the same human rights.
Second, legal values. Having Maori Wards based on proportionate numbers would also be a lawful solution in terms of our Bill of Rights because it guarantees the same democratic and human rights to all our citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity.
Third, egalitarian values. Our nation has long valued egalitarianism. It resulted in the development of social welfare, education and health systems, and universal suffrage, long before most other countries. We got a lot of things right through pragmatic problem solving in the past with a vision of egalitarianism. It follows, from that historical experience, that we continue to use these methods and values to drive innovation in local government.
To be clear, egalitarianism is a political ideology, a doctrine that holds that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Why? Because they are equal in fundamental worth and in moral status.
[At this point Cr Raukawa-Tait angrily raised a point of order - that she didn’t want to be lectured – but was over ruled. It appears that she did not want to learn and wanted to cancel my right to be heard.]
Our long-standing commitment to egalitarianism has been shaken in recent decades by the impact of economic, social and technological changes, most especially by neo-liberalism that disconnected the powerful from the rest of society and strengthened the class structures that favour the privileged.
Fourth, pragmatic values. In more recent years we have revisited our egalitarian values and decided as a nation that inequities in outcomes are wrong, most especially for Maori, women and other under privileged classes of people. Problem solving has focused on understanding the complex causes across the social, cultural, economic and environmental dimensions of wellbeing, and then on redesigning or better customizing our systems, institutions, and the governance and management of professionals. Not just governance.
It is currently popular in some political circles but simplistic to claim that introducing race-based representation leading on to co-governance will prove an effective method of transforming local government, any more than claiming that gender-based or age-based representation and co-governance would prove an effective organizational intervention. After forty odd years as a researcher in organizational reforms I can tell you that it is vastly more complex.
It is also politically naïve to dismiss the significant majority of New Zealanders that loathe race-based representation. Why? Because Kiwis value egalitarianism and respectful intercultural relationships as both the medium and as the required outcome of innovative problem solving.
Having clarified the values I used to contextualize Te Tatau’s recommendations, I now provide a brisk evaluation.
The first issue not raised by Te Tatau is the actual need for additional representation from Te Arawa. The current Council has a Mayor and six councillors that are affiliated with Te Arawa in various ways and who have successfully advanced Te Arawa interests by, for example, investing tens of millions of ratepayers’ dollars in iwi partnership projects.
[The Deputy Mayor protested this point as untrue and was backed up by the Mayor. She demanded that I withdraw the claim. I refused because it is true. She then imposed a time limit, so I walked out in protest.]
Each of these affiliates has the dual advantage of being able to speak for Te Arawa, and with electoral authority, to speak to the public interest.
However, the election of Maori Ward councillors by those on the Maori Roll will allocate a proportionate number of places for more exclusive representation of Te Arawa priorities.
These places could be perceived as giving Te Arawa a significant ‘head start’ in local elections and as potentially capturing a majority on Council in perpetuity.
Tragically, such political action could trigger an equal and opposite reaction from those on the General Roll. They could seek to rebalance representation in the public interest by electing councillors-at-large that will focus on advancing legitimate non-Te Arawa interests.
I said ‘tragically’ because such political dynamics can deepen political divisions on racial fault lines between people and on a Council that is normally and respectfully intercultural.
It is always tragic when elites use race-based politics to try to gain political advantage.
The second issue is the demand transmitted by Te Tatau that the introduction of Maori Wards be considered an interim step towards 50/ 50 co-governance under the Treaty. This demand has been encouraged by the Mayor’s oft-repeated promise to Te Arawa that co-governance will achieve ‘Nirvana’ - meaning the profound peace of mind after release from a state of suffering. One problem here is that this demand, and its probable consequences, are of such huge significance to all citizens that they should have all been consulted before this discussion started.
It is not difficult to imagine objections. 50/ 50 co-governance would mean that about 28% of all eligible voters in our district would elect representatives that would have about 50% of the power. Put another way, that outcome would mean the votes of those on the Maori Roll would have roughly twice the value and power of the votes on the General Roll.
This would be seen by the 72% on the General Roll as elitist, unfair, and trigger political resistance on race lines, something we should all want to avoid. It would also be unlawful in terms of our Bill of Rights which, as I stressed, guarantees the same democratic and human rights to all our citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity.
The third issue is the standing of Te Tatau and the base of its authority. Te Tatau claims to be “a partnership between Te Arawa and Council” that provides a “model of representation for Te Arawa [that] was designed and developed by Te Arawa.” This is political rhetoric. But partnership remains undefined in legal terms.
[During Question Time before elected members’ statements I had asked for a legal definition of the ‘partnership’ because that would define the standing and legitimacy of Te Tatua’s advice. Cr Raukawa-Tait objected to the question being asked as offensive and the Mayor agreed and ruled it out of order. The question is yet to be answered.]
It can mean almost anything, depending on the situation.
The key practical implication is that elected members on Council have been presented with recommendations from a parallel system of sovereignty that challenges their hitherto exclusively democratic authority to make such decisions on behalf of the people of our district.
The legal problem here is that Te Tatau has already assumed the role and powers of co-governors of the Rotorua District to make its recommendations. But we can’t have two systems of sovereignty in one district or in one country without constant conflict over power and authority. Those committed to rule by the people, democracy, would prefer that Te Tatau become a policy advisory board to Council on Maori issues, and not to present themselves as co-governors of the public interest.
The fourth issue regarding Te Tatau’s advice to Council is that Te Tatau has a profound conflict of interest. It has a legitimate and ongoing role as ‘the voice of Maori’ providing its makes some reforms I will come to. Naumai, kakemai, haera mai.
But it is implausible for Te Tatau to also claim that it has a legitimate role of speaking in the public interest on Maori Wards and on its own future.
It is understandable and a bit cheeky that Te Tatau would recommend an increase in its own power and offer to share the power to represent the public interest with elected members. To be fair, members of Te Tatau believe that they were assured by the Chief Returning Officer that “Council would be guided by a recommendation by Te Tatau.”
Since no other legitimate stakeholders were invited to attend the workshop, or to recommend or to be heard on the matter, and the term ‘guided’ remains undefined, elected members’ duty to represent the public interest has been approximately halved by the ‘partnership’ in this matter.
This may also be unlawful. Section 3 of the Local Government Act requires “democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities.”
Section 77 of the LGA requires Councils, in relation to the decision-making process, to “take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.”
But the LGA does not provide an exclusive right to one legitimate but conflicted interest group to recommend on matters of representation, nor require elected members to be ‘guided’ by a recommendation from that interest group. Indeed, the LGA requires Council’s decision making to be “democratic and effective,” and even more specifically, to recognize “the diversity of New Zealand communities.” Te Tatau is silent on how to recognize diversity.
The fifth issue in Te Tatau’s ‘guidance’ to elected members is that it fails to recognize that all citizens and their elected representatives in our community have human and civil rights protected by a Bill of Rights. Like sovereignty, these rights are vested in the individual and may only be aggregated with their informed consent. Te Tatau should not have assumed that their political ‘partnership’ with a majority of the current Council can override the human and civil rights protected by our nation’s Bill of Rights.
The sixth and final issue is that Te Tatau does not appear to support equal suffrage, that is, regarding all votes as having equal value. It has conveyed a nascent challenge to the principle of equal suffrage, stated as follows:
"In presenting this recommendation Te Tatau needs to also articulate the strong views expressed throughout the hui of the need for local government to reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That would equate to a 50/ 50 split of power in any governance arrangement for the Rotorua District.
This position coheres with the controversial ‘He Puapua’ political ideology being considered by government departments across our nation. It champions co-governance under the Treaty for indigenous New Zealanders."
However, allowing Te Tatau the sole right to recommend on Maori representation and on its own future reflects He Puapua’s view that only indigenous people have the right to be consulted on matters of governance that affect them. This is despite the obvious fact that everyone would be dramatically affected if changes to representation mover towards a 50/ 50 allocation of power.
A more pragmatic appreciation of the likely impact of Treaty-based co-governance is that it would also result in ‘one country, two sovereignties.’ As David Lange, former Labour Prime Minister, pointed out:
"Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority, and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both."
Please allow me to summarize my advice to fellow elected members in the hope that they will respect it not as appeal to popularity but as an appeal to rightness, tikangatanga, in the public interest.
Te Tatau’s recommendations should be given wary consideration because they suffer from an acute conflict of interest in a context of an absence of balancing public consultations with other stakeholder groups.
Te Tatau assumes a co-governance partnership without legitimate legal authority in a liberal democracy and uses a different form of sovereignty.
Te Tatau has proposed Maori Wards as an interim step towards consolidating its joint control over policy making in the Rotorua District, knowing that it’s Mayor will have the casting vote if there is a split on sovereignty lines. This would install an unchangeable imbalance of power, thereby enabling a potential tyranny.
Te Tatau’s advice is ominously silent on democratic, multicultural and civil rights and criteria, most especially equal suffrage.
In practical effect, through its ‘partnership’ with Council, Te Tatau proposes to formalize halving the power of elected members to alone represent the public interest. It now proposes to confirm that undemocratic overreach.
My advice is that the power to make democratic and effective decisions should be returned to elected members only, which I accept are currently mandated by the ballot box to favour Te Arawa’s interests over the public interest. But to avoid tyranny, we must leave open the possibility of this balance changing.
Finally, what of the future of Te Tatau? To safeguard equal suffrage and full respect for all citizens’ democratic, civil and human rights in perpetuity, Te Tatau’s future should be as the authoritative Maori policy advisory board of Council.
To legitimate its role in this regard it will need to be restructured to provide equal suffrage to Te Arawa and matawaka constituents, albeit with the chairmanship perhaps reserved to Te Arawa to respect its standing as mana whenua.
No reira e hoa ma, kia ora, kia ora tatau. Thank you for listening.
[Which they were not allowed to do, due, in my opinion, to tyrannical meeting management that cancelled my speaking rights as an elected member. The very point made by Cr Tania Tapsell who was next to speak. Kia ora Tania.]