I’m guessing if you are from the Horowhenua district you will know of Brendan as he was the mayor of Horowhenua for 12 years.
If you are from the Taranaki area you will know of Bonita as she was a South Taranaki District councillor for nine years.
And Sue will be well known to Dunedinites as she was chief executive of the Dunedin City Council for seven years.
But most New Zealanders will not know these individuals: but we should!
These individuals are currently playing a very large role in how our cities and towns might be run in the future and quite probably, what our ‘democracy’ may look like in the future!
Because these three ‘government mandarins’, the senior government officials who are influential, powerful, and detached from elected politicians and political management, are the commissioners for the Local Government Commission.
This independent statutory body is tasked with making decisions on the structure of local government and to deliver said recommendations and decisions to the minister of Local Government.
And boy, have they come up with a doozey! A draft code of conduct for local authorities.
The above-mentioned three would have been involved in the configuration of the draft and most importantly, the authority and mandate of final sign off for delivery to the minister of Local Government!
It would be fair to say this draft has created a serious level of consternation and rightly so.
PART 2 – 6. EXPECTATIONS AND BEHAVIOURS OF MEMBERS – this is the section that is creating the greatest level of disquiet and unease.
- Members are expected to operate and make decisions in manner that recognises and respects the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi taking into account the following principles:
- Tino Rangatiratanga: The principle of self-determination provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake. This requires local authorities to be open to working with mana whenua partners in the design and delivery of their work programmes,
- Partnership: The principle of partnership implies that local authorities will seek to establish a strong and enduring relationship with iwi and Māori, within the context of iwi and Māori expectations. Kaunihera [council] should identify opportunities, and develop and maintain ways for Māori to contribute to kaunihera decisions and consider ways kaunihera can help build Māori capacity to contribute to council decision-making,
- Equity: The principle of equity requires local authorities to commit to achieving the equitable delivery of local public services,
- Active protection: The principle of active protection requires local authorities to be well informed on the wellbeing of iwi, hapū and whānau within their respective rohe,
- Options: The principle of options requires local authorities to ensure that its services are provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of te ao Māori.
The recommendations relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi are well deserving of closer, individual examination and analysis.
- Tino Rangatiratanga
We should all become very apprehensive when we see tino rangatiratanga being inserted in any clauses/documents/papers that pertain to our governance! Tino rangatiratanga translates literally as absolute sovereignty or self-determination. And Māori sovereignty activists unabashed goal is Māori sovereignty by 2040! Māori sovereignty meaning absolute sovereignty, self-determination, a separate parliament and autonomy for Māori people over their own lives!
This begs the question – do the Local Government Commission and its commissioners endorse the Māori sovereignty movement?
- Partnership
“…can help build Māori capacity to contribute to council decision-making…” Surely standing for election in a general ward, working alongside other elected members to make improvement for all citizens is unquestionably the best way to build Māori capacity and contribution?
For what reason does this commission believe that Māori need to be differentiated, prioritised, accentuated and given prominence over all other members of the community?
There is never a reason provided for the extra advancement by the proponents of Māori dispensation.
Is this not demeaning to Māori?
Is this not showing prejudice and bias towards the majority?
Can someone please explain why is it Māori can only contribute if they are bestowed with advantage!
The draft states “…that local authorities will seek to establish a strong and enduring relationship with iwi and Māori, within the context of iwi and Māori expectations”.
Why not simply say – “…local authorities will seek to establish a strong and enduring relationship with all members of the community”.
Why are “strong and enduring relationships” only required to be established with Māori?
Is there an ominous intent behind this requirement?
Are Māori expectations of the council that much different from the majority?
Why is our governance being deliberately enclosed in divisive frameworks?
Are the architects of this divisive jargon actually working against our democracy?
- Equity
Along with tino rangatiratanga, equity, or the demand for equity, is where we must be the most vigilant if we wish to stave off an ethnocracy!
Equity demands serve to conceal true intentions.
Equity is a contrived reasoning, concocted to distract in order to conceal the true purpose.
Equity is being used by Māori sovereignty proponents to obtain an advantage in order to further advance towards their sovereignty goal!
Equity is a system which strives for the equality of specific groups through targeted headway, facilitated by selected factors, e.g., ethnicity, gender, age and religious persuasion.
Equality, on the other hand, is the acknowledgement of the same status and rights of each and every person regardless of social status, race and political or religious beliefs – including their right to advance in society.
Equality of rights is a regime of individual liberty, while equality of results requires regulation and regimentation and thus the suppression of certain liberties. People enjoying equal freedom will use freedom differently and the results are, inevitably, going to be unequal.
A simple example is: Give 10 people $10,000 each on Friday. Chances are they will have unequal wealth by the following Friday.
The choices they made will change their results!
The fundamental mandate in the Treaty is the establishment of ‘equality of citizenship before the law’ – a level playing field.
So, where is equality in this draft?
Why not mention equality in this draft?
Again, is there a sinister reasoning behind this omission?
Equity is where the demands of Māori sovereignty activists and their acolytes who are ensconced in positions of influence are now concentrated.
In the battle to protect our democracy and the equality of our citizens, equality blurs and stumbles with the skewing of the equality construct by Māori sovereignty activists via their transposing of equity in place of equality.
Erroneous choices are now judged to be inequities requiring to be remedied by way of preferential treatment.
Self-inflicted failures now require financial assistance and a host of divisive, separatist legislation.
- Active protection
“…requires local authorities to be well informed on the wellbeing of iwi, hapū and whānau…”
Are councils now required to be nurse maids to Māori! How ridiculous is that requirement?
With treaty settlement billions, where are tribal leaders when it comes to the wellbeing of iwi, hapū and whānau?
I can only presume the writers and signatories to this draft believe poor old Joe Bloe ratepayer should be carrying the financial load here!
Our councils are elected to put the best interests of the whole community first – to represent all in the community. They are not elected to favour one section of the community!
Does benefaction, privilege and advantage for one ethnic section of our communities get any more preposterous?
What would be said if non-Māori were receiving this favouritism?
- Options
“…to ensure that its services are provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of te ao Māori”.
Te ao māori or the Māori world view. So, the Local Government Commission believes local councils and therefore ratepayers must recognise and support the Māori world view!
Why? What am I missing?
Isn’t it up to Māori communities to support their ‘world view’ just as it is up to other ethnic sections of the community support their culture?
Mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, kaitiakitanga and te ao Māori maybe how ‘government mandarins’, see New Zealand being governed, but is definitely not the view of mainstream New Zealand.
“…services are provided in a culturally appropriate way…” That is solely another avenue of ensuring ratepayers are burdened with exorbitant consultancy costs. Consultancy costs provided by… guess who!
These three must believe Māori are underprivileged and in need of further resources.
These three must believe Māori are disadvantaged and therefore, in need of further dispensation.
These three must believe Māori are victims of economic and colonial injustice.
These three must believe Māori have no voice in local body politics.
These three must believe Māori have been disenfranchised.
These three, by signing off on this discordant draft, exhibit a bias, a conviction and an agenda to drive more division into our neighbourhoods through Māori favouritism and partisanship!
Assigning their signatures to this document surely indicates that is true?
It would seem the Local Government Commission is quite deliberately misconstruing the Treaty of Waitangi by looking to compel local bodies to adopt ‘principles’ allegedly in the Treaty! Principles which simply are not!
This “code of conduct” is nothing but a Trojan horse for further race-based privilege, influence and, ultimately, control afforded to Māori!
The Local Government Commission is recommending local bodies impose that on ratepayers!
Privilege and influence that is quite contrary to and contradictory in intent to any dictate in the Treaty of Waitangi!
Worryingly, there will be a number of councils all too ready to jump on board and institute and entrench this blatant discrimination!
I think it was Nanaia Mahuta who said – “The control of New Zealand starts with the control of local bodies.”
The Local Government Commission must be of the same notion!
This article was originally published by No Minister and republished by Bassett, Brash and Hide.
