The Green Party’s
urge to strengthen our democracy through a Member’s Bill, the Electoral
Strengthening Democracy Bill, should portend Green willingness to try to stall
a Ngai Tahu power grab in Canterbury. But don’t hold your breath.
Green electoral
reform spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, who is introducing the bill, said
New Zealand proudly has a strong democratic system – but
“… there is
definitely room for improvement to ensure we have the best democratic system
possible and that access is fair”.
And: “The Bill
seeks to stop unfair influence and potential corruption in politics.”
This implies the
Greens will help to stymie passage of the Canterbury
Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, a measure designed
to allow Ngai Tahu to bypass the electoral system and appoint two
representatives with full voting rights on to the Canterbury Regional Council.
Enactment of the
bill would set an ominous constitutional precedent, paving the way for
appointees with voting rights to sit on regional councils – and other local
authorities – throughout the country.
Ngai Tahu’s two
appointees would sit alongside 14 members to be elected after the 2019
election.
Ngai Tahu people
living in Canterbury accordingly would have two votes – one as a member of the
wider community, the other through runanga appointees.
Oh – and
representation on the regional council, better known as Environment Canterbury,
would be granted to Ngai Tahu members living outside of Canterbury.
Point of Order emailed Labour, National, New Zealand
First, the Green Party and ACT for their positions on this profoundly
anti-democratic legislation.
Only New Zealand
First declared its determination to oppose the bill.
“New Zealand
First does not support having appointed members for Environment Canterbury and
will not support the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation)
Bill. New Zealand First has maintained that this provision is undemocratic and
should not be in the Act. New Zealand First is committed to effective regional
democracy, with which appointed members is not compatible.”
National’s Local
Government spokesperson, Jacqui Dean, said:
“We will make
our position known closer to the First Reading.”
None of the other
parties responded.
National has been
placed in an awkward position because the Key Government scrapped regional
democracy in Canterbury in 2010 and installed its appointees in their place to
facilitate more irrigation development.
The Greens, on
the other hand, issued a
statement in 2015 headed Time to restore democracy to Canterbury and
Labour similarly was pressing for the restoration of democracy in Canterbury –
until it became the government.
A
Newsroom report last year provides an ominous pointer to how the
land lies.
It provides some
background: after six years of Government-appointed commissioners at
ECan, seven councillors were elected in the 2016 local body elections, joining
five appointees. Days after that hybrid election, a private member’s bill was
pulled from Parliament’s ballot – authored by Labour’s Wigram MP, Megan Woods –
which would have forced a full regional council election.
The bill failed
to get to its first reading in December that year.
Speaking before
the vote, Woods called it an opportunity to rectify a wrong.
“This is not
something that I, as a Cantabrian, am prepared to sit by and watch happen,
because it simply is not good enough.”
After Labour
formed a coalition Government in 2017, local government academic Dr Jean Drage,
of Lincoln University, a staunch opponent of the ECan sackings, wrote to Woods
urging the Government to hold elections in February 2018.
Newsroom reported
that this letter was referred to Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who
wrote back in December 2017.
Mahuta said
little time would be saved by holding elections early, considering the time
needed to pass new legislation and with ECan about to embark on a
representation review.
Mahuta’s
private secretary confirmed to Newsroom that after having examined
all the options, the 2019 local body elections was the “earliest
practicable time” ECan could have full elections.
And so we come to
the more recent bill, which critics denounce as profoundly anti-democratic and
discriminatory on the grounds of race.
Among many flaws,
it introduces a significant conflict of interest between the commercial
interests of the South Island’s largest business and protection of the
Canterbury environment.
The potential for
this conflict of interest is palpable: Environment Canterbury’s job is to
regulate activities which may have adverse environmental effects.
Ngai Tahu’s
appointed councillors would be batting for their iwi and their runanga, the
governance organisation of a billion dollar (charitable) enterprise. It
holds farming, forestry and aquaculture interests, commerical and residential
buildings as well as other businesses such as Go Bus (two-thirds owned by Ngai
Tahu) which are regulated by ECAN.
Malcolm Harbrow,
who blogs on the left-leaning No Right Turn blog, addressed this
serious concern in a post which noted the bill would bypass the usual
process for creating Maori wards and electing members and allow Ngai Tahu to
directly appoint two members to the Canterbury Regional Council.
This, he said, “… is both
undemocratic – they should be elected, not appointed – and creates serious
conflict of interest problems. We’d be horrified at the thought of Fonterra
being allowed to appoint members to a council responsible for setting policy
around water and pollution, but Ngāi Tahu’s dairy
investments and ongoing
conversions put it in the same boat.”
Harbrow supports
guaranteed Maori representation on councils but says they should be
democratically elected and proportionate to population.
The bill, which
has yet to be given its first reading, meets neither criteria and Harbrow
insists “it should either be amended so that it does, or rejected”.
The most
fundamental constitutional shortcoming is that the bill will deny Canterbury
citizens the right to elect those who govern them and to sack appointed
councillors who don’t pass muster.
Hobson’s Choice,
which is campaigning to stop the bill’s passage, further
objects…
- it contributes to the absurd notion
that people with one or more Maori ancestors have an innate superiority
over matters of environmental management.
- it contributes to a growing Maori
Aristocracy, where New Zealanders with Maori ancestry have separate and
distinct political and legal rights.
- Its discriminatory thrust breaches
section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and section 21 of the
Human Rights Act: Prohibited
grounds of discrimination including race, colour and national
origin.
Ngai Tahu, on the
other hand, does not think much of this democracy lark.
Restoring full
democratic elections would be a “step backwards” for
Canterbury, Ngai Tahu says.
The iwi expressed
that view before a select committee hearing in 2015 on the Environment
Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill, the legislation
designed to introduce a mixture of elected councillors and government appointed
commissioners from 2016.
This bill
provided for, but did not guarantee, a return to full democratic elections in
Canterbury this year– six years later than originally expected.
Ngai Tahu
referenced the highly dubious Crown-iwi “Treaty partnership” (a concept
which was not mentioned in the treaty but is increasingly being parroted to
give the impression it is contained in the treaty and justifies the burgeoning
of co-governance arrangements).
“The proposal
to return to a fully democratically elected model does not provide sufficient
recognition towards the Treaty partnership,” its submission says.
“It is
considered that the proposal would be a step backwards for Canterbury as
a number of other regions have moved towards equitable representation for iwi
at a governance level.”
The iwi supported
continuing the mixed model after the 2019 local government elections and it
proposed it be given even greater power by incorporating three Ngai Tahu
appointed commissioners alongside three appointed by the Government.
On
the strength of what they have said previously – reinforced by their
statement today on enhancing our democracy – the Greens should be determined to
gazump Ngai Tahu.
Time
to restore democracy to Canterbury
Monday, June
29, 2015 – 13:06
People in
Canterbury should not be second class citizens having to live with second class
local body representation, the Green Party said today.
The Green
Party is concerned at the prospect of the National Government failing to
restore a fully elected Environment Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) in
announcements later this week about the council’s future.
“No other
regional or local council in New Zealand has a mix of elected and appointed
representatives,” said Green Party Canterbury spokesperson Eugenie Sage.
“It is high
time for the return of a fully elected, democratic regional council in
Canterbury.”
And:
“Having
appointed commissioners involved in making decisions on Council spending fails
to honour the central democratic principle of no taxation without
representation.
“When there
was a fully elected regional council there was far more responsiveness to
public concerns about the health and state of Canterbury’s waterways,
biodiversity and natural environment.”
A week later,
responding to the Key Government’s postponement of the return of a fully
elected council until 2019, Sage said:
“Democracy
is our greatest asset yet National is denying Cantabrians a proper vote for
almost a decade. Citizens deserve more than the second class council they
are getting which the Government can continue to influence and dominate.
Labour’s Megan
Woods seemed keen on restoring democracy, too, once upon a time.
Her Member’s bill
– just drawn from the ballot at that time – aimed to return full democracy to
Canterbury by triggering new elections for the full slate of positions on the
council.
“Right now,
there are 7 elected councillors but 6 government appointed commissioners. Half
a democracy isn’t a democracy. We need full elections as soon as possible.
“There was
never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn’t
get to elect its regional council. National is out of touch with local people’s
desire to have a say in the people who will take their region forward.
“I urge all
parties in Parliament to support this bill and restore democracy to
Canterbury,” says Megan Woods.
But it was a
Labour MP, Rino Tirakatene, who introduced the Canterbury Regional Council
(Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill – with enthusiastic Ngai Tahu support, let it
be noted.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor
for the Point of Order blog HERE.
3 comments:
Giving two votes to some people would be a step down a very dangerous road for any democratic institution.
Thanks for helping inform the people, Bob, but I feel it would pay to read the fine print and check out their past behaviour before believing that the Green Party is interested in restoring democracy in NZ. The words “access” and “fair” are being used in all the co-governance authorities being imposed upon our public places, resources and processes. These end up with unelected, unaccountable tribal heavies bullying the public representatives into submission, and costing twice as much for half the work done.
There’s currently a big push to get tribal control of the Hauraki Gulf (and the Waitemata Harbour) through before the next election - via both “treaty settlements” (sic) and Sea Change under the guise of making environmental improvements. The public hasn’t a clue about the 181 “aspirational proposals” within it, let alone the management of it, because consultation will happen “at the implementation stage” according to DoC and MPI/Fisheries.
In talking about that process at a recent Hauraki Gulf Forum meeting, MP Nanaia Mahuta and two of the most fervent tribal members spoke about “the elephant of democracy in the room and made it absolutely clear that it was all about mana whenua control, and the sooner the rest of us got that point the better (paraphrased)”.
Labour is not alone in supporting the shift to an apartheid system of government in NZ, or should I say Aotearoa.
New Zealand is supposed to be a Democracy but what is proposed flies in the face of our democratic way of life and if it becomes a race issue if the only qualifications required is to be Maori to be elected also flies in the face of no racisim in N.Z.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.