Nepe Apatu, recently voted onto the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council’s Māori ward, says she’s “shocked and reeling” after locals opted to remove the Māori ward. The result, she says, feels like “a slap in the face.”
That “slap,” of course, came from the very same electorate that put her on the council. The community chose, and now their decision is being treated as the “wrong” kind of decision. Yet, the reaction from some quarters has been less “respect the voters” and more “how dare they.”
The plan now? Campaign to bring it back “every chance we have.” In other words: if voters don’t agree, we’ll simply go around them. Expect another round of “community engagement,” “equity reviews,” and “consultation hui” until someone discovers a bureaucratic loophole big enough to drive a bus through.
So, what’s the real message here: that majority decision is valid unless it doesn’t go your way. That’s not courage, that’s political sour grapes.
There’s a quiet but persistent logic: “Yes, the result was binding but we’ll challenge it anyway.” Because nothing says “working together as one” quite like refusing to accept a public vote. When the outcome fits the narrative, it’s hailed as progress. When it doesn’t it’s labelled “undercurrent,” “division,” and a “slap in the face.”
Let’s be clear: If you only respect democracy when it agrees with you, then you don’t really believe in democracy - you believe in yourself.
This is not about individual voices or people doing good work. It’s about the principle: when you say “the community voted this way,” and then say “we’ll fight that result,” you end up undermining the very process that gives your office legitimacy.
The grown-up response would be to accept the verdict, attempt to persuade voters next time to vote on merit and move on. Instead, we get the same chorus of wounded outrage that’s become the soundtrack of modern politics.
There is a lesson in all this for the wider political class: accountability doesn’t mean holding votes until you like the result. It means taking the result, winning or losing, and building from there.
Because in the end, power without accountability is just a permanent protest.
And make no mistake for anyone hoping to be taken seriously, the best time to start is when the outcome isn’t already in your favour.
What Others Are Saying: Several Māori-representation advocates described the requirement for referendums on Māori wards as “undermining progress” and a “slap in the face” of Māori communities.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
10 comments:
Steven, agreed. The left are particularly good at striking , protesting and violence if they don't get their way because they are not really good at anything else.
This is because their logic just doesn't make sense....even to them. When discussed and debated, they just resort to violence.
The lesson here must be that we are not dealing with Grown ups! The problem seems to be that those like David Seymour and Winston Peters (I dunno about Luxon) play it with a straight bat but the left only care about 'winning' at any cost - to hell with real democracy.
Race based seats are not democratic.
Nepe Apatu won her Māori ward seat with 333 votes — just 3% of the total enrolled population (10,958). That’s barely 26% of the Māori roll (1,284) and only 65% of the 40% who actually turned up to vote. Her sole opponent, Te Ata Kura Huata, managed 160 votes.
So when she moans that scrapping the Māori ward feels like “a slap in the face,” it’s worth remembering: the “slap” isn’t coming from an angry mob — it’s coming from the apathetic of the Māori roll who didn’t bother to vote. Democracy isn’t about feelings; it’s about numbers. And by the numbers, Nepe was never in a commanding position.
As anon at 9.13 points out, that is not democracy — but don’t expect nene and her ilk to recognise that.
—PB
Make Drysdale got around the issue for Tauranga by putting paid unelected Maori onto the Council with full voting rights.
And that typical of the treacherous people on the likes of the Taupo, Horowhenua, Ruapehu Councils.
Any pre-election statements by any of them saying they were going to subdivert democracy ?
Are Maori threatening councilors and families with the Mob unless they obey instructions ?
White ants deliberately destroying democracy.
There aren't that many Grown ups left in NZ these days - and I'm not talking how many years someone has been alive.
I agree with many of the comments on this thread and disagree with some comments on the thread
So we take it that can be covered by The phrase "undecided but now not sure".
AI says this suggests a state of uncertainty that has developed after an initial indecision. This can stem from fear of making the wrong choice, overthinking, anxiety, or a deeper uncertainty about one's values or the options themselves. To move forward, it can be helpful to gather more information, prioritize values, seek advice, and practice self-confidence instead of getting stuck in a loop of doubt.
However, logic says it was an ambiguous comment that could do with some qualification to have any use whatsoever.
Well, regrettably, I reside Lower Hutt and 'we' voted for retaining the new Maori ward. At the same time 'we' also elected a Pacific Islander as Mayor. So, the new Council make up by ethnicity is: 2 Pacific Islanders; 2 Asians; 4 Maori; and 6 Europeans, albeit two of the latter are Maori orientated in either their neck attire or proclivity to the language. In any event, Maori appear over-represented on a per capita basis, and with those results it is also obvious that race is no barrier to attaining representation.
But there you have it. A significant percentage of the local population (that is, of those who bothered to vote) seem to want undemocratic representation and appear comfortable with apartheid. How stupid is that?
Being a maori ward member must be challenging at times. Although there is always the team of external insurrectionist to give direction and to manipulate the puppet strings. Ordinary councillors simply have the common greater good to consider. But much more complex for maori who there only for the benefit of maori and for maori mana. The latter requires a degree of dislocation and disruption of colonist plans and proposals, imposition of unmemorable tongue twister names, and constant attempts to encourage situations ripe for extortion of public monies. And now there is the complication of keeping actions jist sufficiently civil that the ward will survive a future vote despite what next time will probably be a huge maori turnout. if they can transfer to the roll fast enough.
Post a Comment