Co-Governance is our democracy

By
Stephen Minto
-
108
2394
Chris Trotter on 3 November wrote ‘David Parker rejects Co-Governance’.  It’s more likely that Mr Parker is just following up on his early declaration that the revision of the resource management process is purely a procedural pull together and no policy changes are planned to be part of this process.  Co-governance would be a policy change.
 
However, the articles premise is co-governance is at variance with both ‘the liberal-democratic catechism of universal human-rights and freedoms (the freedom of expression in particular) as well as the good old democratic-socialist creed that bound the Labour Party and the Ratana Church together’. This is simply not true. 
 
There is nothing inherently anti-democratic or racist in co-goverance. If it is then many existing, laws, diplomatic treaties or trade treaties are anti-democratic and racist, i.e., they were written mostly by older white pakeha business men with a business perspective, advancing those perspectives; and if this is racist or anti democratic I don’t hear a lot of media or political talk about it.  
 
Co-governance is in the Treaty and it is the central part of our unwritten constitution whether we like it or not. Supporting co-governance is nothing about ‘woke’ politics but it is about being literate enough to read. Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty confirm and protect property rights for Maori.  Co-governance could be seen as simple consultation over property rights, and consultation is what happens now with changes that affect property rights for any New Zealander. Therefore to deny co-governance to Maori is to deny fundamental recognition of their property rights as provided for in the Treaty and embed pakeha dominance over their property. In the Treaty; and not just in english common law.
 
That distinction is best seen in how Maori collective ownership structures were deliberately and systematically undermined by the government appointed Land Courts. Collective ownership was specifically respected under the Treaty but the courts broke that down for sales. It could be argued almost all decisions of the land courts can be overturned as they contradict the Treaty. By contrast european models of collective ownership, companies and Trusts, were favoured. And history shows that a few Maori MP’s in Parliament were woefully inadequate to protect Maori land property rights. And this dominance will continue without co-goverance, or at the very least a better constitution than we have now.  
 
In terms of co-governance impacts on democracy, and this seems to be the area of concern in the article; I can’t see it.  Without the identification of a problem its hard to discuss the impact. So let’s do a few thought experiments. 
 
So for 3 waters the cynical might well say Maori will just see the board member/representative positions as plum jobs for some of their elites. I am not in a position to know or comment on how transparent or democratic processes are in any Maori groups. There certainly does seem to be some problems at times, e.g., Shelly Bay in Wellington is recorded as sold but many Maori had voted not to sell. So perhaps they need to consider changes in process, constitutions? But like a private company I can’t tell them what to do. And where is the impact on my democratic rights? I can still complain, freedom of expression.
 
The much vaunted local body election accountability rights are a farce. In Wellington we had multiple Mayors, almost all of a conservative bent, elected by claiming to be fiscally careful and focused on essential infrastructure.  It was all lies. They left before we found out about our underfunded and failing infrastructure, so there is no accountability. When it comes to specific knowledge and skill sets, e.g., on fresh water and sewage, society has to rely on experts and voting does not always bring the experts. In the old days we had bureaucrats looking after our electricity network and on the whole they did it really well for a fraction of the cost to the currently largely privately owned model.  The democratic control was exercised at a higher national level. 
 
In another utility; voters in the control rooms of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island would have made no positive difference to those outcomes.  Accountability and excellence in service provision is clearly something beyond having voter accountability,  e.g. I applaud the removal of voting for hospital board members who I had tiny bits of information about when voting. The fight to have ‘equal’ voter rights is simply not relevant to the outcomes. So co-governance is ‘equal’ partnership and by itself in 3 waters, it does not threaten quality or democracy. And Maori like other people have many voices and are not a block vote that works in simple unity. They will represent a diversity of views.
 
But there is a fear that somehow co-governance will constrain democracy but we already know our democratic system has significant constraints and people seem fine with that! For example a majority want action on climate change. But the experience under MMP with Mr Peters, who with about 10% of the vote, was able under our constitution/system to be the tail wagging the dogs National and Labour. We were very lucky that Mr Peters was happy to work within the baubles of power to achieve his aims. But it won’t be long before we experience ideologues advancing extremist positions for personal gain; like in the US and Israel.  Therefore our parliamentary system is a burning bridge for why we need a robust written constitution so that small parties can’t shut down government via stonewalling. Some want no government. So there are existing constraints on democracy that nobody seems to worry about. If you want to improve democracy you need a quality written constitution. The issue is not co-governance with Maori.
 
For accountability in co-governance, e.g., three waters, the organisation will be bound by an objective/purpose to ensure a clean and reliable supply of water and waste removal. This binds the work of those governing bodies into a task that supports the democratic wish and needs of the people. The objectives can be changed by parliament if problems arose. There will be accountable by criticism about the facts on the ground and that is democracy. Nothing to fear here. So let’s stop fearing Maori.   

108 COMMENTS

  1. “Co-governance is in the Treaty and it is the central part of our unwritten constitution whether we like it or not.”

    Actually, it’s not in the Treaty and an unwritten constitution is worth exactly the same as the paper it’s written on.

  2. Co governance is absolutely not in the treaty but 100% British sovereignty is, leading from this all other conclusions given are completely wrong.
    Is this article deliberate misinformation?

  3. It starts with co-governance, and then all governance. Power is a drug, more you have, the more you need. Today even 2 blood brothers struggle to equally share power.

    Just as a large company cannot have 2 CEOs co-governing, a country can not have 2 rulers co-governing. The power struggle will create unforeseen results.

  4. No surprise that this brand of Minto was a Wellington bureaucrat.

    I increasingly feel that the co-governance etc woke shitstorm is now at such a point where it has become so out of touch with the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders (yes not Aotearoan’s Stephen) that it has now set itself up for a massive reversal a’ la the White Terror in revolutionary France (other historical parallel’s that spring to mind are the Khmer Rouge and their ‘year Zero’ or the Chinese Cultural Revolution) . .

    Undoubtedly the coming ‘course correction’ will be less bloody but it may be so far-reaching that Maori risk losing many of the gains that they have legitimately made over the last few decades (that perhaps they would not have lost otherwise).

    For Robespierre and Marat read Labour’s Maori caucus / Willi Jackson etc . .

    “The White Terror (French: Terreur Blanche) was a period during the French Revolution in 1795 when a wave of violent attacks swept across much of France. The victims of this violence were people identified as being associated with the Reign of Terror – followers of Robespierre and Marat, and members of local Jacobin clubs. The violence was perpetrated primarily by those whose relatives or associates had been victims of the Great Terror, or whose lives and livelihoods had been threatened by the government and its supporters before the Thermidorean Reaction. Principally, these were, in Paris, the Muscadins, and in the countryside, monarchists, supporters of the Girondins, those who opposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and those otherwise hostile to the Jacobin political agenda.[1]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_White_Terror

  5. Non NZ citizens can vote in NZ after arriving for 1 year, not being a citizen, not speaking the language, not needing to work or pay taxes here and we have a mass immigration policy that allows practically anybody into NZ to vote, which can easily skew results in a small population country. Other countries do not allow this.

    As for Maori co-governance, all NZ citizens should be able to vote, 1 vote per person. Don’t believe in changing this.

    Every rule in NZ from resource consents to getting into medical school allows better access to Maori, – the problem is that for decades big, neoliberal, international, business interests decide everything in NZ. NZ has a money/class issue more than a racial issue.

    Co-governance will not solve NZ’s obsession with globalist capitalism, anti intellectualism and exploitation of labour and our environment. Only better enforcement of current rules and changing rules to help the environment under climate change will help.

  6. Democracy is an absolute not a variable degree. You either have it or you don’t. It’s like being somewhat pregnant.
    If you want to change from democracy to something else then have a debate on that. Don’t gerrymander the facts by relabelling them as to what they are. That is a neoliberal trick. No doubt our custom is also important to you…
    Personally I prefer democracy. One person one vote majority determined. It’s hard to argue against the logic of that. Having extra votes and political power based on race, religion, gender, land ownership or money cannot be considered democracy in any definition. At least keep the debate honest.

  7. They have given our water rights away https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1904/S00055/nz-government-secretly-funded-water-bottling-companies.htm but in true managerial class, think that a new premise and thousands of staff billing the taxpayer will change the lack of enforcement and stupidity that they have allowed to happen under both National, ACT, Greens and Labour.

    ‘Outrageous’: Taxpayers foot $2.1m bill for controversial Three Waters Auckland HQ
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/flash-office-space-leased-in-auckland-to-bed-in-the-governments-three-waters-reforms/7UAKFS5TVFFOHK7ACRDAZ2V7HY/

    We have neoliberal left Mayors in Auckland for decades, staff keep increasing, costs keep increasing, debt keeps increasing, services for rate payers keep decreasing.

    Labour and Greens are National policy with woke marketing.

    • Ever noticed how much managerial in charge in NZ love to give themselves new premises while NZ kids are in grotty motels and they keep adding to demand with an open door immigration policy for NZ welfare? Be Kind people!

      Revealed: Kāinga Ora spent over $24m of taxpayer money in four years on its own office renovations
      https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/03/revealed-kainga-ora-spent-over-24m-of-taxpayer-money-in-four-years-on-its-own-office-renovations.html

      Mike Lee: Civic Administration Building sale is a lose-lose
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mike-lee-civic-administration-building-sale-is-a-lose-lose/V76L7Q4JTATRVR2DONYWU5Z64Y/

      “Auckland Council’s fire sale of the Civic Administration Building (CAB) for a paltry $3 million – with (less than) $100,000 down and the balance upon sale of apartments – is probably the worst example of public property value destruction in the history of Auckland local government.

      Built as Auckland’s first skyscraper, of modernist architecture in 1966, the CAB was carefully sited near the Town Hall on land acquired by the former Auckland City Council to form a civic square. Aotea Square was opened by mayor Dove Myer Robinson in 1979 and completed with the opening of the Aotea Centre by mayor Cath Tizard in 1990. At that time, Auckland City extracted all the asbestos that was accessible and practicable to extract from the CAB, confirmed by regular air testing for fibre asbestos indicating the building “was safe for normal occupation” by council staff.

      Even before the new Super City had been established in November 2010, I was informed that its incoming leading bureaucrats intended to buy the ASB Bank tower at 135 Albert St for their new headquarters. A year later, a slim majority of Auckland councillors were persuaded to go along with buying the 29-storey Albert Street tower. This was purchased in mid-2012 for $104m followed soon after by $24.5m spent on a plush interior “fit out”.

      Evidently so eager were council managers to move into to what staff call “the proud tower”, only cursory due diligence was undertaken. A council finance manager later explained (with unintended irony) that this normal commercial procedure was thought “too costly”. Compounding this blunder, the council waived the building warranty. This would prove to be very expensive for Auckland ratepayers.”

      New $120m office building in Albany for Auckland Council a step closer
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122724051/new-120m-office-building-in-albany-for-auckland-council-a-step-closer

  9. The co-governance debate is interesting, however, being that it is impossible to show where co-governance is not in the Treaty, are you able to quote where it is in the Treaty, Stephen. The “yes it is/no it isn’t” argument wastes so much valuable time.

  10. Co governance is not co anything
    The Urewera National Park was given to Tuhoi under a co governance arrangement which stated it had to be run by iwi and DOC with access for all New Zealanders
    It is now being run by some Tuhoi leaders for Tuhoi alone.
    The huts are being removed, the track is unusable, the pests are being unchecked and DOC don’t want to know. The politicians and Tuhoi say it’s their business and no one else has a say
    Welcome to Aoteatoa 2040 under co governance

  11. I’m not going to argue Treaty Rights as that is a can of worms. But I think that at it’s most pragmatic Co Governance is going to cause headaches and jockeying for power. And given Mahuta’s background, it will be a Tribal Power Grab particularly on behalf of the King Movement/Tainui.

    See: https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/tuku-morgan-and-three-waters

    And then there is the wonderfully successful Te Urewera Co Governance where the guardianship of the land means excluding others and letting predators endanger the entire eco system and that of surrounding areas.

    Co Governance may bring some benefits for Maori but that remains to be quantified. Whether it is a benefit to all Maori and a benefit in cost effectiveness to the taxpayer, also remains to be seen.

  12. A sane analysis of the issue – thank you for that. Probably not going to make a huge difference to the chorus of hysteria from the newly awakened defenders of sacred Pakeha democracy.

  14. Gee we have some really dumb Pakeha people in our country many know nothing about the TOW, nor do they want to. Many are really ignorant racist bigots and many of them talk the same old shit on this site. Stephen has laid it out for you, but you are too blind and dumb you cannot see.

  15. I was willing to listen to the case for co-governance until the situation around the Urewera National Park. Its an appalling state of affairs now and if this is what co-governance looks like then I’ll pass.

  18. Can someone explain why Maori Land is rated? it can’t be sold so it’s value is zero and so should the rates.

  19. I’m sick of ideas being pushed. What about outcomes being thought out that would poduce utilitarian outcomes, then compare that lot of outcomes with others that cater for niche interests. Do they need different pathways to achieve them all?

    Then look at the pathways to the outcomes with time for monitoring and reflection on the way and small adjustments or corrections. Go straight to the horses mouth and find out what sort of oats or whatever, it wants. Cut the cackle, it wastes precious money and time, Note the persiflage further up in this post.

Comments are closed.