The debate surrounding Hastings District councillor Steve Gibson’s decision not to attend a strategic planning session held on a marae is not about disrespect or cultural hostility. It is about whether official council business should be conducted in settings that are secular, linguistically accessible, and free from cultural or spiritual expectations, so every elected representative can participate equally and without pressure to conform.
Gibson’s position has been portrayed by some as divisive or disrespectful. In reality, it raises a serious and legitimate governance question: where should elected representatives conduct official council business, and under what conditions can all councillors participate freely, equally, and without pressure to conform?
This is not a debate about hospitality, goodwill, or respect for Māori culture. Marae play a vital role in community life. The issue is whether a marae — a place with cultural, spiritual, and tikanga-based expectations — is an appropriate setting for formal council deliberation that must remain neutral, secular, and accessible to all elected members, regardless of language, belief, or background.
Equality of participation matters
Gibson’s concerns about extended use of te reo Māori without translation go to the core of democratic participation. Council workshops are not ceremonial events. They are working sessions where councillors must understand, challenge, test, and debate ideas in real time.
When proceedings are conducted in a language most participants do not understand, meaningful engagement is inevitably limited. That is not inclusion; it is exclusion by default. No councillor should be placed in a position where they must either sit silently or risk appearing disrespectful simply for asking for translation during strategic discussions.
True inclusivity ensures that everyone in the room has equal access to information and the ability to participate fully — not just those fluent in a particular language.
Secular governance protects diversity
Equally important are the spiritual dimensions associated with marae protocols. For many New Zealanders, these customs are meaningful and deeply valued. For others, they may conflict with personal beliefs, including religious convictions.
Gibson’s point is not that such practices are wrong. It is that official council business should not require participation in religious or spiritual observances at all.
New Zealand’s system of government is secular for good reason. That neutrality protects diversity. It ensures that no councillor is asked — implicitly or explicitly — to engage in beliefs that sit uneasily with their own conscience.
We would not expect councillors to conduct strategic planning sessions in a church, mosque, or temple that incorporates religious observance into proceedings. The same principle applies here. Neutral venues are not culturally hostile; they are culturally fair.
Consent is not the same as comfort
This is not a debate about hospitality, goodwill, or respect for Māori culture. Marae play a vital role in community life. The issue is whether a marae — a place with cultural, spiritual, and tikanga-based expectations — is an appropriate setting for formal council deliberation that must remain neutral, secular, and accessible to all elected members, regardless of language, belief, or background.
Equality of participation matters
Gibson’s concerns about extended use of te reo Māori without translation go to the core of democratic participation. Council workshops are not ceremonial events. They are working sessions where councillors must understand, challenge, test, and debate ideas in real time.
When proceedings are conducted in a language most participants do not understand, meaningful engagement is inevitably limited. That is not inclusion; it is exclusion by default. No councillor should be placed in a position where they must either sit silently or risk appearing disrespectful simply for asking for translation during strategic discussions.
True inclusivity ensures that everyone in the room has equal access to information and the ability to participate fully — not just those fluent in a particular language.
Secular governance protects diversity
Equally important are the spiritual dimensions associated with marae protocols. For many New Zealanders, these customs are meaningful and deeply valued. For others, they may conflict with personal beliefs, including religious convictions.
Gibson’s point is not that such practices are wrong. It is that official council business should not require participation in religious or spiritual observances at all.
New Zealand’s system of government is secular for good reason. That neutrality protects diversity. It ensures that no councillor is asked — implicitly or explicitly — to engage in beliefs that sit uneasily with their own conscience.
We would not expect councillors to conduct strategic planning sessions in a church, mosque, or temple that incorporates religious observance into proceedings. The same principle applies here. Neutral venues are not culturally hostile; they are culturally fair.
Consent is not the same as comfort
It has been suggested that because no objections were raised when the venue was discussed, the issue should be closed. That misunderstands how social pressure operates.
In environments where cultural sensitivity is rightly emphasised, silence does not always equal consent. Councillors may reasonably feel reluctant to object publicly to a venue choice that carries symbolic weight, for fear of being labelled insensitive or worse.
That is precisely why neutral environments matter. They remove the need for councillors to calculate social or political consequences simply for wanting to do their job.
Governance, not virtue-signalling
Gibson’s decision not to attend was framed by him as a principled stand against what he described as virtue-signalling. Whether one agrees with that characterisation or not, his broader point deserves attention: governance works best when independent thinking is encouraged, not subtly discouraged.
Workshops should be places where councillors feel free to challenge assumptions and processes — not settings that implicitly reward conformity to a preferred cultural or procedural framework.
Ironically, insisting that councillors must attend such sessions “for the greater good” risks undermining the very diversity of thought that councils depend on to make sound long-term decisions.
Neutral does not mean hostile
Holding council meetings in civic buildings, council chambers, or community halls is not a rejection of Māori communities or their contribution. It is a recognition that when the council is acting in its official capacity, it should do so in spaces that belong equally to everyone.
Councils can — and should — engage with marae, iwi, and community groups through consultation, visits, and events. But engagement is not the same as governance. Blurring that line risks politicising culture and culturalising politics, to the detriment of both.
Standing for process is standing for democracy
Steve Gibson was the top-polling councillor in the most recent local body elections. His constituents did not elect him to be silent when he believes a process is flawed. They elected him to exercise judgment, even when that judgment is unpopular.
Disagreement is not disrespect. Refusal to participate in a process one believes compromises neutrality is not obstructionism. In a healthy democracy, it is sometimes necessary.
If councils want maximum participation, robust debate, and genuine inclusion, the solution is straightforward: conduct official business in neutral, secular environments where no councillor feels linguistically, culturally, or spiritually marginalised.
That is not exclusion. It is fairness — and it is how democratic institutions earn the trust of the entire community they serve.
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
In environments where cultural sensitivity is rightly emphasised, silence does not always equal consent. Councillors may reasonably feel reluctant to object publicly to a venue choice that carries symbolic weight, for fear of being labelled insensitive or worse.
That is precisely why neutral environments matter. They remove the need for councillors to calculate social or political consequences simply for wanting to do their job.
Governance, not virtue-signalling
Gibson’s decision not to attend was framed by him as a principled stand against what he described as virtue-signalling. Whether one agrees with that characterisation or not, his broader point deserves attention: governance works best when independent thinking is encouraged, not subtly discouraged.
Workshops should be places where councillors feel free to challenge assumptions and processes — not settings that implicitly reward conformity to a preferred cultural or procedural framework.
Ironically, insisting that councillors must attend such sessions “for the greater good” risks undermining the very diversity of thought that councils depend on to make sound long-term decisions.
Neutral does not mean hostile
Holding council meetings in civic buildings, council chambers, or community halls is not a rejection of Māori communities or their contribution. It is a recognition that when the council is acting in its official capacity, it should do so in spaces that belong equally to everyone.
Councils can — and should — engage with marae, iwi, and community groups through consultation, visits, and events. But engagement is not the same as governance. Blurring that line risks politicising culture and culturalising politics, to the detriment of both.
Standing for process is standing for democracy
Steve Gibson was the top-polling councillor in the most recent local body elections. His constituents did not elect him to be silent when he believes a process is flawed. They elected him to exercise judgment, even when that judgment is unpopular.
Disagreement is not disrespect. Refusal to participate in a process one believes compromises neutrality is not obstructionism. In a healthy democracy, it is sometimes necessary.
If councils want maximum participation, robust debate, and genuine inclusion, the solution is straightforward: conduct official business in neutral, secular environments where no councillor feels linguistically, culturally, or spiritually marginalised.
That is not exclusion. It is fairness — and it is how democratic institutions earn the trust of the entire community they serve.
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.