It was, the proponents say, the misunderstood political hot potato in the 2023 general election and it played a significant role in the election of our current coalition.
As we headed towards the 2023 General Election, one topic that dominated debates and the airwaves alike was co-governance. A term of many layers but of real potency, co-governance is a descriptor frequently distorted and misrepresented when used to drive agendas across the political spectrum.
On the surface, co-governance describes a shared decision-making model where “Treaty partners” hold equal representation. But many perceived it to be a vehicle that would eventually provide the transfer of asset ownership, not the collaborative “partnership” in governance!
Rob Campbell, socialist, economist, trade unionist, businessman deems it is simply a means sharing responsibility where there are separate interests for Maori and Pakeha, the Crown and tangata whenua to accommodate obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Ex Cabinet Minister and Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson believes that when you look back to the signing of the Treaty 182 years ago, part of the agreement was that the Crown would look after taonga. “I think it is implicit in this that the Crown wouldn’t make all the decisions regarding taonga, ensuring there would always be room for Māori to have their say.”
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission considers it a phrase used to describe various arrangements where Māori and the Crown share decision-making power and “where Māori exercise a form of self-determination!” Expressly suited “to address the entrenched inequalities experienced by Māori as individuals and as an indigenous people!”
Te Huia Bill Hamilton, Treaty educator and a lead adviser for the National Iwi Chairs Forum who has the view that it’s sharing decision-making over assets, resources, or issues where the government and whānau have shared interests based on the Treaty of Waitangi. Shared interests such as protecting and developing our water supplies, our responses to climate crises, Māori education, Maori health outcomes. Bill holds the opinion that “…people such as Julian Batchelor and David Seymour set out to misinform an ignorant public and to trot out opinions masquerading as facts”!
Although a polarizing and disparaged figure, long-standing Labour MP and advocate for Māori self determination, Nanaia Mahuta accurately calculated that the most effective way to establish and execute co-governance was by embedding it within local and regional council frameworks.
Co-governance existed as a chrysalis, resting quietly within the framework of local and regional government until the conditions were right for its emergence.
Mahuta’s plan began in 2021, when as Local Government Minister, she set in motion an independent review of local government to “explore how councils can maintain and improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders in the communities they serve long into the future“ ”This also offers an important opportunity to explore how we can embody the Treaty partnership through the role and representation of iwi/Māori in local government.”
Mahuta requested the review for recommendations to achieve – “…a local government system that actively embodies the Treaty partnership, through the role and representation of iwi/Māori in local government, and seeks to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles through its functions and processes.”
And – “…authentic relationships with hapū/iwi and Māori – from variable relationships between councils and hapū/iwi/Māori to strong, authentic relationships between councils and hapū/iwi/Māori that enable self-determination and shared authority.”
Her plan to strengthen Māori influence and authority was finalised in June 2023.
You cannot say we weren’t warned!
There is a perverse irony in Mahuta’s assertion that the system must “evolve over the next 30 years.” This phrasing is nothing but a transparent piece of political doublespeak for what is effectively a transition toward ethnic-based governance!
Mahuta’s reforms introduced legislative frameworks that significantly enhanced Māori authority in local governance, not surprisingly, these changes, simultaneously, sparked heated debate regarding the protection of equality in the democratic process!
Rob Campbell, socialist, economist, trade unionist, businessman deems it is simply a means sharing responsibility where there are separate interests for Maori and Pakeha, the Crown and tangata whenua to accommodate obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Ex Cabinet Minister and Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson believes that when you look back to the signing of the Treaty 182 years ago, part of the agreement was that the Crown would look after taonga. “I think it is implicit in this that the Crown wouldn’t make all the decisions regarding taonga, ensuring there would always be room for Māori to have their say.”
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission considers it a phrase used to describe various arrangements where Māori and the Crown share decision-making power and “where Māori exercise a form of self-determination!” Expressly suited “to address the entrenched inequalities experienced by Māori as individuals and as an indigenous people!”
Te Huia Bill Hamilton, Treaty educator and a lead adviser for the National Iwi Chairs Forum who has the view that it’s sharing decision-making over assets, resources, or issues where the government and whānau have shared interests based on the Treaty of Waitangi. Shared interests such as protecting and developing our water supplies, our responses to climate crises, Māori education, Maori health outcomes. Bill holds the opinion that “…people such as Julian Batchelor and David Seymour set out to misinform an ignorant public and to trot out opinions masquerading as facts”!
Although a polarizing and disparaged figure, long-standing Labour MP and advocate for Māori self determination, Nanaia Mahuta accurately calculated that the most effective way to establish and execute co-governance was by embedding it within local and regional council frameworks.
Co-governance existed as a chrysalis, resting quietly within the framework of local and regional government until the conditions were right for its emergence.
Mahuta’s plan began in 2021, when as Local Government Minister, she set in motion an independent review of local government to “explore how councils can maintain and improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders in the communities they serve long into the future“ ”This also offers an important opportunity to explore how we can embody the Treaty partnership through the role and representation of iwi/Māori in local government.”
Mahuta requested the review for recommendations to achieve – “…a local government system that actively embodies the Treaty partnership, through the role and representation of iwi/Māori in local government, and seeks to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and its principles through its functions and processes.”
And – “…authentic relationships with hapū/iwi and Māori – from variable relationships between councils and hapū/iwi/Māori to strong, authentic relationships between councils and hapū/iwi/Māori that enable self-determination and shared authority.”
Her plan to strengthen Māori influence and authority was finalised in June 2023.
You cannot say we weren’t warned!
There is a perverse irony in Mahuta’s assertion that the system must “evolve over the next 30 years.” This phrasing is nothing but a transparent piece of political doublespeak for what is effectively a transition toward ethnic-based governance!
Mahuta’s reforms introduced legislative frameworks that significantly enhanced Māori authority in local governance, not surprisingly, these changes, simultaneously, sparked heated debate regarding the protection of equality in the democratic process!
There needs to be significant capability built across local government around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, te ao Māori, tikanga and the whakapapa of local government, and resources prioritised to support the change.
Local government must embody a more culturally specific exercise of kāwanatanga, where te ao Māori, mātauranga Māori, and tikanga are woven into its fabric.
Tiriti-based appointments to councils also need to be enabled for iwi and hapū who want to participate in the kāwanatanga sphere.
The review panel recommended – “Adding new provisions to the LGA that explicitly recognise local government as a partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te ao Māori values. These changes will help to strengthen authentic relationships in the local exercise of kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga.
All decisions made by councils in this process should be geared towards ensuring they can fulfil their purpose and Te Tiriti partnership responsibilities. This reorganisation is not optional!
And there you have it – “This reorganisation is not optional!” A gold plated, unambiguous directive to councils!
That is the catalyst that now sees our local body democracy being white anted from within by those for whom democracy is deemed to be disadvantageous to their cause!
That review has acted as a license for local government leadership to circumvent the traditional democratic process. What we see is that many officials, influenced by modern educational bias, now accept the idea of Māori-led governance as an absolute right.
At the local level, many mayors, CEOs, and councillors seem preoccupied with redressing historical or perceived wrongs, frequently at the expense of core infrastructure and services and most definitely, at the expense of local democracy!
Even worse, at the national level, the Luxon government has betrayed voters by failing to address the deep-seated public anxiety regarding the erosion of democratic accountability. By allowing councils to continue stacking influential committees with unelected Māori representatives, the government is effectively sanctioning a transfer of power away from the voting public and into the hands of those who cannot be held accountable at the ballot box.
Democratic values, once cherished, are under siege as voters are squeezed between the social engineering of local councils and the total indifference of central government. Central government sits on its hands, completely unwilling to intervene and has simply checked out.
Luxon’s government have intentionally and deceitfully created a democratic deficit!
A democratic deficit, the situation where a government fails to meet the required standards of democracy in its everyday operations. In other words, it is the gap between how democracy should work (power coming from the people and one person, one vote) and how it actually works in practice.
Democratic deficit in the matter of local body politics is the premeditated, devolution of power that actually deepens the democratic deficit by reallocating power away from elected officials to appointed committees/boards and co-governance structures.
These alterations are conveniently framed as an “embodying Treaty Partnership as required by the Local Government Act!”
In actual fact all they are doing is eroding the core democratic principle of equal suffrage and direct accountability at the ballot box. Just as the sovereignty activists imagined!
A prominent recent example is the Far North District Council which made headlines in April for its governance structure involving the Te Kuaka committee, formerly the Māori Strategic Relationships Committee.
In a move that has sparked intense debate over the democratic deficit, the Far North District Council confirmed a committee structure where unelected members are “gifted” control. The Te Kuaka committee reportedly consists of 10 unelected iwi appointees compared to only six elected councillors. These unelected members were granted full voting rights, meaning they have the mathematical potential to outvote and overrule the elected representatives of the ratepaying public!
And surprise, surprise, Mayor Moko Tepania defended the arrangement as a lawful mechanism under the Local Government Act – “to fulfill statutory obligations for Māori participation in decision-making.”
Far from being a democratic act, this stands as the complete antithesis of everything voters were promised in the 2023 election campaign!
It is a total abandonment of 2023 campaign pledges!
Do you see the future now?
Co-governance is a cancer and like a cancer, it will destroy its host!
Pee Kay writes he is from a generation where common sense, standards, integrity and honesty are fundamental attributes. This article was first published HERE
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.