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.
7 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.
The underlying reason for part-Maori(or any ethnicity for that matter)to have superior rights and multiple votes is suspect. It seems to have become fashionable to have Maori and "other." The interesting conversation has to be, why? Do Maori contribute more? No. Are Maori indigenous? No. Is Maori culture contributing to society?
Maybe in the tourism industry. However, New Zealand scenery is a bigger drawcard
Are Maori more law abiding and peaceful? No. In a democracy all people are equal. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Thank goodness a section of the population can see this.
As Far North ratepayers we are livid with the Council for allowing unelected iwi to even sit on committes, that they also have a vote is criminal but the stupid LG Act has allowed the twisting and stretching of what is legal. It is good that Minister Watts has come to the correct conclusion that this situation must stop but in true 'National' fashion, there will be a 6 month wait for it to come into force after Parliament approves it. Mahuta implemented her wrecking balls in mere minutes!
Re: Anon 5.32PM - About rates on Māori Freehold Land: AI says: This is a major structural issue for the district. The FNDC deals with a disproportionate volume of uncollected rates on Māori land, with millions in arrears. While the council pursues payment and agreements rather than broad write-offs, recent legislative changes allow for targeted remissions to enable future housing development." So, those of us who do pay our rates are already paying way more than we should to compensate!
Local choice IS democracy. List MPs down in bureaucracy HQ fat cat Wellington have no idea. Representative democracy is dead thanks to ACT and National. They were supposed to be the party of liberal small government, but the veil is off and we can see they are the anti-democracy nanny state. Horrendous.
Re Anon 5:32PM: "Why can't these radicals understand that ?" With respect, its very simple. The trace-maori radicals are after MONEY and POWER. That is ALL they care about and will go to any length to con it out of our sheeple citizens who are scared sh-tless of being labeled "racist" or who have drunk the Koolaid of Critical Race Theory and other neo-Marxist bullsh-t. Trace-maori activists are not operating from logic or rationality or pragmatism. They are operating from an ideology and tribal mentality that is completely at odds with the Enlightenment values that New Zealand as a country was founded on.
Cook and other early explorers described Maori as "the biggest liars and thieves of all the Pacific people they encountered." Nothing has changed.
Trace-maori and their woke European "useful fools" are racist. Just look at the disgusting ugly aggressive behaviour (which looked like a 3 year-old's temper tantrum) that the young Maori party woman exhibited in Parliament last year toward her "enemy" the ACT party MPs.
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.