Dr Claire Charters argues in her Newsroom article, Co-governance seen as undemocratic when Māori are involved, that power-sharing is common in Western democracies and that arrangements involving Māori should therefore not be treated as unusual or undemocratic.
She points to coalition governments, judicial checks and balances, and Treaty-settlement arrangements involving iwi and the Crown. But this overlooks a fundamental distinction: not every form of shared authority carries the same democratic mandate.
In a previous article, I examined Professor Claire Charters' claim that New Zealand's constitutional foundations are illegal and illegitimate, questioning whether she had actually established the legal case for such a sweeping conclusion.
In this article, I turn to another aspect of her argument: her attempt to present Māori co-governance as simply another form of power-sharing already familiar in Western democracies. But are these arrangements really comparable, and does the existence of power-sharing elsewhere automatically make every form of co-governance democratic?
Coalition government is not co-governance
Coalition government is based on electoral representation. Parties contest elections, voters choose their representatives, and parliamentary numbers determine who can form a government. Coalition partners negotiate because voters have given them parliamentary representation.
Courts perform a different role: they review the legality of government decisions and interpret legislation. Neither arrangement is equivalent to statutory structures giving particular iwi or organisations designated decision-making roles over public resources, land or services.
The question is not whether power can be shared. It plainly can. The concern is who receives that power, how it is conferred, who is accountable, and whose interests decision-makers represent.
Treaty settlements are specific arrangements
Charters points to Te Urewera, the Rotorua lakes and the Whanganui River. Each arrangement was established through specific legislation and has its own purpose and structure.
These arrangements demonstrate that Parliament can establish particular forms of shared management. They do not establish a general entitlement to shared political authority across government. Nor does acceptance of one Treaty settlement automatically justify every proposed extension of co-governance.
Each arrangement should be assessed on its powers, accountability, public-interest obligations and relationship with elected institutions.
The question of accountability
Elected ministers and MPs are accountable through Parliament and ultimately through elections. But what happens when decision-making authority is allocated to bodies whose members are appointed by particular organisations rather than elected by the wider population affected by their decisions?
Appointed bodies are common in public administration and are not automatically illegitimate. But who appoints their members? Who can remove them? Whose interests must they consider? Can affected members of the public challenge their decisions? Where does ultimate responsibility lie?
In a democracy, the exercise of public authority must be open to scrutiny, accountable to the public and consistent with the equal political standing of all citizens.
Indigenous rights do not end the debate
Charters argues that Māori are not a race but an Indigenous people with distinct rights arising from their status as the first peoples of New Zealand. Recognition of Indigenous rights is part of domestic and international law, and the Treaty is central to the relationship between Māori and the Crown.
But recognition of Indigenous rights does not remove the need to reconcile those rights with the democratic rights and interests of the wider population.
Self-determination can mean cultural protection, control over particular services, local decision-making or more extensive law-making authority. These are not interchangeable. The question is how far Māori participation should extend into public authority and how resulting powers should be balanced against the rights of other New Zealanders.
What does the overseas evidence establish?
Charters claims Harvard research demonstrates that Indigenous peoples outperform state governments economically, socially and culturally when they govern themselves.
That is broader than Harvard's own wording. The Harvard Project on Indigenous Governance and Development says Native nations can outperform “external decision-makers” when making their own development decisions. Its examples include comparisons with federal agencies such as the US Department of Indian Affairs, not a general finding that Indigenous governments outperform state governments.
The research provides evidence that effective Indigenous self-government can produce benefits. But it primarily concerns American tribal nations operating within a particular federal legal and political framework. It does not prove that every form of co-governance produces better outcomes, or that the same results would follow from extending tribal authority in New Zealand.
Similarly, the Canadian Supreme Court's 2024 decision upheld specific federal legislation recognising Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services. It was not a general ruling that Indigenous governance arrangements must prevail over elected government in all circumstances.
International examples can inform our debate. They cannot replace it.
The real issue is who governs
Charters argues that “one-law-for-all” sows division because it fails to recognise differences between peoples. But equal application of the law does not require cultural uniformity, nor does it prevent historical redress, Treaty settlements, protection of Māori language and culture, or Māori participation in public decision-making. It means that citizenship and fundamental legal rights should not depend upon ancestry.
New Zealand can recognise Māori history, honour Treaty commitments and consult iwi without automatically accepting a constitutional structure in which political authority is divided according to Indigenous status.
Describing power-sharing as commonplace does not establish that the particular arrangements Charters advocates are democratic, necessary or appropriate.
Before expanding co-governance, New Zealanders deserve clear answers: What powers are being shared? Who exercises them? Who is accountable? How are disagreements resolved? And what happens when an appointed governance body conflicts with the interests of the wider public?
Power-sharing may be a feature of democracy, but its existence does not make every form of it democratic by definition.
The real debate is not whether Māori should participate in New Zealand's governance, but how that participation should work within a democratic system that recognises the rights of all citizens.
One country. One citizenship. Equal rights. Equal responsibilities. Democratic accountability.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
In this article, I turn to another aspect of her argument: her attempt to present Māori co-governance as simply another form of power-sharing already familiar in Western democracies. But are these arrangements really comparable, and does the existence of power-sharing elsewhere automatically make every form of co-governance democratic?
Coalition government is not co-governance
Coalition government is based on electoral representation. Parties contest elections, voters choose their representatives, and parliamentary numbers determine who can form a government. Coalition partners negotiate because voters have given them parliamentary representation.
Courts perform a different role: they review the legality of government decisions and interpret legislation. Neither arrangement is equivalent to statutory structures giving particular iwi or organisations designated decision-making roles over public resources, land or services.
The question is not whether power can be shared. It plainly can. The concern is who receives that power, how it is conferred, who is accountable, and whose interests decision-makers represent.
Treaty settlements are specific arrangements
Charters points to Te Urewera, the Rotorua lakes and the Whanganui River. Each arrangement was established through specific legislation and has its own purpose and structure.
These arrangements demonstrate that Parliament can establish particular forms of shared management. They do not establish a general entitlement to shared political authority across government. Nor does acceptance of one Treaty settlement automatically justify every proposed extension of co-governance.
Each arrangement should be assessed on its powers, accountability, public-interest obligations and relationship with elected institutions.
The question of accountability
Elected ministers and MPs are accountable through Parliament and ultimately through elections. But what happens when decision-making authority is allocated to bodies whose members are appointed by particular organisations rather than elected by the wider population affected by their decisions?
Appointed bodies are common in public administration and are not automatically illegitimate. But who appoints their members? Who can remove them? Whose interests must they consider? Can affected members of the public challenge their decisions? Where does ultimate responsibility lie?
In a democracy, the exercise of public authority must be open to scrutiny, accountable to the public and consistent with the equal political standing of all citizens.
Indigenous rights do not end the debate
Charters argues that Māori are not a race but an Indigenous people with distinct rights arising from their status as the first peoples of New Zealand. Recognition of Indigenous rights is part of domestic and international law, and the Treaty is central to the relationship between Māori and the Crown.
But recognition of Indigenous rights does not remove the need to reconcile those rights with the democratic rights and interests of the wider population.
Self-determination can mean cultural protection, control over particular services, local decision-making or more extensive law-making authority. These are not interchangeable. The question is how far Māori participation should extend into public authority and how resulting powers should be balanced against the rights of other New Zealanders.
What does the overseas evidence establish?
Charters claims Harvard research demonstrates that Indigenous peoples outperform state governments economically, socially and culturally when they govern themselves.
That is broader than Harvard's own wording. The Harvard Project on Indigenous Governance and Development says Native nations can outperform “external decision-makers” when making their own development decisions. Its examples include comparisons with federal agencies such as the US Department of Indian Affairs, not a general finding that Indigenous governments outperform state governments.
The research provides evidence that effective Indigenous self-government can produce benefits. But it primarily concerns American tribal nations operating within a particular federal legal and political framework. It does not prove that every form of co-governance produces better outcomes, or that the same results would follow from extending tribal authority in New Zealand.
Similarly, the Canadian Supreme Court's 2024 decision upheld specific federal legislation recognising Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services. It was not a general ruling that Indigenous governance arrangements must prevail over elected government in all circumstances.
International examples can inform our debate. They cannot replace it.
The real issue is who governs
Charters argues that “one-law-for-all” sows division because it fails to recognise differences between peoples. But equal application of the law does not require cultural uniformity, nor does it prevent historical redress, Treaty settlements, protection of Māori language and culture, or Māori participation in public decision-making. It means that citizenship and fundamental legal rights should not depend upon ancestry.
New Zealand can recognise Māori history, honour Treaty commitments and consult iwi without automatically accepting a constitutional structure in which political authority is divided according to Indigenous status.
Describing power-sharing as commonplace does not establish that the particular arrangements Charters advocates are democratic, necessary or appropriate.
Before expanding co-governance, New Zealanders deserve clear answers: What powers are being shared? Who exercises them? Who is accountable? How are disagreements resolved? And what happens when an appointed governance body conflicts with the interests of the wider public?
Power-sharing may be a feature of democracy, but its existence does not make every form of it democratic by definition.
The real debate is not whether Māori should participate in New Zealand's governance, but how that participation should work within a democratic system that recognises the rights of all citizens.
One country. One citizenship. Equal rights. Equal responsibilities. Democratic accountability.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
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.