......Kiwiblog tells you what the news media missed or downplayed
Point of Order was alerted by Kiwiblog’s David Farrar to the shape of local government which is being recommended in its final report by Labour’s hand-picked panel.
Farrar particularly noted the proposal from this government-appointed body to dismiss the principle of equality of suffrage.
His article drew attention to these proposals:
- Taxpayers to hand over $1 billion a year to fund local councils, on top of rates
- Lower voting age to 16
- Make STV compulsory for all Councils
- Allow Councils to charge congestion charges, bed taxes, visitor levies and value-added taxes
- Rejects equality of suffrage as a western-style ideal (in fact it is a universal human right)
- Allow every Council to have direct Iwi/Hapu appointed members with equal voting rights to elected councillors
- Go from three to four year term
It is depressing to see government body after government body dismiss equality of suffrage as a western concept.
In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed:
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
The UDRP was adopted with not a single dissenting vote in the UN General Assembly.
In 1966 we had the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which says:
To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
The ICCPR has 173 countries that are party to it.
If the Government wants to adopt this report, they should withdraw New Zealand from the UDRP and the ICCPR.
But the public who are relaying on the mainstream media for their information about the local government report and its recommendations will have a scant understanding of the proposals to undermine the principle of equal suffrage.
It’s not as if the review panel was being coy about its promotion of the government’s thinking on the “Treaty partnership”. One chapter of its report is headed Local government embracing Te Tiriti and te ao Māori
This deals with –
- A distinctive system of local democracy that embraces te ao Māori
- A Te Tiriti-based partnership between local government and Māori
- Steps towards stronger relationships
Local government needs new citizen-led democracy tools and approaches to fully embody its role as an enabler of democracy. The threshold for Māori wards needs to be reduced, and Tiriti-based appointments to councils also need to be enabled for iwi and hapū who want to participate in the kāwanatanga sphere
But you will struggle to find news of the details or explanations about their implications in the mainstream media:
Radio NZ:
Local government review: Raft of changes recommended
This report made no mention of Maori and only one mention of the Treaty of
Waitangi:
“We also recommend the Local Government Act is updated to embed intergenerational wellbeing as a core function of councils and to recognise local government as a Tiriti partner.”
The New Zealand Herald:
Council overhaul? Mergers and billions in extra funding floated to future-proof local government
Senior Writer Derek Cheng made no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi and just one mention of Māori, but only to say Panel member Antoine Coffin has 25 years experience in Māori resource management and community engagement.
The Spinoff:
Big changes proposed for local government
Anna Rawhiti-Connell, Bulletin editor, made no mention of the role of Māori or the Treaty of Waitangi.
Newshub:
Local government report proposes raft of changes to get better outcomes for communities
Reporter Rachel Sadler acknowledged the report includes a package of recommendations to deliver better outcomes for local communities by embedding local government’s purpose and well-being focus, growing authentic Te Tiriti-based partnerships, system renewal, strengthening local democracy and leadership, and increasing funding.
She noted a recommendation to increase access and representation in councils which included
- lowering the threshold for the establishment of Māori wards
- enabling Te Tiriti-based appointments to councils
During the review, the panel said it saw many examples of successful partnerships between mana whenua and local councils, which can give a template for future partnerships between iwi and local government.
Stuff:
The future of local government? Smaller, but able to raise more money
Senior journalist Andrea Vance made one mention of the proposed role for Māori:
There are also ideas to tackle declining voter turnout and a lack of diversity, such as increasing the three-year term to four, allowing 16-year-olds to vote, moving all councils to the Single Transferable Vote system, improving Māori participation and representation in local government processes, and bigger salaries for councillors.
Newsroom:
Independent review proposes new tools to finance local roads, parks and homes
Jonathan Milne, managing editor for Newsroom Pro, made no mention of Māori or the Treaty.
Wairarapa Times-Age:
Sweeping local govt reformation advised
Reporter Sue Teodoro made one mention of the role of the Treaty:
Its focus also included the need for public trust and confidence in local government, and for councils to partner effectively with mana whenua and central government, and actively embody and uphold The Treaty of Waitangi.
The RNZ website does include a much more informative post, headed Future for Local Government review: What you need to know
This says:
The 135-page report, with over 800 pages of supporting material, said a requirement for councils to develop better partnerships with hapū/iwi was needed, terms should be extended to four years, and the voting age for local government lowered to 16.
And
What were the recommendations in full?
Growing authentic Te Tiriti-based partnerships
- Introduce new provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 that explicitly recognise local government as a partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te ao Māori values to strengthen authentic relationships in the local exercise of kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga.
- Introduce a statutory requirement for councils to develop partnership frameworks with hapū/iwi and Māori to give effect to new Te Tiriti provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 that create new governance arrangements and complement existing ones.
- Central government leads a comprehensive review of requirements for engaging with Māori across legislation that impacts local government, considering opportunities to streamline or align those requirements.
- Amend the Local Government Act 2002 to require councils (elected members and chief executives) to prioritise and invest in developing and strengthening their capability and capacity in the areas of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, te ao Māori values, mātauranga Māori, tikanga, and the whakapapa of local government in order to make local government a better Te Tiriti partner.
Strengthening local democracy and leadership
- Local government and councils develop and invest in democratic innovations, including participatory and deliberative democracy processes.
- Enhance local democracy in order to increase access and representation by:providing for a four-year local electoral term
- adopting ranked voting (also known as single transferrable vote or STV) as nationwide method for local elections
- lowering the threshold for the establishment of Māori wards
- enabling Te Tiriti-based appointments to councils
- lowering the voting age for local elections to 16.
This report also noted the report’s call for more central government funding, among other things for
- supplementing local government capacity funding to enable hapū/iwi and Māori to partner with councils
- supporting councils to: build Te Tiriti and te ao Māori capability and grow mana whenua relationships; lift their immediate capacity and capability to innovatively deliver wellbeing priorities for their communities; trial and grow participatory and deliberative democracy practices.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
3 comments:
If all members of councils are not elected democratically, don’t vote at the next council elections. Have the government appointment all council members and let the government wear the consequences.
'PARTNERSHIP' ... NOT
TE TIRITI O WAITANGI: SOVEREIGNTY CEDED
The National Party’s Treaty of Waitangi spokesman, Joseph Mooney, is 110% correct in stating that Article II of Te Tiriti grants “tino rangatiratanga” not just to brown supremacist part-Maori, but to ALL New Zealanders.
James Busby’s final English language draft dated 4 February 1840 (aka ‘the Littlewood Treaty’) was translated into Maori by the missionary Henry Williams and his son (fluent Maori speakers, resident in NZ since 1823) for presentation to the Chiefs on 5 February 1840.
Article I reads:
"The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country."
That wipes out the ridiculous Declaration of Independence of the Confederation of the United Tribes [He Whakaputanga] fudged up by British Resident, James Busby, to wave at annexation-minded foreign competitors and the false assertion that Maori had a sovereign nation state prior to 6 February 1840.
Article II reads:
“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes [the natives] and to all the people of New Zealand [the pre-Treaty white settlers], the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property ...”
In Te Tiriti, the word “property” was translated as “taonga.” Today, based on the erroneous Sir Hugh Kawharu [a Waitangi Tribunal member AND claimant] back-translation that word has come to mean treasures, both tangible and intangible, including language and culture.
This blatant try-on would have astonished Sir Apirana Ngata. In his 1922 explanation of the Treaty, Ngata described “taonga” as applying to “this canoe, that taiaha, that kumara pit, that cultivation.” Not once did he hint that taonga included intangibles as claimed today and accepted by the Waitangi Tribunal.
Ngata was well-fluent in the Maori language, His explanation was consistent with Kendall and Lee's 1820 vocabulary, the Williams 1844 dictionary, and Frederick Maning's personal account of pre-Treaty New Zealand. Check these texts. You will learn that in the context of Te Tiriti, “taonga” meant goods, property, things, chattels, or in legal terms “personalty” [personal property].
F.E.(Frederick) Maning settled in Northland in 1833. He fathered four children to the sister of a Maori chief and as a fluent Maori speaker well-versed in Tikanga, later became a Judge of the Native Land Court. In his book Old New Zealand, Maning translates “taonga” as “Goods; property.”
When it came to both land and personal property, everyone in New Zealand as at 6 February 1840 needed the same assurance from the incoming sovereign: that existing private property rights would be upheld and protected.
This was obviously important to the natives.
It was also important to the pre-Treaty white settlers who held land and personal property according to Tikanga (meaning in practical terms only for as long as 'their' tribe could defend the locality against outsiders).
If ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’ means in its broadest sense “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship’ as claimed by Kawharu, it was certainly not being used that way in Te Tiriti in 1840.
In the context of Te Tiriti, the words narrow in their meaning to be a guarantee of property rights in land and personal property to both the natives and pre-Treaty settlers alike.
It is thus impossible to construe Te Tiriti as having been drafted to provide for the Crown to govern the settlers according to Article I and the chiefs to continue to govern their tribes according to Article II.
The reference to the white settlers in Article II stonewalls any possible interpretation of Te Tiriti as a Constitutional document providing for spheres of co-governance as asserted today, and torpedoes any suggestion that Article II is a reservation of chiefly authority.
PARTNERSHIP ... NOT II
The recorded words of the chiefs on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere when Te Tiriti was debated make it clear the majority who chose to sign it (and the minority who didn’t) were well-aware their acceptance of Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson stood Queen Victoria.
Article III reads:
"In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
In signing Te Tiriti, all Maori – including the chiefs – became not ‘partners’ but EQUAL SUBJECTS of the Crown in a nation state the white settlers would henceforth create where none had existed before.
EQUAL SUBJECTS means INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP – nothing more and nothing less.
Te Tiriti cannot possibly be construed as a guarantee of perpetual group rights to brown supremacist part-Maori (with an ever-declining Maori blood quantum).
It is ludicrous and intellectually incoherent to propose that the cession of sovereignty in Article I--restated in Article III--would be countermanded by a reservation of chiefly authority in Article II.
“Sovereignty” means “the supreme power or authority.”
It is thus Constitutionally impossible for a sovereign to be in ‘partnership’ with a subject or group of subjects.
It is also clearly impossible for ordinary Maori to enjoy “the rights and privileges of British subjects” if still subject to tribal-style rule by chiefs.
On 6 February 1840, one party (the Crown) absorbed and digested the parties of the other side (the chiefs and those whom they represented) rendering Te Tiriti from the moment it was signed analogous to a used table napkin after a meal, and other than as a historical artefact, about as relevant.
Te Tiriti is best-described not as “New Zealand’s Founding Document,” but as “New Zealand’s Founding Moment.”
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
ENDS
Post a Comment