Bob Edlin: Open letter sharpens focus on the Treaty influence on governance

A champion of the growing practice of appointing iwi representatives to sit with elected representatives on local authority decision-making bodies didn’t have a great deal to say, when questions were emailed to her.

Much of the little she did say – published on Point of Order last month – has been challenged by Bruce Moon in an open letter posted on Breaking Views.

The thrust and parry were triggered by governance changes on the Hastings District Council, which last month voted to appoint Māori representatives with speaking and voting rights to its four standing committees.

Bob Edlin: Michael Laws says he WILL share a council seat with 'elected' Maori representatives

Democrats who bridle against some community groups being granted privileged access to local authority decision-making bodies risk being portrayed for what they oppose rather than for what they uphold.

Waatea News, reporting on bizarre constitutional goings-on in Otago, illustrates the point.

The Otago Regional Council (a strong majority, anyway) has voted in favour of enabling Ngai Tahu to choose two iwi members, representing four Otago rūnanga, to sit on its policy committee.

The appointees will have voting and speaking rights and join 12 elected councillors at the table.

Bob Edlin: Another Battle of Hastings – and one in the eye for those bloody democrats

It was the Battle of Hastings, 2019. On one side, the stalwarts of democracy intent on defending their ideal of the best form of government for their district.  On the other side, the champions of attenuated lines of accountability between citizens and those who govern them.

The democrats were outnumbered and the Hastings District Council – 33.3% of its members of Maori descent – voted to fortify iwi influence by appointing four members of the Maori Joint Committee to the council’s four standing committees.

This was decided after a debate which the NZ Herald curiously said became “divisive”, apparently because four councillors argued the decision should be taken to a public poll – a suggestion which, given the constitutional implications of the issue, had a great deal of merit.