Mariameno Kapa-Kingi argues that the Government's local government reforms represent an attack on local choice. But her argument contains a fundamental contradiction.
She claims that councils should be free to appoint iwi representatives as voting members because local communities may support those arrangements. Yet the very essence of democracy is that those who exercise voting power over public decisions should themselves be elected by the public.
The issue is not whether iwi should have a voice. They already do. Councils routinely consult iwi, work with iwi authorities, and seek Māori input into planning and environmental management. The question is whether individuals who are not elected by the public should possess the same voting powers as councillors who must face voters at election time.
That is not a question of local preference. It is a question of democratic principle.
Kapa-Kingi portrays the Government's reforms as an expansion of central government power. In reality, they are an attempt to restore a consistent democratic standard across New Zealand. The principle is simple: public decision-makers should be accountable to the public.
Under appointed iwi representation, voters cannot remove those representatives if they disagree with their decisions. They cannot stand against them at election time. They cannot hold them directly accountable. Yet those representatives may possess the same voting rights as elected councillors.
No private organisation, business, church, sports club or community group would accept a governance system where some voting members were chosen by a separate body and insulated from accountability to the wider membership. Why should local government be different?
Kapa-Kingi also argues that removing appointed iwi voting members weakens Māori participation. That assumes Māori participation can only occur through special appointments rather than through the democratic process itself.
Māori make up a significant proportion of the population of Northland. They can vote, stand for office, campaign, persuade their neighbours and win elections just like every other citizen. Many Māori have done exactly that. Democratic representation is achieved by earning public support, not by bypassing the ballot box.
Equally troubling is the suggestion that Northland is somehow exempt from national democratic standards because it has unique relationships between councils, iwi and hapū. Every region has its own history, culture and circumstances. If local uniqueness becomes grounds for different voting rights, then the principle of equal citizenship quickly disappears.
The real question is not whether Northland is special. It is whether every New Zealander's vote should carry equal weight.
Kapa-Kingi asks who should decide what representation looks like. The answer is straightforward: the voters.
Not councillors appointing additional voting members after elections have concluded. Not iwi organisations selecting representatives outside the electoral process. Not unelected groups exercising public power without public accountability.
The Government's reforms do not remove Māori voices from local government. They simply reaffirm a principle that has underpinned representative democracy for generations: those who vote on behalf of the public should be chosen by the public.
Far from weakening democracy, that principle protects it.
Local choice is important. But local choice does not include the right to abandon democratic accountability. The moment voting power is detached from the ballot box, democracy itself is weakened.
The debate is therefore not about local autonomy versus Wellington control. It is about whether New Zealand remains committed to a simple democratic standard: one person, one vote, and representatives who are accountable to all citizens equally.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
That is not a question of local preference. It is a question of democratic principle.
Kapa-Kingi portrays the Government's reforms as an expansion of central government power. In reality, they are an attempt to restore a consistent democratic standard across New Zealand. The principle is simple: public decision-makers should be accountable to the public.
Under appointed iwi representation, voters cannot remove those representatives if they disagree with their decisions. They cannot stand against them at election time. They cannot hold them directly accountable. Yet those representatives may possess the same voting rights as elected councillors.
No private organisation, business, church, sports club or community group would accept a governance system where some voting members were chosen by a separate body and insulated from accountability to the wider membership. Why should local government be different?
Kapa-Kingi also argues that removing appointed iwi voting members weakens Māori participation. That assumes Māori participation can only occur through special appointments rather than through the democratic process itself.
Māori make up a significant proportion of the population of Northland. They can vote, stand for office, campaign, persuade their neighbours and win elections just like every other citizen. Many Māori have done exactly that. Democratic representation is achieved by earning public support, not by bypassing the ballot box.
Equally troubling is the suggestion that Northland is somehow exempt from national democratic standards because it has unique relationships between councils, iwi and hapū. Every region has its own history, culture and circumstances. If local uniqueness becomes grounds for different voting rights, then the principle of equal citizenship quickly disappears.
The real question is not whether Northland is special. It is whether every New Zealander's vote should carry equal weight.
Kapa-Kingi asks who should decide what representation looks like. The answer is straightforward: the voters.
Not councillors appointing additional voting members after elections have concluded. Not iwi organisations selecting representatives outside the electoral process. Not unelected groups exercising public power without public accountability.
The Government's reforms do not remove Māori voices from local government. They simply reaffirm a principle that has underpinned representative democracy for generations: those who vote on behalf of the public should be chosen by the public.
Far from weakening democracy, that principle protects it.
Local choice is important. But local choice does not include the right to abandon democratic accountability. The moment voting power is detached from the ballot box, democracy itself is weakened.
The debate is therefore not about local autonomy versus Wellington control. It is about whether New Zealand remains committed to a simple democratic standard: one person, one vote, and representatives who are accountable to all citizens equally.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
2 comments:
Well said.!! The other problem I have is that ALL people calling themselves a Maori are only descended from pure Maori and if they were to take a DNA test would prove that most of them have perhaps more blood from other countries than the actual Maori themselves.
Some Maori don't understand
" we are one people "
Adding people onto a committee to get your wishes granted and to veto the elected members is not democracy.
It's simply wrong !
Why can't these radicals understand that ?
Can you understand the outrage if a council committee loaded with extra unelected Maori, decide that Maori land would will be free from rates, and that " others" will pay 100% more ?
Entirely feasible especially in Northland where all reason has been eliminated.
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.