Democracy, as Winston Churchill may or may not have once said, is the worst form of government - apart from the all the other types that have been tried from time to time.
The modern English word is derived from two Greek words: demos meaning people and kratos which is rule. In other words it is the rule of the people by the people. The people ELECT those whom they wish to represent them.
The concept is pretty well known in this country. Everybody in our parliament, our House of Representatives, is elected. It’s not as pure as it was in the old days before MMP but every MP is still there as a consequence of the people voting.
The preceding three paragraphs would stand up very well as the opening comments by a teacher to a high school Civics class.
New Zealand, as the world’s first full democracy after introducing universal suffrage in 1893, now has one of the most devolved democratic systems in the world where we can vote for MPs, councilors, community board members and in some places even licensing trusts.
But deep in the Local Government Act 2002 are these rather chilling words: The members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected members of the local authority, and a local authority or committee may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member of the local authority or committee if, in the opinion of the local authority, that person has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.
All of which is fine if the appointed person to a committee or sub-committee is just passing on the “skills, attributes or knowledge” to assist the work of the committee.
Because the Local Government Act also says: The purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.
See the key word there – democratic. That is rule by the people, the representatives elected by the people.
But somehow in the Local Government Act, councils have the right to allow appointed committee members to have voting rights. How did that happen? What bunch of numpty MPs thought it was a good idea to allow appointed cronies to vote at local government level?
(Hint: in 2002 Helen Clark’s Labour government was in power)
All of which is a long winded preamble to the decision by the Hastings District Council to appoint the seventeen members of the Hastings Youth Council to District Council committees and give them the right to vote on those committees.
As with Select Committees at parliament, much of the real decision making at local council level is made at the committee level. The decision of the committees is often brought back to the full council for final approval, for the rubber stamp if you like.
Therefore the Hastings District Council has given 17 unelected young people aged from 15 to 21 the ability to vote on council decisions. Some of them are not even old enough to vote in the actual elections for district councillors!
Frankly, the Local Government Act needs to be amended – and fast - to remove the ability of appointed people to have voting rights on council committees.
Even having co-opted committee members is a step too far. At parliament, Select Committees comprise only MPs. If they want expert advice they get it through the submission process or from officials or other experts in the field. Why can’t the same process apply at local government level?
In some instances the whole appointment process to a local authority is over the top. The Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) has two full members appointed by Ngai Tahu. The iwi therefore have voting rights over water allocation in a region where Ngai Tahu are one of the largest operators of dairy farms.
The National-Act Coalition agreement is to repeal the Ngai Tahu Representation Bill although the process has hit a snag with ECan’s refusal to play ball. The government will have to play hard ball here to restore full democratic process to Ecan.
At the Auckland Council members of the appointed Maori Statutory Board have voting rights on council committees. In other words they have significant influence as non-elected council committee members.
Most local councils appear to operate the same way as Auckland when it comes to Maori input into committee decision making. But allowing non-elected committee members to vote is the first erosion of democratic principles.
Simeon Brown, as the Minister for Local Government, needs to ensure the thin end of the wedge into local democracy is not inserted further.
Already this year we’ve had Anne Tolley, the former Chair of the Commissioners at Tauranga City , suggesting a hybrid model of appointed and elected councillors would be the most effective way of governing a city. The idea is preposterous.
But the concept of appointees is slowly gaining more and more ground at local authorities all around the country.
This government has to remember two things:
The preceding three paragraphs would stand up very well as the opening comments by a teacher to a high school Civics class.
New Zealand, as the world’s first full democracy after introducing universal suffrage in 1893, now has one of the most devolved democratic systems in the world where we can vote for MPs, councilors, community board members and in some places even licensing trusts.
But deep in the Local Government Act 2002 are these rather chilling words: The members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected members of the local authority, and a local authority or committee may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member of the local authority or committee if, in the opinion of the local authority, that person has the skills, attributes, or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.
All of which is fine if the appointed person to a committee or sub-committee is just passing on the “skills, attributes or knowledge” to assist the work of the committee.
Because the Local Government Act also says: The purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.
See the key word there – democratic. That is rule by the people, the representatives elected by the people.
But somehow in the Local Government Act, councils have the right to allow appointed committee members to have voting rights. How did that happen? What bunch of numpty MPs thought it was a good idea to allow appointed cronies to vote at local government level?
(Hint: in 2002 Helen Clark’s Labour government was in power)
All of which is a long winded preamble to the decision by the Hastings District Council to appoint the seventeen members of the Hastings Youth Council to District Council committees and give them the right to vote on those committees.
As with Select Committees at parliament, much of the real decision making at local council level is made at the committee level. The decision of the committees is often brought back to the full council for final approval, for the rubber stamp if you like.
Therefore the Hastings District Council has given 17 unelected young people aged from 15 to 21 the ability to vote on council decisions. Some of them are not even old enough to vote in the actual elections for district councillors!
Frankly, the Local Government Act needs to be amended – and fast - to remove the ability of appointed people to have voting rights on council committees.
Even having co-opted committee members is a step too far. At parliament, Select Committees comprise only MPs. If they want expert advice they get it through the submission process or from officials or other experts in the field. Why can’t the same process apply at local government level?
In some instances the whole appointment process to a local authority is over the top. The Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) has two full members appointed by Ngai Tahu. The iwi therefore have voting rights over water allocation in a region where Ngai Tahu are one of the largest operators of dairy farms.
The National-Act Coalition agreement is to repeal the Ngai Tahu Representation Bill although the process has hit a snag with ECan’s refusal to play ball. The government will have to play hard ball here to restore full democratic process to Ecan.
At the Auckland Council members of the appointed Maori Statutory Board have voting rights on council committees. In other words they have significant influence as non-elected council committee members.
Most local councils appear to operate the same way as Auckland when it comes to Maori input into committee decision making. But allowing non-elected committee members to vote is the first erosion of democratic principles.
Simeon Brown, as the Minister for Local Government, needs to ensure the thin end of the wedge into local democracy is not inserted further.
Already this year we’ve had Anne Tolley, the former Chair of the Commissioners at Tauranga City , suggesting a hybrid model of appointed and elected councillors would be the most effective way of governing a city. The idea is preposterous.
But the concept of appointees is slowly gaining more and more ground at local authorities all around the country.
This government has to remember two things:
(a) Parliament is the supreme law maker in the country and
(b) even without a scientific opinion poll on the matter, it’s certain a vast majority of New Zealanders want the concept of democracy to be first and foremost in all the governing processes of this country.
That’s why the Hastings District decision is stupid. Not only does it give decision-making and voting rights to inexperienced and unworldly young people, it allows for the appointment of like-minded fellow political travellers by those in authority at Hastings District.
That is taking away the rule of the people.
It must be stopped.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment