Democracy, as Sir Winston Churchill once said in the House of Commons (quoting an unknown parliamentary predecessor) is the worst form of government, apart from all those other forms which have been tried from time to time.
Democracy, from the Greek words demos, meaning people, and kratos (rule, power or strength) in its purist form is government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Thousands of organisations, from the smallest membership based incorporated societies to local authorities and central government vote for the people they wish to govern them.
Thousands of organisations, from the smallest membership based incorporated societies to local authorities and central government vote for the people they wish to govern them.
The essential theme is this: one person, one vote and all votes are equal.
(Ok, you pedants will say it’s one person, two votes at central government level and if you’re in one of those local councils with that awful STV system it’s one person and who knows how many votes or preferences.)
But you get my drift. An eligible person votes. The vote or votes of every elector carry equal value. The most popular candidate or candidates in the election take office, govern the organisation, appoint the senior staff, set the policies, approve the budgets - and so it goes.
Not too difficult really. The enlightened world has operated this way successfully for centuries.
So why try and muddy the waters by appointing non-elected outsiders to governing roles?
To be fair, many incorporated societies – New Zealand Rugby is a good example – appoint some directors alongside those elected. But that’s because the society constitution allows for it.
Local government allows it too. And therein lies a major issue.
Schedule 7, Clause 31 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002 says “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.”
The road to heaven is paved with good intentions.
The Far North District Council (FNDC) believe that the six elected councillors on its Te Kuaka Committee for Maori Strategic Relationships were just not capable of receiving advice and making appropriate decisions so FNDC appointed not one, but ten iwi and hapu representatives with “the skills, attributes or knowledge” to assist the work of the committee.
And gave them voting powers for committee decisions.
It’s a nonsense.
The lone voice protesting this, Councillor Davina Smolders, called it “co-governance on steroids.”
Actually, it’s not even co-governance. It’s a takeover.
Do not believe the council and media spin about how a committee only makes recommendations. The full council makes the final call.
That’s arrant nonsense. A full council meeting anywhere is effectively a rubber stamping exercise for work discussed and voted on in committees.
A council vote to allow one of its committees to be taken over by outside appointees is an absolute insult to the people of the Far North District, Maori or non-Maori. The power has been taken from the people. That’s what happens in totalitarian societies, not enlightened ones – like New Zealand is supposed to be.
Yes the Local Government Act says a local authority must “establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and consider ways in which it may foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority.”
But is also says, much earlier in the Act, that councils must “enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.”
Sadly in the Act there is no definition of “democratic local decision-making.”
Probably because the legislation drafters of 2002 figured we all knew what it means. Silly them.
Democratic local decision making cannot, by any definition, be carried out by appointees with voting rights.
While this is the most blatant use of Schedule 7, Clause 31 (1) it’s not the first. Hastings District gave committee voting rights to members of its Youth Council. Tasman District Council has iwi representatives with voting rights on its committees.
But in those cases the appointed committee members are or were a minority. Not at the FNDC where the elected members might as well have not existed.
Just what calls this Te Kuaka Committee will take the full council meetings in future are unknown. But you can bet the whare on decisions that will be of advantage to Māori, possibly to the disadvantage of non-Māori.
For instance it’s already recommended that that the Council continue with an amended Rating Relief Policy, following a review that brought forward changes regarding papakāinga and Treaty settlement lands to support Māori freehold land.
Put that alongside a recommendation that council support environmental management plans submitted by local iwi and you get the drift of the way governance is headed in the FNDC area, an area with a majority population, according to the 2023 census, who claim Māori ancestry.
Davina Smolders says Te Kuaka now has the power to decide what even makes it to the full council meeting. When elected representatives are outnumbered 10 to 6 that’s a given.
But in such a strongly Māori area why the need for such stacking of important committees? Democracy would say that if the majority of the population in the Far North supported such initiatives as outlined above they would vote in councillors to put those policies into effect.
Democracy is about giving all people a voice. Good democratic government, at all levels, takes into account the interests of all – political supporters and opponents alike.
The FNDC debacle this week has removed democratic process there and someone in central government should do something about it.
The simplest way would be to amend Clause 31 (1) of Schedule 7 in the Local Government Act. Instead of saying “members of a committee or sub-committee may, but not need be, elected members of the local authority” it would read “members of a committee or sub-committee MUST be elected members of a local authority.”
The clause may include another paragraph about expert or appropriate advice being sought from suitably qualified people but in the interests of democracy they must not be given voting rights.
Simple isn’t it?
ACT’s Cameron Luxton is on the case with a bill similar to this. New Zealand First supports it. Why won’t the Minister for Local Government Simon Watts?
Because like his Prime Minister he lacks political courage.
When you can’t defend democracy you don’t deserve to be a politician.
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.
(Ok, you pedants will say it’s one person, two votes at central government level and if you’re in one of those local councils with that awful STV system it’s one person and who knows how many votes or preferences.)
But you get my drift. An eligible person votes. The vote or votes of every elector carry equal value. The most popular candidate or candidates in the election take office, govern the organisation, appoint the senior staff, set the policies, approve the budgets - and so it goes.
Not too difficult really. The enlightened world has operated this way successfully for centuries.
So why try and muddy the waters by appointing non-elected outsiders to governing roles?
To be fair, many incorporated societies – New Zealand Rugby is a good example – appoint some directors alongside those elected. But that’s because the society constitution allows for it.
Local government allows it too. And therein lies a major issue.
Schedule 7, Clause 31 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002 says “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.”
The road to heaven is paved with good intentions.
The Far North District Council (FNDC) believe that the six elected councillors on its Te Kuaka Committee for Maori Strategic Relationships were just not capable of receiving advice and making appropriate decisions so FNDC appointed not one, but ten iwi and hapu representatives with “the skills, attributes or knowledge” to assist the work of the committee.
And gave them voting powers for committee decisions.
It’s a nonsense.
The lone voice protesting this, Councillor Davina Smolders, called it “co-governance on steroids.”
Actually, it’s not even co-governance. It’s a takeover.
Do not believe the council and media spin about how a committee only makes recommendations. The full council makes the final call.
That’s arrant nonsense. A full council meeting anywhere is effectively a rubber stamping exercise for work discussed and voted on in committees.
A council vote to allow one of its committees to be taken over by outside appointees is an absolute insult to the people of the Far North District, Maori or non-Maori. The power has been taken from the people. That’s what happens in totalitarian societies, not enlightened ones – like New Zealand is supposed to be.
Yes the Local Government Act says a local authority must “establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and consider ways in which it may foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority.”
But is also says, much earlier in the Act, that councils must “enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities.”
Sadly in the Act there is no definition of “democratic local decision-making.”
Probably because the legislation drafters of 2002 figured we all knew what it means. Silly them.
Democratic local decision making cannot, by any definition, be carried out by appointees with voting rights.
While this is the most blatant use of Schedule 7, Clause 31 (1) it’s not the first. Hastings District gave committee voting rights to members of its Youth Council. Tasman District Council has iwi representatives with voting rights on its committees.
But in those cases the appointed committee members are or were a minority. Not at the FNDC where the elected members might as well have not existed.
Just what calls this Te Kuaka Committee will take the full council meetings in future are unknown. But you can bet the whare on decisions that will be of advantage to Māori, possibly to the disadvantage of non-Māori.
For instance it’s already recommended that that the Council continue with an amended Rating Relief Policy, following a review that brought forward changes regarding papakāinga and Treaty settlement lands to support Māori freehold land.
Put that alongside a recommendation that council support environmental management plans submitted by local iwi and you get the drift of the way governance is headed in the FNDC area, an area with a majority population, according to the 2023 census, who claim Māori ancestry.
Davina Smolders says Te Kuaka now has the power to decide what even makes it to the full council meeting. When elected representatives are outnumbered 10 to 6 that’s a given.
But in such a strongly Māori area why the need for such stacking of important committees? Democracy would say that if the majority of the population in the Far North supported such initiatives as outlined above they would vote in councillors to put those policies into effect.
Democracy is about giving all people a voice. Good democratic government, at all levels, takes into account the interests of all – political supporters and opponents alike.
The FNDC debacle this week has removed democratic process there and someone in central government should do something about it.
The simplest way would be to amend Clause 31 (1) of Schedule 7 in the Local Government Act. Instead of saying “members of a committee or sub-committee may, but not need be, elected members of the local authority” it would read “members of a committee or sub-committee MUST be elected members of a local authority.”
The clause may include another paragraph about expert or appropriate advice being sought from suitably qualified people but in the interests of democracy they must not be given voting rights.
Simple isn’t it?
ACT’s Cameron Luxton is on the case with a bill similar to this. New Zealand First supports it. Why won’t the Minister for Local Government Simon Watts?
Because like his Prime Minister he lacks political courage.
When you can’t defend democracy you don’t deserve to be a politician.
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
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.