Richard Prebble: Labour’s new kind of democracy

The Maori Affairs Select Committee is hearing evidence on why my vote in this year’s local election should be worth less than a vote in a Maori ward.

The Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangement) Bill proposes, among other things, to create a Maori ward and a general ward both electing three councilors. There are 21,700 voters on the Maori roll and 55,600 voters on the general roll. My vote will be worth 39% of a vote in the Maori ward.

There are six provisions in our law that are so important for democracy that they can only be changed by the vote of 75 percent in parliament or by a majority in a referendum. One is clause 36 of the Electoral Act that guarantees everyone regardless of race has an equal vote.

Graham Adams: Attorney-General belatedly steps up to defend democracy

As the Labour Government continues its push to undermine democracy in favour of an ethno-nationalist state, it was heartening late last week to see one of its most experienced ministers stand up for democratic process — albeit belatedly.

David Parker — wearing his Attorney-General’s hat — issued his determination on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill on Friday, unfortunately after the Māori Affairs Committee had already begun hearing oral submissions.

Despite being unfashionably late to the party, Parker fulfilled his obligations by declaring the bill — which would allow 21,700 voters on the Māori roll to elect three ward councillors while 55,600 voters on the general roll would also elect three ward councillors — to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. He concluded the bill would limit the right to be free from discrimination and “cannot be justified”.

The Attorney-General has, as Crown Law describes it:

Bryce Edwards: A polarising co-governance decision for Parliament

Co-governance is currently the most polarising issue in New Zealand politics. There’s something of a culture war over the concept of giving Māori voters or leaders a mandated equal political influence in public affairs. It’s an issue that has the potential to be socially explosive as plans are being developed and debated for how far the co-governance concept should be introduced in different areas of public life.

The co-governance issue of the day is whether local government elections could be altered so voters on the Māori electoral roll have the power to elect exactly the same number of councillors as those on the general role. The council in question is the Rotorua District Council, which has asked Parliament to give it legislative permission to introduce a new system for this year’s elections, allowing voters on the Māori and general rolls to elect three councillors each.

Critics point out that there are 22,000 voters on the Māori roll in Rotorua and 56,000 voters on the general roll, and that means voters on the Māori roll will have 2.5 times the electoral power as voters on the general roll.

Graham Adams: Ardern struggles to defend unequal suffrage

It is hardly surprising that the question of equal political rights for all New Zealanders is becoming a very touchy subject for Jacinda Ardern. Mid-way through her second term, that question is becoming every bit as sensitive for the Prime Minister as mention of KiwiBuild or a capital gains tax was in her first.

A major difference, of course, is that KiwiBuild and a CGT were policies she openly promoted and campaigned on in 2017. However, a comprehensive and far-reaching co-governance project to give more political rights to unelected iwi members and Māori voters never featured in her campaign for 2020’s “Covid” election.

Unfortunately, the very first clause of the Labour Party constitution inconveniently speaks against such manoeuvres:

NZCPR Newsletter: Animal Farm Democracy

New Zealand is one of the oldest democracies in the world. This system of government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ – that treats all citizens as equals before the law – has been a liberating force of human endeavour throughout the ages. We have indeed been fortunate in New Zealand that successive governments have faithfully upheld policies to protect our democracy as sacrosanct.

That is, until now.

Point of Order: Local Govt Commission over-rides Rotorua’s undemocratic voting model – but what will Labour-majority Parliament do?

Kiwiblog today reports that the Local Government Commission has completed a determination for Rotorua which will result in three Māori Ward Councillors being elected, but without sacrificing equality of suffrage.

As Kiwiblog tells us, the commission favours –

* An urban general ward – 48,410 people elect six councillors – 8,068 population per councillor.

 

* A Māori ward – 21,700 people elect three councillors – 7,233 population per councillor

* A rural general ward – 7,200 people elect one councillor – 7,200 population per councillor.

This means the commission has rejected Rotorua Lakes Council’s model which comprised one Māori ward seat, one general ward seat and eight at-large seats.

To implement the council model, special legislation has been introduced to Parliament to over-ride requirements of the Local Elections Act.

Point of Order: You thought voting rights and representation was a governance matter? Get to grips with the Treaty and sophistication

We were alerted by David Farrar to the further crumbling of local government democracy under the Ardern Government – or, as she would put it, to making our governance arrangements more sophisticated.

The outrage – or sophistication , depending on your ideology – goes further than Farrar reported in a post headed Parliament votes to end “one person, one vote” (although some of his readers picked up on it).

Yes, the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill abandons the key constitutional concept that all Kiwis have the same voting rights.

But check out how the government opted to deal with legislation which prescribes how the people of Rotorua will be able to vote and how their council will be structured. It is being treated as a Maori Affairs issue, not a local government issue.

Reynold Macpherson: Rotorua’s Manipulated Representation Decision

The evidence is that Council’s decision-making at the November 19 meeting over representation structures was manipulated towards ends predetermined by the Mayor; 50/ 50 co-governance.

How? Council’s agenda for 19 November proposed a “final representation model” of 1 Māori seat, 1 General seat and 8 At Large seats for councillors (1M:1G:8AL). It also sought to empower the Chief Executive to campaign for a law change to achieve the 3M:3G:4AL model that the Mayor and her supporters preferred, even though it had already been deemed to be unlawful by the Local Government Commission because it failed to meet the formula in law that guarantees proportional representation.

Mike McVicker: Maori Appointments to Council

The issue of Maori Wards on Councils has certainly been rearing its head around the Country recently. Here in Rotorua this political demand by Maori is certainly heating up again and will come to a head on Thursday 18^th December at the final Council meeting of the year. 

This week speculation proved to be correct when it was confirmed that our Mayor, Steve Chadwick, was behind a proposal to push significant change relating to Maori appointments through at this very last meeting. She was clearly hoping that the political fallout will fade over the Christmas holidays.

A very similar proposal to give Iwi two unelected representatives on the Rotorua District Council (now the Rotorua Lakes Council), plus 50% control of the Resource Management Committee was similarly launched by the Mayor in May. Once the public were alerted to this somewhat underhand move, it was flatly rejected by Rotorua ratepayers.

Reynold Macpherson: Nonsense reasoning behind council rebrand

On 27 November the Mayor and her Deputy announced that the Rotorua District Council was considering a name change to Rotorua Lakes Council to “refresh” its branding. On the following day we were told the decision had been made. The reasons given for ramming the decision through are silly, insulting to citizens and appear to be a frivolous waste of ratepayers’ money.

Mayor [Steve] Chadwick said that “the lakes defined the district”, hence the need for a change of name. Nonsense. The boundaries of the district define the district. That’s how the Rotorua District Council got its name. That’s why the rest of New Zealand will keep using the name.

It was then admitted on the 28^th that “the official name will remain unchanged”. So the ‘rebrand’ is only a symbolic change? A pretend name change. What a shambles.

Reynold Macpherson: Rotorua’s Mayor and Councillors Remain Accountable

The Council’s Te Arawa Partnerships Project proposal is at the Rotorua Muddy Waters website. It violates the principle of representative democracy and would give disproportionate power to a new Te Arawa Board. It is probably embarrassing to Te Arawa.

Te Arawa will know by now that the proposal is broadly unacceptable in our community. It has been given a hospital pass. A referendum would radicalise opinion, generate bitterness, and bury the proposal and hopes of a fresh settlement. Council needs to take back full responsibility for the quality of governance rather than outsourcing the challenge to one stakeholder.

Reynold Macpherson: Representational Democracy Mustn’t be Corrupted

I have been asked to comment on the proposal to allow a reconstituted Te Arawa Board the right to sit on Council committees, be party to the Resource Management Act decisions, and establish sub-committees, with the Council obliged to provide written explanations whenever they do not take their advice. If accurate, this additional power would enable Te Arawa Board to govern the Council.

Before reacting, all citizens need to see the full text before such fundamental changes to local governance are made, and long before any offer or decision is made by the Mayor and Council. It seems unwise and politically risky to hold privileged consultations and raise undeliverable expectations behind the scenes. Blaming the whistle blower for the mess is unworthy.