Submission re Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill
Beatrice Ann (Paddi) Hodgkiss
Summary and Conclusion:
Rotorua is a multi-cultural community not a bicultural community, and as such all of all ethnicities should be treated equally. The LGC arrangement caters for this diversity. The decision of the Local Government Commission that Rotorua should be represented by 1 Māori ward of 3 seats, 1 general ward of 6 seats, 1 rural ward with 1 seat and the mayor voted “at large” is fair and fulfils requirements of the Local Government.
Rotorua needs good governance involving all ethnicities, not co-governance in which decisions are not equally shared.
The decision to forward RLC’s illegal representation arrangement to the LGC was a split vote, the mayor having the deciding vote. This demonstrates that the decision did not sit comfortably with 50% of the councillors. 156 of the 159 public submissions to Council objected to the proposal.
The arrangement proposed in the Representation Arrangement Bill is illegal.
There is massive conflict of interest, Tamati Coffey referring the bill he sponsored to the Select Committee he chairs. This suggests that the decision will not be impartial and is likely pre-determined.
Why is it that those who complain of racism are actively proposing a bill based on racism?
The Fenton Agreement should not be used as an excuse for submitting the Bill. The updated version (1993) states “full and final settlement”.
Passing the bill will signify the beginning of the end of democracy as it is defined both at a local level and national level.
I realise it would be very difficult for Tamati Coffey to reject a bill he himself sponsored. Trust in his integrity, the rapidly reducing integrity of RLC and that of this government is at serious risk. Blinkered vision is not the pathway to good and fair governance.
“Have we reached the ultimate of absurdity where some people are being held responsible for things that happened before they were born…” Thomas Sowell, world-renowned African- American US economist, historian and social theorist, 1930 –
Regrettably for Rotorua as a district and New Zealand as a whole, the answer to the above statement is “yes”.
In view of my submission I request that the Māori Affairs Select Committee should honour the commitment made by the Labour Government in its 2020 manifesto: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset”, and refuse Mayor Chadwick and Tamati Coffey’s demand for the unfair representation arrangement proposed for Rotorua Lakes Council.
Having rejected the Local Government Commission’s arrangement proposal, the “major decision about local democracy” should be deferred till such time as there has been the “full participation of the local population”.
I suggest a local referendum at a later date and that the representation arrangement determined by the Local Government Committee be adopted for the next two local council elections.
Introduction:
On 7th April the Local Government Commission announced its decision that determined the Rotorua district should be represented by 1 Māori ward with 3 seats, 1 general ward with 6 seats and 1 rural ward with 1 seat, a total of 10 councillors, and the mayor voted “at large”. There are approximately 22,000 Māori and 56,000 non-Māori residents in Rotorua (approx 8,210 Māori and 38,830 non-Māori voters) hence this decision fulfilled the proportional representation requirements of the Local Electoral Act, the weight of each vote being proportional, 1 person, 1 vote.
Prior to the hearing RLC / LGC, Council had been proposing a representation of 3 Māori Seats, 3 general seats and 6 at large, but that is illegal. A day before the hearing it announced an interim representation of 1 Māori seat, 1 general seat and 8 at large, undoubtedly knowing full well that this would in no way be approved by the Commission, as it was not. Can I suggest that this, with its minimal notice, was a backdoor means to present the initial proposal as the Bill currently before the Māori Affairs Select Committee.
It is regrettable that presumably, pre-empting that the LGC’s decision would never decide in its favour, RLC had prepared its local Representation Arrangement Bill to overturn the LGC decision and co-opted Tamati Coffey (Labour list MP) to sponsor it in the House (8th April – coincidently, the day after the release of the LGC decision). This 1 Māori ward with 3 seats, 1 general ward with 3 seats and 4 “at large” seats is currently illegal in New Zealand. It is not “fair”. Why is what is good for the rest of New Zealand not good enough for Rotorua? The introduction of RLC’s Representation Arrangement Bill is obviously designed to bypass the LEA in order for RLC to “get what it wants” irrespective of how.
Conflict of interest:
There is an obvious conflict of interest that must be addressed.
Why did the proposer of the Bill, Tamati Coffey, not forward the bill to the Governance and Administration Select Committee, a committee more aligned to council governance issues? It is morally and ethically reprehensible that he forwarded it to the Māori Affairs Select Committee, a committee which he chairs! That possibility should not even have crossed his mind. He should have declared a conflict of interest, as any morally and ethically responsible person would, and not even be on the committee for this case!
This immediately suggests that he and the government had determined that the analysis of the proposal is to be on racial lines, not as a true governance issue. It is appalling that those who complain of racism against them are actively promoting an agenda based on racism. This throws the impartiality and fairness of both Tamati Coffey, the Select Committee and this government into serious disrepute. One must be forgiven for thinking that any decision made by the Select Committee will not be impartial. Government and its committees should not only appear to be fair, honest and transparent, they must be fair, honest and transparent. I would not like to see our government dragged down to the level of those of many countries in the world where fraud and deviousness have become the norm.
Fenton Agreement:
There are multiple mentions of the Fenton Agreement with Ngati Whakaue in both the proposed Bill and the discussion of it (Parliament 8th April 2022), and differing interpretations of its meaning.
In 1993 Ngati Whakaue reached an agreement with the Crown to settle their grievances from the original Fenton Agreement, 1880. The words of 1993 Agreement are explicit and include “full and final settlement” with the Crown that settled “any claims whether legal or Treaty-based arising from any alleged Crown acts or omissions since February 1840 that relate to …… any land within the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Block”. The wording above is precise and can only be interpreted one way – “full and final settlement’.
I suspect the representation arrangement review was seen as an opportunity to dredge up perceived maltreatment from perceived alternative interpretations of the explicit words of a generation ago. Why not forgive (if there is actually anything to forgive) and get on with transparent governance where Rotorua is not a separate entity within the one country where the 1 person, 1 vote prevails? Why reduce democracy to a mere word in Rotorua?
Discussion of the Bill:
Rino Tirikatene states the adopting of the Bill would provide a “fair representative partnership…. because it would give equal weight and equal balance”.
Note: the Oxford dictionary definition of “fair” includes “unbiased’, “impartial”. The Electoral Commission ruling provides this, the Bill does not.
Eugenie Sage commented that it “better recognises the diversity of Rotorua’s community”.
Note: The Oxford definition of “diversity” includes “variety”, heterogenicity”. Yes, Rotorua is a diverse, multi-ethnic community. The Bill does nothing to recognise diversity, in reality, quite the opposite. It stifles diversity by giving more influence pro-rata to just one of those ethnicities. Votes will not be given equal value.
The priority of local government should be to enable democratic decision-making for the benefit of all in a balanced and impartial manner. Being embroiled in the inevitable side issues adoption of this Bill would create will divert time, resources and money away from the primary function of Council, ie providing and maintaining core services. To date preparing the representation paper has cost RLC approximately $50,000, money ratepayers can ill afford. It is doubly galling that Council has spent ratepayers’ money preparing a case for something most don’t want! Rotorua Lakes Council has a rapidly rising debt with minimal capability to control and reduce it. What RLC needs is good governance, management and problem-solving. Rather than focusing on good governance, this Bill seems to be aimed at co-governance.
There has been minimal media coverage both in the lead-up to and sponsoring of the Bill and its brief predecessor. Is that because the Bill does not actually have the support of Rotorua as a whole? Of the submissions made to RLC when the representation arrangement was first proposed, 156 opposed it and only 3 supported it. That makes Tamati Coffey’s comment that “This is what they want”, hardly true! Neither was it fully supported by the vote at Council 6-5, the mayor having the deciding vote. Not only not what “they want”, it is not even what 5 of the 10 councillors wanted!
Rotorua’s diverse community has been well represented on Council for many years. It is not, as many may surmise, the domain of “old, white men”. Māori have been represented on Council in its different permutations since 1887 (J T Morrison). Sir Peter Tapsell was deputy mayor 1979 – 1983.
In 1978 Rotorua City Council amalgamated with Rotorua County Council. Since then, Moari have held 84 seats, some of those seats have been held for many years. Hardly the under representation Tamati Coffey has alluded to.
Currently RLC consists of 4 of Māori background, 3 of European background (one of whom has iwi affiliations) and 3 of Asian background. Councillors have been voted in on ability, not ethnicity. Council comprises 40% Māori yet they account for just under 30% on the electoral roll, so definitely well represented. And have been for a long time, for which Tamati Coffey should be well pleased.
It would seem that this Bill is being rushed through given there are only 2 weeks for submissions and with the decision to be released less than 2 months later, rather than the usual and accepted 6 months. One could be forgiven for thinking that the decision has been predetermined, thus yet another example of submissions and the will of the majority being ignored. This is not something a local council, much less our government, should be endorsing.
It is also alarming that what should have been a local government issue adjudicated by the LGC, an independent statutory body established by the government, has been thrust into the Central Government arena. This has demeaned the Local Government Commissioners. This Bill is perceived by many as opportunity to promote a Central Government agenda at a local level. It has certainly further negatively impacted on RLC and people’s already waning trust in it.
In New Zealand most of us still expect our government to be honest and transparent and accept its own rulings and the results of rulings made by independent commissions answerable to it, irrespective of the result. Similarly, the same should be expected of local government. RLC should have accepted the ruling of the LGC. It is sad to think that the mayor and her loyal supporters, knowing that the decision of the LGC would not be favourable for them, co-opted a local MP to effectively “do their dirty work” by presenting a Bill proposing to legitimise their currently illegal council representation arrangement proposal.
This is setting a dangerous precedent not only at a local government level but also at central government level. Central government meddling in an individual local body’s affairs suggests deviousness and underhand activity. Pushing through the Representation Arrangement Bill, something that most Rotorua citizens don’t want (they want proportional representation within a Māori ward, a general ward and a rural ward as per the rest of New Zealand) is going to further erode what trust many once had for both RLC and this government.
Passing the Bill would be the beginning of the end of “1 person – 1 vote”, the cornerstone of democracy in New Zealand and one of the main reasons peace has lasted for so long. We need only look at many countries in the world to see examples of the slow death of democracy and its regrettable repercussions. The ideal world that supporters of this Bill desire does not exist, in part because the Bill is divisive and polarising. Can RLC and the government accept that a decision supporting the Bill will not benefit either the Rotorua district or New Zealand as a whole? I doubt it. There is too much anger supporting it.
It will also suggest that government commissions are no longer necessary or relevant in decision making because, by devious means they can be circumvented, again a nail in the coffin for democracy.
The arrangement set by the LGC is fair and equitable and most in Rotorua support that council composition and that the decision was reached impartially, with no racial bias.
I have full faith that the model proposed by the LGC is fair and equitable and will best serve the collective interests of Rotorua irrespective of ethnicity. Rotorua must be regarded and treated as a ‘normal’ part of New Zealand as a whole, not a separate entity with its own representation arrangement, one which is illegal under the Electoral Act. Based on this, the Select Committee must reject the Representation Arrangement Bill. “We are one” has been a catch phrase of our Prime Minister. The passing of this Bill would mean that statement is no longer valid because Rotorua will be annexed as a separate entity operating under re-written local government representation.
Summary:
Rotorua is a multi-cultural community not a bicultural community, and as such all of all ethnicities should be treated equally. The LGC arrangement caters for this diversity. The decision of the Local Government Commission that Rotorua should be represented by 1 Māori ward of 3 seats, 1 general ward of 6 seats, 1 rural ward with 1 seat and the mayor voted “at large” is fair and fulfils requirements of the Local Government.
Rotorua needs good governance involving all ethnicities, not co-governance in which decisions are not equally shared.
The decision to forward RLC’s illegal representation arrangement to the LGC was a split vote, the mayor having the deciding vote. This demonstrates that the decision did not sit comfortably with 50% of the councillors. 156 of the 159 public submissions to Council objected to the proposal.
The arrangement proposed in the Representation Arrangement Bill is illegal.
There is massive conflict of interest, Tamati Coffey referring the bill he sponsored to the Select Committee he chairs. This suggests that the decision will not be impartial and is likely pre-determined.
Why is it that those who complain of racism are actively proposing a bill based on racism?
The Fenton Agreement should not be used as an excuse for submitting the Bill. The updated version (1993) states “full and final settlement”.
Passing the bill will signify the beginning of the end of democracy as it is defined both at a local level and national level.
I realise it would be very difficult for Tamati Coffey to reject a bill he himself sponsored. Trust in his integrity, the rapidly reducing integrity of RLC and that of this government is at serious risk. Blinkered vision is not the pathway to good and fair governance.
“Have we reached the ultimate of absurdity where some people are being held responsible for things that happened before they were born…” Thomas Sowell, world-renowned African- American US economist, historian and social theorist, 1930 –
Regrettably for Rotorua as a district and New Zealand as a whole, the answer to the above statement is “yes”.
Conclusion:
In view of my submission I request that the Māori Affairs Select Committee should honour the commitment made by the Labour Government in its 2020 manifesto: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset”, and refuse Mayor Chadwick and Tamati Coffey’s demand for the unfair representation arrangement proposed for Rotorua Lakes Council.
Having rejected the Local Government Commission’s arrangement proposal, the “major decision about local democracy” should be deferred till such time as there has been the “full participation of the local population”.
I suggest a local referendum at a later date and that the representation arrangement determined by the Local Government Committee be adopted for the next two local council elections.