Reynold Macpherson, Chairman, Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers

On 19 November 2021, the RLC announced the outcomes of its Representation Review and preferences for the 8 October 2022 election.[1] A slim majority comprising Mayor Chadwick, Deputy Mayor Cr Donaldson, Cr Raukawa-Tait, Cr Yates, Cr Maxwell and Cr Wang supported both an ‘interim’ and an ‘ideal’ position on representation. Crs Bentley, Kai Fong, Kumar, Tapsell and I voted against these recommendations for various reasons. Rotorua’s citizens have one last chance to be heard.

On 31 August the RLC’s ‘Initial Proposal’ for public consultation was passed 7/4.[2] It called for one Mayor to be elected at large, one Māori ward with two seats, one General ward with four seats, four “At large” seats, a Rotorua Lakes Community Board with four seats and a Rotorua Rural Community Board with four seats.

There was no concern expressed over the election of a mayor or four members onto each of the two community boards, in my view because all voters would have equal voting power. There was, however, sustained disquiet expressed at workshops and meetings over the numbers of different types of seats for councillors. It is important to understand why and what was and what still is at stake; the soul of our community – te wairua o to tatou hapori.

The ‘Option 3’ model adopted by Council as the ‘Initial Proposal’ for consultations was for two seats for the Māori ward (2M), four seats for the General ward (4G) and 4 “At large” seats (4AL), ie. a 2M:4G:4AL model. This Option 3 was promoted by the Mayor, her group listed above and senior officials at workshops for elected members. Resistance came from Te Tatau o Te Arawa (Te Tatau) and Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers (RDRR). Why?

Te Tatau felt entitled to three Māori seats because that would be proportionate to the size of the Māori Electoral Population, evidently using the democratic criterion that all voting citizens are equal. Curiously, Te Tatau also expressed interest in also being able to vote for an At Large seat, resulting in the development of Option 2; Te Tatau’s preferred 3M:6G:1AL representation model.

RDRR agreed that the 19,791 citizens on the Māori Roll were entitled to three seats, and on the same ground of proportional representation, that the 51,618 citizens on the General Roll were entitled to seven seats. Hence, they argued for Option 1 (3M:7G). But more, they insisted that one of the human rights guaranteed by s12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights[3] be honoured;  that “every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years … [has] the right to vote in genuine periodic elections … [which] …  shall be by equal suffrage.”

The key point of difference between advocates of co-governance and democracy is that the former group promote voter parity while the latter promote equal suffrage. Equal suffrage means giving all voters equal voting power and therefore proportional representation. Voter parity means giving all voters in different electoral populations the same number of seats to fill irrespective of their numbers, and will inevitably result in disproportionate representation and anger in disadvantaged groups.

In Rotorua’s case, giving an equal number of votes to each citizen on each of the Māori and General electoral populations to elect the same number of representatives would give those on the Māori Roll over 2.6 times the voting power of those on the General Roll. More than doubling the voting power of some citizens based on their ethnicity would be an example of divisive gerrymandering to obtain a predetermined and incontestable outcome at odds with democratic principles and peaceful interculturalism.

These very different understandings were evident at the Public Hearings on 19 October. One clue was that most citizens presenting refused to be bounded by the chair’s invitation to comment only on the Initial Proposal. Most insisted on discussing the three options that pre-dated the Initial Proposal; Option 1 (3M:7G), Te Tatau’s Option 2 (3M:6G:1AL) and the RLC’s Initial Proposal once Option 3 (2M:4G:4AL). Another clue came at the end of the Public Hearings when the Mayor expressed her deep disappointment that so many apparently did not understand the partnership with Te Arawa and the need for co-governance.

It was helpful that the degree of public support for each of the various models was measured. Council’s analysis published on 16 November confirmed that 45 per cent preferred Option 1 (3M:7G), 33 per cent favoured 2M:3G:4AL+1Rural, 9 per cent supported Te Tatau’s Option 2 (3M:6G:1AL), 9 per cent favoured Other and only 4 per cent supported the Council’s Initial Proposal or Option 3 (2M:4G:4AL).[4]

Despite this blunt and contrary expression of public opinion, advocacy for co-governance models continued at the Forum for Elected Members on 21 October. In additional to voter parity being advanced once again to justify a new model, two grounds were reiterated regarding co-governance.

The Mayor’s claim that a new ‘interim’ 1M:1G:8AL model was needed to honour the Fenton Agreement was an unjustified stretch and probably a distraction. The Fenton Agreement in 1880[5] enabled the Government of the day to gain access to land and create a township. The breaches of the contract in the early 1890’s, the settlement with Ngati Whakaue in 1993, and the development of protocols in 1996 between the RLC and Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust (for the use and management of excluded reserves), together indicate that the Fenton Agreement has been honoured for the last 25 years.

Further, since there is nothing in the Fenton Agreement related to local governance structures, it appears that the claim that the 1M:1G:8AL model is needed to honour the Fenton Agreement also has the characteristics of a political ‘dog whistle’; the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition.

Similarly, the Mayor’s claim that the 1M:1G:8AL model was needed to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi also had ‘dog whistle’ characteristics. The only article of Te Tiriti that relates to local governance is the Third Article which promised that “the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.” [6]  Democratic citizenship locates sovereignty (the right to rule) equally in each eligible voter, not in ethnic affiliation. Individual sovereignty is aggregated through the ballot box and thereby gives consent to be governed exclusively by elected members until the next election. There is no enablement of co-governance in Te Tiriti or in current law.

The two final areas of concern are how Council’s decision-making at the November 19 Council meeting were manipulated towards ends predetermined by the Mayor and how the ‘interim’ model of 1M:1G:8AL may have been a disingenuous distraction. The ‘interim’ model could be rejected by the Local Government Commission on appeal. The Council empowered the Chief Executive to develop a Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, a Local Bill that is intended to install the ‘ideal’ 3M:3G:4AL representation structure.[7] The reason given for the Local Bill were: “The Council’s ideal representation arrangement is currently prevented by clause 2 of Schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001 as it does not satisfy the formula currently specified for calculating the number of Māori ward members of the Council.” Since the Local Government Commission is obliged to apply the same law, there is a real possibility that it could rule against the ‘interim’ 1M:1G:8AL model.

In sum, six elected members on Council supported both an ‘interim’ and an ‘ideal’ position on representation for the 8 October 2022 local elections. Five did not. The Local Government Commission will determine the rightness or otherwise of the ‘interim’ 1M:1G:8AL model next month using current law. The New Zealand Parliament may determine otherwise, depending on how quickly the Local Bill proceeds through the House, and if it is supported.

Council has made the Local Bill available for inspection from 2-23 March 2022.[8] It will then be submitted to the Office of the Clerk in Parliament along with a declaration from RLC’s Chief Executive that the public notice requirements have been met. The Bill will then be introduced to the House by MP Tamati Coffey and receive its first reading. It will then be referred for consideration by the Māori Select Committee who will accept public submissions and offer hearings.

Once the Select Committee’s report is available, the Bill receives its second and third readings. If passed the Bill is then prepared for assent by the Governor General and, once it has received Royal assent, becomes an Act of Parliament. If the Local Bill fails to receive Royal assent by 1 June then the ‘interim’ 1M:1G:8AL model will be implemented for the 8 October local elections, providing it has been endorsed by the Local Government Commission. If not, current arrangements with ten councillors elected At Large will continue and provide equal suffrage.

Finally, the Māori Select Committee will provide the last opportunity for Rotorua’s citizens to comment on how they should be represented in local government, the body empowered to govern the soul of our community. Say nothing and our Council’s co-governance assault on democracy by a slim majority will be successful.

[1] https://www.rotorualakescouncil.nz/our-council/news/news?item=id:2g4kgfbb81cxbydldva9

[2] https://www.rotorualakescouncil.nz/repository/libraries/id:2e3idno3317q9sihrv36/hierarchy/Meetings/Council%20Meeting/2021-08-31/PUBLIC%20Minutes%20Council%20meeting%2031%20August%202021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225511.html?search=sw_096be8ed80b62589_suffrage_25_se&p=1&sr=0

[4] p. 20 at https://www.rotorualakescouncil.nz/repository/libraries/id:2e3idno3317q9sihrv36/hierarchy/Meetings/Strategy%2C%20Policy%20%26%20Finance%20Committee/2021-11-16/Agenda%20Strategy%2C%20Policy%20%26%20Finance%20Committee%20Meeting%2016%20Nov%202021.pdf

[5] https://www.rotoruamuseum.co.nz/blog/social-history-blog/2017/11/24/fenton-agreement-1880-2030/

[6] https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/documents/treaty-kawharu-footnotes.pdf

[7] https://ehq-production-australia.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/e4e2dc266bc16289133f6f69045808fedff5352e/original/1645648216/214ff759e8aae7f9c74a82a7e70cb3d6_Rotorua_District_Council_Representation_Arrangeme-v10.0.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20220303%2Fap-southeast-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220303T034056Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=697273ad0c717076cab5bc37fdc6628a9c606a8da4415c7f2be96225bb874d77

[8] https://letstalk.rotorualakescouncil.nz/letstalk-rotorualakescouncil-nz-local-bill