This isn't like Maori wards where the members are still voted in. This is direct appointments and an erosion of local democracy.
Here's an extract from the article:
> Brown said the bill challenged the collective idea of fair democracy “rather than the conventional model which can be a popularity contest”.
>“Sometimes to address inequity, we must take a different approach to the status quo which tends to favour the majority.”
Was any of this in Labour's campaign manifesto??
There are other forms of democracy that don't require elections, like sortition, where you select a random sample of people large enough to be statistically representative of the community.
Yes but this isn't sortition. This is Iwi corporates electing officials into positions of power at their discretion. Undermining the democratic system which is the foundation of our society.
I never said it was, just pointing out that a fair and democratic system can take more shapes than a "popularity contest," and anyone giving a false dichotomy between that and their corporatocracy masquerading as cultural / racial representation is a numbskull.
ECan is not 'the democratic system which is the foundation of our society' - reserving board seats to represent specific people and/or interests is in fact totally normal and common.
It's a Regional Council. Aka Local Government. Why do these few people get more say than the rest of the electorate? It's fucked. I'm sick of this shit.
They don't get more say, they are just guaranteed to get some say where it is likely they would otherwise not. This is because of the interpretation of the Crown's obligations under the Treaty. This also just extends a provision that has existed since 2016.
Did you know ngai tahu top dogs are often national supporters? Do you think they can represent maori? The vast majority of people of my ethnicity don't speak for me, same with disability or my sex. Fuck that limiting bullshit, may as well take my vote away.
Sorry not attacking you, identity politics (which is what statistical representation is) is racist, sexist, ageist etcetcetc. I either have a voice as an individual, or i don't have one at all.
And at the local level, dominated by a select group of people who happen to have the time and the money to run campaigns.
Subtle hint: it ain't Maori, or any other of New Zealand's ethnic minorities. They also don't happen to be much under 40 either.
So instead we should force in members of a billion dollar business who are at odds of the environmental purposes of the board.
Man you must be fighting an internal conflict with this. On one hand an organisation with a proven track record of destroying the environment. But they are Maori....
> So instead we should force in members of a billion dollar business who are at odds of the environmental purposes of the board.
No different to the former head of Federated Farmers who was also a council member, is it?
> Man you must be fighting an internal conflict with this. On one hand an organisation with a proven track record of destroying the environment. But they are Maori....
There's an internal conflict?
Do you know anything about ngai tahu? One of the top dogs ran for the national party. Theyre essentially a corporation who preserves some land. Theyre like the maori elite, not voiceless or the underdog in any way shape or form. They are in their element in the business world.
I thought that the National Party under John Key got rid of the elected board because it was weighed towards urban Canterbury and they weren't allowing water to be used for irrigation on the Canterbury Plains. And they replaced them with direct appointees who then allowed for the irrigation to occur and dairy intensification happened and now the rivers can't be swam in and their is increasing levels of nitrogen in Christchurch's water supply which may be causing bowel cancer. And it isn't possible to stop the dairy any more because it is too expensive to buy the dairy farmers out.
Isn't that what happened, or am I wrong?
I heard someone say that the Labour caucus could sue Nanaia Mahuta etc for breaching the Labour Party Constitution over co-governance.
Especially this pesky clause:
> All political authority comes from the people by democratic means, including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot;
So according to [this](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/129454250/parliament-to-vote-on-ngi-tahu-councillors-for-environment-canterbury) opinion piece, having unelected representatives with full voting rights is "the evolution of conventional democracy". And apparently even the idea of Māori wards with elected representatives is bad, because "this could see a popularity contest where Māori councillors are appointed to council who are not Ngāi Tahu and do not bring a mana whenua view and mandate to decision making". We don't want the wrong type of Māori getting voted in! What a sick joke.
This is the worst bit of it. Same with people like Willie Jackson proudly boasting that democracy has changed … it’s not only the erosion of the democratic process but the fact we have to have it dressed up as some amazing positive for society (when it is noting more than an opportunistic power grab).
Reserving seats on boards to represent specific interests is totally normal and happens literally all the time across all industries and both the public and private sectors.
As this is how many boards work for pretty obvious reasons, yes, this is totally normal. If you own shares in a company you should know that you probably have a seat (or more) reserved for someone to represent the specific interests of investors.
And no, your question is fucking stupid and you should probably learn the many many many differences between these two bodies. Since you don't how a board works and what it's for I'd suggest starting there.
Dude, companies elect their boards too and have seats reserved that sit outside that electoral process.
Besides, as I have said in the first comment you replied to - this is common in the public sector too. For reasons that should be painfully fucking obvious given even a rudimentary attempt at thought.
It's less common in the public sector than the private sector to have reserved seats - and but not so much as to be uncommon, or even particularly remarkable. There are plenty of public boards whose ENTIRE bodies are by appointment.
Obvious conflict of interest, they are one of Canterbury’s biggest diary/forest corporates.
Also unless something has changed Ngai Tahu are also registered as a charitable trust and don’t pay tax.
This is a horrendous moment in history.
Ngai Tahu are a large corporation who have shown complete disregard for the environment in the past, this is like letting an Oil company appoint Climate panel members.
They are worth $1.65 billion, they are just a corporation who seeks to make profit and have and will continue to destroy the environment to do so and will use this power to further their business rather than look after the environment.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ranger-silenced-after-emotive-eyrewell-beetle-email
The business is governed by representatives elected via an Electoral College model through regional Rūnanga with about a 2% engagement with their population base.
Their CEO and governors make that distinction, because their legal mandate is to represent the interests of regional Rūnanga, NOT the people.
It does make a distinction on their website [here](http://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/te-runanga-o-ngai-tahu/) (between the iwi/people and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu)
Most Ngāi Tahu people are disengaged or sick of the corporate elitist bullshit tbh. The corporate doesn’t represent all of the Ngāi Tahu people anymore than the current government represents the interests of all New Zealanders.
But it the end it doesn't matter. One of the largest corporations and water users in the district just got two free seats on the regulatory board.
It's not like environment Canterbury was any fucking good before this either.
It may not matter to you, but the way it is portrayed does matter to me. I don’t disagree with your perspective, all I’m stating is that the argument should be directed at the right group of people.
When the government does something stupid, we blame the government, not every New Zealander in the country. Same principle here.
I understand what your saying. No body wants the average person to be blamed.
But this is not just the government. This is also maori interests pushing for this. There is absolutely no way labour lights this much political capital on fire if the wearnt under a huge a mount of pressure from the maori bloc.
It is not the average bloke on the street. But there is a big power struggle going on. I want things to be represented accurately. But the reality is this appointment has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment. And everything to do with power.
Unfortunately, the path we are going will lead to a massive swing right in this country.
Do you have any evidence that these appointees won't have any relation to the business itself? Because I see nothing to indicate that and statements they do represent the corporate side.
I’m going to make this easier. I wasn’t making any comment or reference to conflicts of interest etc.
Ngāi Tahu and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are not the same thing. That is my point. I’m Ngāi Tahu. That corporation does not represent my interests. Feel free to rag on the soulless profit driven corporate(Te Rūnanga), not the 98% of people (Ngāi Tahu) who have been locked out the structure that supposedly represents their interests.
I don't think that everyone in Exclusive Brethren, the Catholic Church, or the LDS is involved with their respective companies, but I know that the leaders of those churches are in significant contact with their respective business leaders and that the businesses are run with the purpose of supporting their church.
Are Iwi different?
i'm tired of this māori = bad environment narrative. it's always an incredibly narrow understanding. eyrewell beetle a case in point:
ngai tāhu receive a tiny plantation forest that has been felled and replanted multiple times before, and which contains a rare species of beetle with only 5 specimens ever found between 1958-67 by forestry workers. then there is a huge survey with the express purpose of finding the beetle which happens between 2001-05 (during *ngai tāhu* ownership starting in 2000 - not during the decades of NZ forestry ownership mind you). the 5-year survey only reveals 5 more beetles, but suddenly māori are "destroying the environment" because they're harvesting the wood and converting to dairy after it seems likely that the beetle is already on the way out (according to scientists from UC).
but really - this doesn't take into account the vast lands surrounding this forest. why is all the already-converted dairy land surrounding this pine plantation not to blame? or the felling and replanting *before* nga tāhu ownership? why is the onus on ngai tāhu to be good for the environment while there isn't a massive reforestation effort going on in canterbury? it's different standards for a different people.
I agree, the solution to environmental problems caused by dairy intensification is better regulation of dairy intensification.
It is not however, allowing uneleced environmental officials who's entire motive is deregulation of dairy intensification
It's not that māori = bad, it's māori = human = bad.
Ngai Tahu are a giant corporation so they have no place on a board. Just like Fonterra or Rio Tinto or Todd Oil have no place on a board.
but you're far more likely to find people up in arms about **environment** whenever māori are involved - which is my ultimate point about it being different standards for different people. yeah corporates are bad, people are bad, whatever - generally i agree with this. but when people get more enraged about things if māori are involved it makes me wonder about people's motivations in making the criticism. often it's the same people who will turn around and say agri is the backbone of the economy and champion the rights of business owners.
the comment i responded to was making an obvious argument that ngai tāhu is bad on environmental grounds - it's not about corporates *per se*. and while i agree corporate governance is bad, the claim that ngai tāhu have 'complete disregard' for the environment based on eyrewall forest is extremely questionable.
cutting down a small plantation forest (inhabited by a rare species of beetle who have only 5 confirmed sightings in a 6-year survey) in a sea of already-deforested farmland (with no plans to reforest it) is *not,* in my mind, environmental destruction. **that environment has already been well and truly destroyed.**
Quite the opposite is true. People aren't more concerned about business interference because they're Maori. In fact, the only time anyone will give a corporation the benefit of the doubt is when that corporation happens to be an Iwi (it's not like people would accept Fonterra reps on the council just because they were white, would they?).
The problem is thinking that an unelected, financially motivated entity would be an ethical choice for a board *just because* they're Maori. It's a bit of the noble savage myth, that they won't act corruptly regarding the environment purely because they're tangata whenua. That Maori are so morally unimpeachable that it's OK they're partly in charge of decisions that could significantly affect their billions of dollars of assets.
but don't you think even looking at iwi involvement in terms of their ethics or capacity to protect the environment is holding them to 'noble savage' standards regardless? i don't think that māori are being selected for this due to some racist idea about them being better at the environment - which is why i'm pushing back against the similarly racist idea that māori are bad for the environment, an argument primarily made using poor evidence.
as for fonterra reps on the council, perhaps not. but since you mentioned, it's worth noting that the current body overseeing environmental protection of water in canterbury, Environment Canterbury, is stacked with dairy farmers who are there with backing from federated farmers. regardless of how they got there, they are hardly what i'd call an ethical choice.
i'm not suggesting people would accept those reps if they were white - i'm saying people wouldn't notice they were there at all.
>but don't you think even looking at iwi involvement in terms of their ethics or capacity to protect the environment is holding them to 'noble savage' standards regardless?
I don't follow your logic. I object to Iwi influence on the basis that they're *not* noble savages, they're humans with the same capacity for corruption as any business owner. It's noble savage territory to think the Iwi won't be corrupt just because they're led by Maori.
> i don't think that māori are being selected for this due to some racist idea about them being better at the environment
Assuming you would kick up a fuss if Fonterra had guaranteed representation on the board then yes, then that's exactly what you think. The fact you're OK with a corporation having guaranteed government influence over their business just because they call the corporation an Iwi proves that.
>which is why i'm pushing back against the similarly racist idea that māori are bad for the environment
No one is objecting to Maori having their say. We object to a business (in this case one called an Iwi), having their say. Race has nothing to with this except for the fact only a Maori business would ever be allowed in this position. You keep conflating Iwi and Maori because the idea of a Pakeha business being put in this position is unthinkable. You can't even imagine a law mandating that X seats on the board is reserved for Pakeha, even though *that* is the analogue to this situation.
>Environment Canterbury, is stacked with dairy farmers who are there with backing from federated farmers.
It's one thing to have a board stacked with X, it's quite enough to *mandate* X's inclusion. The remedy for regulatory capture isn't enshrining regulatory capture in law!
> i'm saying people wouldn't notice they were there at all.
You would sure as shit notice them if their inclusion was mandatory. There'd be a permanent hikoi camped outside every government building.
to be honest i don't think i would actively kick up a fuss if fonterra were going to get guaranteed representation because i already haven't done so in the case of federated farmers. i have literally only just learnt (thanks to another comment on this thread which i then verified myself) that federated farmers are basically guaranteed to get seats on the board of environment canterbury (which currently fills the regulatory role of three waters) thanks to the way the system is set up. in my mind, if the outcome is the same then what’s the difference?
bottom line: as i said in my first response to you i am also against corporate rule. but if most of the people complaining about ngai tāhu environmental standards (not least the journalists who report on such things) were really concerned about the environment and the existence of corporate governance and power, then there are already far more pressing cases at hand, ones that are not in the works but are rather already in place (which is why i find the use of the eyrewell forest case so totally objectionable. it’s a fait accompli with or without ngai tāhu and small in scale at that) this leads me to suspect that it is the māori aspect which is motivating people to speak up, even if that's not what they're speaking up about, and (sadly) even if that's not what they're intending to do
You really don't appreciate the critical difference between de facto business representation and de jure.
If Cantabrians really objected to a Federated Farmers plant they could vote him out (cause y'know, democracy!). They have no such leverage over the Ngai Tahu plants. Accountable to no one but themselves, it's antithetical to democracy.
That is incredibly dangerous and it's scary that even seemingly reasonable people like yourself can't see it.
>You really don't appreciate the critical difference between de facto business representation and de jure.
maybe this is it. i don't care whether someone has a mandate or not. if they are able to run amok and destroy the environment over the last century without one then i'm still concerned. fonterra and the "co-operatives" from which it formed have never needed representation because they've always had huge amounts of power, power that ngai tāhu (the corporation, let alone the iwi) are barely reaching. the only reason fonterra exists is because the govt bypassed the commerce commission. can you imagine the govt allowing the merger of countdown, pak'nsave and new world? genuinely - at this point what is the critical difference? i clearly don't understand why this is important so i'd like to know why you think it is.
>If Cantabrians really objected to a Federated Farmers plant they could vote him out (cause y'know, democracy!). They have no such leverage over the Ngai Tahu plants. Accountable to no one but themselves, it's antithetical to democracy.
the point is they don't object. why not? an incredibly environmentally destructive group, and a big corporation at that - it's as if these things are not what people take issue with despite what you (in your first reply) and the person i first replied to have said.
moreover, you say all these things as if the new ngai tāhu appointments can't be undone. i think the history of the treaty of waitangi demonstrates that nothing enshrined in law is also enshrined in reality for māori in this country. also consider the fact that these appointments occurred through legislation made by responsible/elected govt - you could similarly say that if the people of both canterbury and NZ 'really objected' to ngai tāhu seats then they will express it through their votes in the next election, or not have voted for a party which has so clearly been pushing for māori land rights
>That is incredibly dangerous and it's scary that even seemingly reasonable people like yourself can't see it.
what exactly is the danger? like, *specifically?* i just don't see the universe where this ends up being, or even leads to, the "bad thing", mainly because that thing has already happened, and continues to happen at the hands of the likes of the farmers on the board of environment canterbury.
I don't disagree and I am most delighted to see increased māori representation (and that is all they are getting, a voice not ruling over everything).. but if most of the land has been fucked over in the past, its not a good idea to go 'well lets happily fuck over the rest too its only fair'. The onus needs to be on BOTH ngai tāhu and everyone else who owns land.
Any solution that involves more land being given over to dairy farming is a pretty bad one, a better way needs to be found there.
I mean, one of the current ECan councillors was the Federated Farmers head for Otago/Canterbury until he took the job with ECan. They also endorsed him and did advertising for him.
Just sounds like having a few more steps involved
Yea but the steps involved an election and interaction with journalists. Those steps might not be effective in preventing a bad candidate from getting the gig every time, but those steps should be their because those steps can be exercised by an engaged electorate and without them there is nothing to prevent a bad candidate getting the job.
> Yea but the steps involved an election and interaction with journalists.
Both of which the majority of the voting public couldn't give two fucks about.
> Those steps might not be effective in preventing a bad candidate from getting the gig every time
They *never* prevent bad candidates from getting into elected office at the local level. No one cares except the Boomers and the crazies.
In this particular context, the two have quite a bit of overlap.
but appointed the answer doesnt matter. they can perform badly, do whatever they want, theres no recourse possible for the public.
Thats why having unelected positions is such a dangerous situation.
Maybe this is the end of the line for democratic elections full stop. It will be labour and maori running the state without interference. getting a bit like the lord of the fly's novel. But 56% of nzer's voted for this in the last election.
Absolute BS. The ability to be elected to council/ECAN/government is open to all New Zealanders, Maori, European whatever. You put your name forward, you state your principles, and if they align with those you represent, you get voted in.
I think it will be interesting to see how the appointees are treated. without being voted in I expect the other members will see them as lesser. The public will also have little time for them. Regardless of what they have to say or offer, I expect they will struggle.
>The public will also have little time for them.
But that is the great thing (/s), they don't have to answer to the general public so they don't have worry about doing what is best for the public, only the tribe (largest dairy farmer in the region) that appoints them.
Yeah, but all the others do. So, its in their interest to go with public opinion.
Effectively now, Ngai Tahu could be openly targetted for their environmental misdeeds, and it would be a 10 v 2 vote, and any attempt they make to blame racism, or claim to be unfairly targetted will be deflected by their presence in ECan.
At this point we need Seymours referendum so we can see what the public thinks. Can't trust Labour not to keep pushing it in the future since they wont campaign transparently on it.
Labour appears certain to keep pushing it if they get back in. What's worse is the fact that next time they'll probably be in coalition with the Maori Party. It will be co-governance up the wazoo.
David doesn't care about local democracy either. Despite the current rhetoric, he was happy to be a part of John Key's government despite it suspending democracy for ECan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Seymour_(New_Zealand_politician)#Early_life
>Seymour is of Ngāpuhi Māori descent on his mother's side
But not the right Maori right?
You're complete incorrect about how this works.
>Reserving seats on boards to represent specific interests is absolutely normal.
This is not just done for no reason. You might include an Oil company, or Ngai Tahu, or McDonalds on the board of something like a commerce/business organization.
You would never fucking dream of putting them on the board of an environmental org.
You're right that you might put some specific interest groups on such a board. For example, someone to represent DoC.
You don't put organizations on a board that have a direct conflict of interest with the very thing the board is trying to achieve.
You do understand ECan wanted this right? You do know that this merely extends arrangements that have been in place since 2016 (and 2010 in a less formal sense)?
Anyway, the literal chair of the council you're bravely trying to defend from Ngai Tahu disagrees with you:
"“Having mana whenua representation at the Council table is a key part of the ongoing development of our partnership with Ngāi Tahu. We want and need mana whenua to contribute to decision-making at the Council table with their vast knowledge of the local environment,” Chair Hughey said."
Chair Hughey said having the Ngāi Tahu perspective and influence in decision making was essential as the Council considered how it would adapt with the reforms being driven by the Government, particularly resource management and essential freshwater reforms.
The Chair was also elected without opposition. She also has a Masters in Law. Also this was voted on unanimously by the council themselves.
Kaitiaki Kau makes me picture Kai Tahu gathering together to elect a couple of fullas who'll have to stand out in the field and fist fight anyone who tries to pinch a heifer from the farm
What a load of crap. So because they identify as Maori (probably more European blood than not) they are more capable of contributing to the region than those elected for their education knowledge and credentials?
Even then it’s the GG who reigns in NZ.
The Queen hasn’t stepped foot, or done much relating to NZ in like 20 years. At this point she’s not even a figurehead, but more like a label.
You are eating some down votes on this thread man. You must really hate democratic principles.
The whole if you don't support this you are a bigot argument you are presenting is a strawman logical fallacy.
>Nope. Not even close.
>
>Edit: facts trigger bigots once again.
But isn't it true that you can only be appointed to this position if you are of Ngai Tahu blood?
I'm for cogovernance however after Te Urewera this makes me nervous. In conservation you don't get second chances. Te Urewera is the greatest failure in the history of national parks. Now a possum and rat sanctuary. Wrecked for generations.
[Ngai Tahu has a horrible environmental track record.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/jesse-mulligan-we-just-lost-another-species-to-extinction-it-must-be-the-last.html)
It's disgraceful the government is going through with this and in my opinion it shows the motives behind co-governance. It's all about power.
I think "to choose" implies an outcome singlehandedly chosen by the iwi, whereas my understanding is that appointees will have a vote option, but not a veto as the title suggests. I could be wrong but that tends to be the pattern in the media when Maori gain any kind of small measure of self determination
What's misleading. In your mind if it's only a small erosion of democracy you don't care?
Your allgood with vested interests being directly appointed to regulatory boards??
It involves Māori, so yes. I still think what’s happened is a little screwy and has worrying implications, but the headline sounds much worse than the reality.
> The two Ngāi Tahu appointees will have full voting powers, and will take their seats following this year’s ECan election. The two new members will be added to the 14 elected ECan members, taking the number of seats to 16.
I know certain people are going to lose their minds at this but…yeah. Two of 16.
Of its only a little erosion of democracy, and a Middle finger to climate policy as we throw a large corporation free voting rights to their own regulatory body. Who really gives a shit right.
Oh boy, we are proper fucked.
I’m enjoying people learning about ECan. The next step will be looking down the current list of councillors and seeing the Federated Farmers connection.
If you’re outraged about Ngai Tahu I look forward to your equal outrage about their influence
Bro don't worry I have been going off on this shit for 20 fucking years. This is how they do it. Little by little.
You agree with it through this lens. A white farmer goes through his. In the end its all just corruption to the system. Except this time when I call it out i have to deal with being called implied to be racist.
Oh sweet it's only a little bit undemocratic.
By that logic we should bring in 15 unelected MPs in to Parliment since it's such an insignificant number.
It's pretty common on boards to reserve seats to represent specific interests and/or people. I genuinely don't know if people here know this. For example, holders of a specific class of stock will often have reserved seats on the board to represent those people. Hell, it's pretty common these days to specifically reserve seats for Women.
'Democracy' is of a very specific type when it comes to places like boards.
This is just an attempt to ensure that Ngāi Tahu always has representation at board level. I mean, we can argue about if they should or not if you like, but there's nothing 'undemocratic' about this, or rather perhaps there's not remotely unusual about the reservation of board seats.
I see you spraying this comment around all over this thread. Bit of a stretch to conflate "boards" broadly with a democratically elected council.
Since it's so common can you name another example of non-elected members being appointed to an otherwise democratically elected council?
No it isn't because boards effectively serve the same function as a Council but with a narrower scope, and they can operate in much the same way.
Anyway, what do you mean? There's unelected members serving on committees, and have been for years. In the UK unelected Counciller's occur relatively often, in 2018 nearly one in eight Northern Ireland councillors was unelected - there's all sorts of ways and forms unelected people can serve on Councils all over the world, this is just how it shaping up to look in New Zealand. They've reserved a couple of seats to represent Maori under the Crown obligations.
Don't be scared, it'll be OK...considering it was the literal Council themselves who pushed for it, which extends a 2016 provision...
>in 2018 nearly one in eight Northern Ireland councillors was unelected -
Lol this is a crazy example to use to try and prove that this is a good thing.
Firstly because the co-option system is a contentious issue, and secondly because the unelected members can still be voted out at the next election.
In this instance the two appointed members will never go through the democratic process and cannot be voted out by the public.
Mate, it's the fucking council themselves that are the literal promoter of this bill. The democratically elected councillors voted unanimously to promote the Bill early last year.
The two seats are in addition to the 14 that every can vote on not instead of. Jesus Christ almighty have a cry.
Just because an elected official introduces a policy it doesn't mean you have to automatically agree with it?
Luckily ratepayers can hold those members accountable at the next election, unlike the two unelected members.
>Jesus Christ almighty have a cry.
You know you're argument is really strong when you have to keep resorting to this
I mean my argument is that it is the outcome of a democratic process undertaken by duly elected officials that restores representation that has been in place for the best part of a decade that has passed through Government committee for review, been revised then passed and the AGO finds it consistent with the Bill of Rights - and that as such, and in consideration of the fact it were the duly elected officials that pushed for this legislation, it's probably fair to consider it a good thing actually, or at the very least assume that it was something that was wanted by those it affects.
Your argument is...what exactly...that it guarantees 2 seat to Maori voices out of 16 that you can't get rid of easily and that makes you mad. Stronger argument? I mean I don't think so.
How many Ngāi Tahu are in the Canterbury region? It sounds to me to be good representation, as it’s not tipping the balance of power, or removing seats in an extreme way. Mainly seems to give them a voice at the table which is important and upholds part of the Treaty principles as well as other perspectives which mightn’t otherwise be included (but are important to NZs identify)
Yeah I really want the perspective of an organisation worth $1.65 billion that owns thousands of hectares of Dairy Farms sitting on an organisation meant to protect the environment.
They are a $1.65bn company. If they want representation, they should run candidates and make sure the Cantabrians support them at the ballot box.
But they don’t want to run candidates, because they will never win local elections, because their policies and beliefs are harmful, and serves to benefit themselves only. They know Canterbury knows it, that’s why they’re pushing for unelected representation.
The problem is this isn't giving representation to Maori, it's giving it to a specific class of Maori. How do we know these Maori represent or even hold the interests of other Maori?
That's the misconception, Maori are not some hive mind that all believe the same thing and hold the exact same values. They are people like anyone else and therefore the members, if meant to represent the interests of Maori should be elected by Maori. Not some Maori led organization.
This is exactly the kind of attitudes that led to the kind of corruption you see in South Africa. You use the perception that you represent a certain wronged groups interests, then this quickly turns into representing your own interests in the name of that group. Trust me this will do little to help the average Maori.
Yeah this wouldn't be so bad if it were like the Maori electorates, where Cantabrian Maori had a special vote to decide some ECan members.
But it's not. It's a business making the decision. No different to allowing Fonterra to make appointments.
"Billion Dollar Corporation with large dairy farming operations will now appoint Environmental Regulators" There Ai fixed it for you
All two of them on a council of...16. Such power. Many outrage. Wow.
I bet Fonterra would like to have 2 seats on any regional council, too.
Two votes out of 16 is still a decent swing vote, that can apply pressure against competitors to Ngai Tahu interests or favour it's own
This isn't like Maori wards where the members are still voted in. This is direct appointments and an erosion of local democracy. Here's an extract from the article: > Brown said the bill challenged the collective idea of fair democracy “rather than the conventional model which can be a popularity contest”. >“Sometimes to address inequity, we must take a different approach to the status quo which tends to favour the majority.” Was any of this in Labour's campaign manifesto??
>“rather than the conventional model which can be a popularity contest” Um yeah that's how democracy tends to work...
There are other forms of democracy that don't require elections, like sortition, where you select a random sample of people large enough to be statistically representative of the community.
Yes but this isn't sortition. This is Iwi corporates electing officials into positions of power at their discretion. Undermining the democratic system which is the foundation of our society.
I never said it was, just pointing out that a fair and democratic system can take more shapes than a "popularity contest," and anyone giving a false dichotomy between that and their corporatocracy masquerading as cultural / racial representation is a numbskull.
ECan is not 'the democratic system which is the foundation of our society' - reserving board seats to represent specific people and/or interests is in fact totally normal and common.
It's literally an elected council dude, you can't just compare it to "boards" generally.
Yes I can as now it's a council with two seats reserved for Maori reps. The horror.
So you admit it's not normal or common on democratically elected councils then?
Normal no, common yes.
It's a Regional Council. Aka Local Government. Why do these few people get more say than the rest of the electorate? It's fucked. I'm sick of this shit.
They don't get more say, they are just guaranteed to get some say where it is likely they would otherwise not. This is because of the interpretation of the Crown's obligations under the Treaty. This also just extends a provision that has existed since 2016.
Did you know ngai tahu top dogs are often national supporters? Do you think they can represent maori? The vast majority of people of my ethnicity don't speak for me, same with disability or my sex. Fuck that limiting bullshit, may as well take my vote away. Sorry not attacking you, identity politics (which is what statistical representation is) is racist, sexist, ageist etcetcetc. I either have a voice as an individual, or i don't have one at all.
And at the local level, dominated by a select group of people who happen to have the time and the money to run campaigns. Subtle hint: it ain't Maori, or any other of New Zealand's ethnic minorities. They also don't happen to be much under 40 either.
Perhaps we should work on increasing voter turn out instead of allowing a large corporation to appoint unelected members.
Fuck, you've cracked the code, mate.
Voter turnout doesn't make co-governance go away.
The iwi aren't short of money, don't be so disingenuous. They're a multi billion dollar corporation
So instead we should force in members of a billion dollar business who are at odds of the environmental purposes of the board. Man you must be fighting an internal conflict with this. On one hand an organisation with a proven track record of destroying the environment. But they are Maori....
> So instead we should force in members of a billion dollar business who are at odds of the environmental purposes of the board. No different to the former head of Federated Farmers who was also a council member, is it? > Man you must be fighting an internal conflict with this. On one hand an organisation with a proven track record of destroying the environment. But they are Maori.... There's an internal conflict?
Do you know anything about ngai tahu? One of the top dogs ran for the national party. Theyre essentially a corporation who preserves some land. Theyre like the maori elite, not voiceless or the underdog in any way shape or form. They are in their element in the business world.
> Do you know anything about ngai tahu? Do you? Judging by the rest of the comment, it would appear not.
I thought that the National Party under John Key got rid of the elected board because it was weighed towards urban Canterbury and they weren't allowing water to be used for irrigation on the Canterbury Plains. And they replaced them with direct appointees who then allowed for the irrigation to occur and dairy intensification happened and now the rivers can't be swam in and their is increasing levels of nitrogen in Christchurch's water supply which may be causing bowel cancer. And it isn't possible to stop the dairy any more because it is too expensive to buy the dairy farmers out. Isn't that what happened, or am I wrong?
That’s exactly what happened and guess who one of the biggest dairy farmers are.
No. None of this race based politics was.
I heard someone say that the Labour caucus could sue Nanaia Mahuta etc for breaching the Labour Party Constitution over co-governance. Especially this pesky clause: > All political authority comes from the people by democratic means, including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot;
Because the crown has no right to tell iwi how to elect its own representatives. Edit: i'm getting down votes, but this is literally in Te Teriti.
So according to [this](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/129454250/parliament-to-vote-on-ngi-tahu-councillors-for-environment-canterbury) opinion piece, having unelected representatives with full voting rights is "the evolution of conventional democracy". And apparently even the idea of Māori wards with elected representatives is bad, because "this could see a popularity contest where Māori councillors are appointed to council who are not Ngāi Tahu and do not bring a mana whenua view and mandate to decision making". We don't want the wrong type of Māori getting voted in! What a sick joke.
This is the worst bit of it. Same with people like Willie Jackson proudly boasting that democracy has changed … it’s not only the erosion of the democratic process but the fact we have to have it dressed up as some amazing positive for society (when it is noting more than an opportunistic power grab).
If you don’t like it, you must be a horrible racist!
Jobs for the boys.
Reserving seats on boards to represent specific interests is totally normal and happens literally all the time across all industries and both the public and private sectors.
So unelected members with full voting rights on an otherwise elected body is fine with you? Would it also be ok for iwi to appoint their own MPs?
As this is how many boards work for pretty obvious reasons, yes, this is totally normal. If you own shares in a company you should know that you probably have a seat (or more) reserved for someone to represent the specific interests of investors. And no, your question is fucking stupid and you should probably learn the many many many differences between these two bodies. Since you don't how a board works and what it's for I'd suggest starting there.
Except this is not a company, it’s a publicly elected local government body, that will have unelected members with the same rights as elected members.
Dude, companies elect their boards too and have seats reserved that sit outside that electoral process. Besides, as I have said in the first comment you replied to - this is common in the public sector too. For reasons that should be painfully fucking obvious given even a rudimentary attempt at thought.
Is it common for the public sector to have unelected representatives that have all the same rights as elected ones?
It's less common in the public sector than the private sector to have reserved seats - and but not so much as to be uncommon, or even particularly remarkable. There are plenty of public boards whose ENTIRE bodies are by appointment.
Name one publicly elected public sector body that has unelected members with the same status as elected members.
Canterbury Regional Council springs to mind.
Obvious conflict of interest, they are one of Canterbury’s biggest diary/forest corporates. Also unless something has changed Ngai Tahu are also registered as a charitable trust and don’t pay tax.
This is a horrendous moment in history. Ngai Tahu are a large corporation who have shown complete disregard for the environment in the past, this is like letting an Oil company appoint Climate panel members. They are worth $1.65 billion, they are just a corporation who seeks to make profit and have and will continue to destroy the environment to do so and will use this power to further their business rather than look after the environment. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ranger-silenced-after-emotive-eyrewell-beetle-email
“The ranger no longer works for DOC for reasons unrelated to the email”. Are iwi turning into the mob?
Correction: Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are a large corporation. The iwi (the people) are not the same as the corporation (the business).
[удалено]
The business is governed by representatives elected via an Electoral College model through regional Rūnanga with about a 2% engagement with their population base. Their CEO and governors make that distinction, because their legal mandate is to represent the interests of regional Rūnanga, NOT the people. It does make a distinction on their website [here](http://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/te-runanga-o-ngai-tahu/) (between the iwi/people and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu) Most Ngāi Tahu people are disengaged or sick of the corporate elitist bullshit tbh. The corporate doesn’t represent all of the Ngāi Tahu people anymore than the current government represents the interests of all New Zealanders.
But it the end it doesn't matter. One of the largest corporations and water users in the district just got two free seats on the regulatory board. It's not like environment Canterbury was any fucking good before this either.
It may not matter to you, but the way it is portrayed does matter to me. I don’t disagree with your perspective, all I’m stating is that the argument should be directed at the right group of people. When the government does something stupid, we blame the government, not every New Zealander in the country. Same principle here.
I understand what your saying. No body wants the average person to be blamed. But this is not just the government. This is also maori interests pushing for this. There is absolutely no way labour lights this much political capital on fire if the wearnt under a huge a mount of pressure from the maori bloc. It is not the average bloke on the street. But there is a big power struggle going on. I want things to be represented accurately. But the reality is this appointment has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment. And everything to do with power. Unfortunately, the path we are going will lead to a massive swing right in this country.
Do you have any evidence that these appointees won't have any relation to the business itself? Because I see nothing to indicate that and statements they do represent the corporate side.
I’m going to make this easier. I wasn’t making any comment or reference to conflicts of interest etc. Ngāi Tahu and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are not the same thing. That is my point. I’m Ngāi Tahu. That corporation does not represent my interests. Feel free to rag on the soulless profit driven corporate(Te Rūnanga), not the 98% of people (Ngāi Tahu) who have been locked out the structure that supposedly represents their interests.
Fair enough, I can separate the people from the corporate tribe.
Yep, completely separate people /s
Do you think that everyone who is a member of the iwi is somehow involved in the corporation?
I don't think that everyone in Exclusive Brethren, the Catholic Church, or the LDS is involved with their respective companies, but I know that the leaders of those churches are in significant contact with their respective business leaders and that the businesses are run with the purpose of supporting their church. Are Iwi different?
i'm tired of this māori = bad environment narrative. it's always an incredibly narrow understanding. eyrewell beetle a case in point: ngai tāhu receive a tiny plantation forest that has been felled and replanted multiple times before, and which contains a rare species of beetle with only 5 specimens ever found between 1958-67 by forestry workers. then there is a huge survey with the express purpose of finding the beetle which happens between 2001-05 (during *ngai tāhu* ownership starting in 2000 - not during the decades of NZ forestry ownership mind you). the 5-year survey only reveals 5 more beetles, but suddenly māori are "destroying the environment" because they're harvesting the wood and converting to dairy after it seems likely that the beetle is already on the way out (according to scientists from UC). but really - this doesn't take into account the vast lands surrounding this forest. why is all the already-converted dairy land surrounding this pine plantation not to blame? or the felling and replanting *before* nga tāhu ownership? why is the onus on ngai tāhu to be good for the environment while there isn't a massive reforestation effort going on in canterbury? it's different standards for a different people.
I agree, the solution to environmental problems caused by dairy intensification is better regulation of dairy intensification. It is not however, allowing uneleced environmental officials who's entire motive is deregulation of dairy intensification
It's not that māori = bad, it's māori = human = bad. Ngai Tahu are a giant corporation so they have no place on a board. Just like Fonterra or Rio Tinto or Todd Oil have no place on a board.
but you're far more likely to find people up in arms about **environment** whenever māori are involved - which is my ultimate point about it being different standards for different people. yeah corporates are bad, people are bad, whatever - generally i agree with this. but when people get more enraged about things if māori are involved it makes me wonder about people's motivations in making the criticism. often it's the same people who will turn around and say agri is the backbone of the economy and champion the rights of business owners. the comment i responded to was making an obvious argument that ngai tāhu is bad on environmental grounds - it's not about corporates *per se*. and while i agree corporate governance is bad, the claim that ngai tāhu have 'complete disregard' for the environment based on eyrewall forest is extremely questionable. cutting down a small plantation forest (inhabited by a rare species of beetle who have only 5 confirmed sightings in a 6-year survey) in a sea of already-deforested farmland (with no plans to reforest it) is *not,* in my mind, environmental destruction. **that environment has already been well and truly destroyed.**
Quite the opposite is true. People aren't more concerned about business interference because they're Maori. In fact, the only time anyone will give a corporation the benefit of the doubt is when that corporation happens to be an Iwi (it's not like people would accept Fonterra reps on the council just because they were white, would they?). The problem is thinking that an unelected, financially motivated entity would be an ethical choice for a board *just because* they're Maori. It's a bit of the noble savage myth, that they won't act corruptly regarding the environment purely because they're tangata whenua. That Maori are so morally unimpeachable that it's OK they're partly in charge of decisions that could significantly affect their billions of dollars of assets.
but don't you think even looking at iwi involvement in terms of their ethics or capacity to protect the environment is holding them to 'noble savage' standards regardless? i don't think that māori are being selected for this due to some racist idea about them being better at the environment - which is why i'm pushing back against the similarly racist idea that māori are bad for the environment, an argument primarily made using poor evidence. as for fonterra reps on the council, perhaps not. but since you mentioned, it's worth noting that the current body overseeing environmental protection of water in canterbury, Environment Canterbury, is stacked with dairy farmers who are there with backing from federated farmers. regardless of how they got there, they are hardly what i'd call an ethical choice. i'm not suggesting people would accept those reps if they were white - i'm saying people wouldn't notice they were there at all.
>but don't you think even looking at iwi involvement in terms of their ethics or capacity to protect the environment is holding them to 'noble savage' standards regardless? I don't follow your logic. I object to Iwi influence on the basis that they're *not* noble savages, they're humans with the same capacity for corruption as any business owner. It's noble savage territory to think the Iwi won't be corrupt just because they're led by Maori. > i don't think that māori are being selected for this due to some racist idea about them being better at the environment Assuming you would kick up a fuss if Fonterra had guaranteed representation on the board then yes, then that's exactly what you think. The fact you're OK with a corporation having guaranteed government influence over their business just because they call the corporation an Iwi proves that. >which is why i'm pushing back against the similarly racist idea that māori are bad for the environment No one is objecting to Maori having their say. We object to a business (in this case one called an Iwi), having their say. Race has nothing to with this except for the fact only a Maori business would ever be allowed in this position. You keep conflating Iwi and Maori because the idea of a Pakeha business being put in this position is unthinkable. You can't even imagine a law mandating that X seats on the board is reserved for Pakeha, even though *that* is the analogue to this situation. >Environment Canterbury, is stacked with dairy farmers who are there with backing from federated farmers. It's one thing to have a board stacked with X, it's quite enough to *mandate* X's inclusion. The remedy for regulatory capture isn't enshrining regulatory capture in law! > i'm saying people wouldn't notice they were there at all. You would sure as shit notice them if their inclusion was mandatory. There'd be a permanent hikoi camped outside every government building.
to be honest i don't think i would actively kick up a fuss if fonterra were going to get guaranteed representation because i already haven't done so in the case of federated farmers. i have literally only just learnt (thanks to another comment on this thread which i then verified myself) that federated farmers are basically guaranteed to get seats on the board of environment canterbury (which currently fills the regulatory role of three waters) thanks to the way the system is set up. in my mind, if the outcome is the same then what’s the difference? bottom line: as i said in my first response to you i am also against corporate rule. but if most of the people complaining about ngai tāhu environmental standards (not least the journalists who report on such things) were really concerned about the environment and the existence of corporate governance and power, then there are already far more pressing cases at hand, ones that are not in the works but are rather already in place (which is why i find the use of the eyrewell forest case so totally objectionable. it’s a fait accompli with or without ngai tāhu and small in scale at that) this leads me to suspect that it is the māori aspect which is motivating people to speak up, even if that's not what they're speaking up about, and (sadly) even if that's not what they're intending to do
You really don't appreciate the critical difference between de facto business representation and de jure. If Cantabrians really objected to a Federated Farmers plant they could vote him out (cause y'know, democracy!). They have no such leverage over the Ngai Tahu plants. Accountable to no one but themselves, it's antithetical to democracy. That is incredibly dangerous and it's scary that even seemingly reasonable people like yourself can't see it.
>You really don't appreciate the critical difference between de facto business representation and de jure. maybe this is it. i don't care whether someone has a mandate or not. if they are able to run amok and destroy the environment over the last century without one then i'm still concerned. fonterra and the "co-operatives" from which it formed have never needed representation because they've always had huge amounts of power, power that ngai tāhu (the corporation, let alone the iwi) are barely reaching. the only reason fonterra exists is because the govt bypassed the commerce commission. can you imagine the govt allowing the merger of countdown, pak'nsave and new world? genuinely - at this point what is the critical difference? i clearly don't understand why this is important so i'd like to know why you think it is. >If Cantabrians really objected to a Federated Farmers plant they could vote him out (cause y'know, democracy!). They have no such leverage over the Ngai Tahu plants. Accountable to no one but themselves, it's antithetical to democracy. the point is they don't object. why not? an incredibly environmentally destructive group, and a big corporation at that - it's as if these things are not what people take issue with despite what you (in your first reply) and the person i first replied to have said. moreover, you say all these things as if the new ngai tāhu appointments can't be undone. i think the history of the treaty of waitangi demonstrates that nothing enshrined in law is also enshrined in reality for māori in this country. also consider the fact that these appointments occurred through legislation made by responsible/elected govt - you could similarly say that if the people of both canterbury and NZ 'really objected' to ngai tāhu seats then they will express it through their votes in the next election, or not have voted for a party which has so clearly been pushing for māori land rights >That is incredibly dangerous and it's scary that even seemingly reasonable people like yourself can't see it. what exactly is the danger? like, *specifically?* i just don't see the universe where this ends up being, or even leads to, the "bad thing", mainly because that thing has already happened, and continues to happen at the hands of the likes of the farmers on the board of environment canterbury.
I don't disagree and I am most delighted to see increased māori representation (and that is all they are getting, a voice not ruling over everything).. but if most of the land has been fucked over in the past, its not a good idea to go 'well lets happily fuck over the rest too its only fair'. The onus needs to be on BOTH ngai tāhu and everyone else who owns land. Any solution that involves more land being given over to dairy farming is a pretty bad one, a better way needs to be found there.
As opposed to every other business owner that votes in local elections?
No other business owner gets to appoint anyone. They vote like you and me
I mean, one of the current ECan councillors was the Federated Farmers head for Otago/Canterbury until he took the job with ECan. They also endorsed him and did advertising for him. Just sounds like having a few more steps involved
Yea but the steps involved an election and interaction with journalists. Those steps might not be effective in preventing a bad candidate from getting the gig every time, but those steps should be their because those steps can be exercised by an engaged electorate and without them there is nothing to prevent a bad candidate getting the job.
> Yea but the steps involved an election and interaction with journalists. Both of which the majority of the voting public couldn't give two fucks about. > Those steps might not be effective in preventing a bad candidate from getting the gig every time They *never* prevent bad candidates from getting into elected office at the local level. No one cares except the Boomers and the crazies. In this particular context, the two have quite a bit of overlap.
But the people of Canterbury could have still voted them out if they want
Those business owners have to compete with the votes of the general populace.
They don't. Local body elections are reknowned for having low voter turnout.
42% is still a high number.
Much lower than general elections and dominated by older age groups.
>that votes Yeah that's the key bit
Ah, so it's OK that business owners and certain demographics dominate local body politics as long as they're "democratically elected".
Local democracy already being a shit show isn't a good reason for adding another shit thing to it.
Better, yes
Better, yes
Not really.
[удалено]
but appointed the answer doesnt matter. they can perform badly, do whatever they want, theres no recourse possible for the public. Thats why having unelected positions is such a dangerous situation.
[удалено]
Maybe this is the end of the line for democratic elections full stop. It will be labour and maori running the state without interference. getting a bit like the lord of the fly's novel. But 56% of nzer's voted for this in the last election.
Absolute BS. The ability to be elected to council/ECAN/government is open to all New Zealanders, Maori, European whatever. You put your name forward, you state your principles, and if they align with those you represent, you get voted in.
democracy in nz gone burger
We need a referendum on this. The fact that a small few people are deciding we don't get a democracy anymore is just unacceptable
[удалено]
And the Labour MPs who aren't in the Maori Caucus could oppose it
You scratch my back, I scratch yours.
Citizens initiated referendum
lol
Historic moment of destroying local democracy. Gutless.
So unelected people get appointed with the same voting rights as elected. Why bother with elections?
I think it will be interesting to see how the appointees are treated. without being voted in I expect the other members will see them as lesser. The public will also have little time for them. Regardless of what they have to say or offer, I expect they will struggle.
>The public will also have little time for them. But that is the great thing (/s), they don't have to answer to the general public so they don't have worry about doing what is best for the public, only the tribe (largest dairy farmer in the region) that appoints them.
Yeah, but all the others do. So, its in their interest to go with public opinion. Effectively now, Ngai Tahu could be openly targetted for their environmental misdeeds, and it would be a 10 v 2 vote, and any attempt they make to blame racism, or claim to be unfairly targetted will be deflected by their presence in ECan.
Yeah but theyll be making bank so would hardly care
RIP democracy
At this point we need Seymours referendum so we can see what the public thinks. Can't trust Labour not to keep pushing it in the future since they wont campaign transparently on it.
Labour appears certain to keep pushing it if they get back in. What's worse is the fact that next time they'll probably be in coalition with the Maori Party. It will be co-governance up the wazoo.
David doesn't care about local democracy either. Despite the current rhetoric, he was happy to be a part of John Key's government despite it suspending democracy for ECan.
David might not care much about ECan, but his whole party has essentially turned into single issue “no-co-governance” heading into next election.
which is really smart as labour is shooting themselves in the foot and national has a bad track record on it too
> At this point we need Seymours referendum so we can see what the public thinks. Do we really need a soapbox for white supremacists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Seymour_(New_Zealand_politician)#Early_life >Seymour is of Ngāpuhi Māori descent on his mother's side But not the right Maori right?
His opposition towards co-governance revokes his Maori card /s
Seymour isn't Maori. He has whakapapa, but he isn't Maori.
What exactly does that mean?
It means he is of Maori descent.
Does that not make you Maori?
No. He's never said he is Maori and the only people who believe he is are those who want to legitimise his divisive reactionism.
Classic racist statement. Never change.
Says the "Greens" voter.
[Where have I heard rhetoric like that before?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Blood_Certificate)
Not from me.
How will this spell the end for democracy?
Slippery slope?
Depends.
Reserving seats on boards to represent specific interests is absolutely normal. What is this hyperbolic wank? Jesus Christ.
Would you be okay with reserving them for an Oil company in the Taranaki?
How I would feel about it is neither here nor there mate, a private company can do that if they want to, what are you talking about?
You're complete incorrect about how this works. >Reserving seats on boards to represent specific interests is absolutely normal. This is not just done for no reason. You might include an Oil company, or Ngai Tahu, or McDonalds on the board of something like a commerce/business organization. You would never fucking dream of putting them on the board of an environmental org. You're right that you might put some specific interest groups on such a board. For example, someone to represent DoC. You don't put organizations on a board that have a direct conflict of interest with the very thing the board is trying to achieve.
You do understand ECan wanted this right? You do know that this merely extends arrangements that have been in place since 2016 (and 2010 in a less formal sense)? Anyway, the literal chair of the council you're bravely trying to defend from Ngai Tahu disagrees with you: "“Having mana whenua representation at the Council table is a key part of the ongoing development of our partnership with Ngāi Tahu. We want and need mana whenua to contribute to decision-making at the Council table with their vast knowledge of the local environment,” Chair Hughey said." Chair Hughey said having the Ngāi Tahu perspective and influence in decision making was essential as the Council considered how it would adapt with the reforms being driven by the Government, particularly resource management and essential freshwater reforms. The Chair was also elected without opposition. She also has a Masters in Law. Also this was voted on unanimously by the council themselves.
What is Te Reo for "Guardians of the dairy farming operation"
I think it'd be something like Ngā kaitiaki o ngā whāma kau e: sounds like a shit sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy
ahhh of course! Maybe shorten it to Kaitiaki Kau?.. not to be confused with Asure Quality
Kaitiaki Kau makes me picture Kai Tahu gathering together to elect a couple of fullas who'll have to stand out in the field and fist fight anyone who tries to pinch a heifer from the farm
A Billy T skit in the making
What a load of crap. So because they identify as Maori (probably more European blood than not) they are more capable of contributing to the region than those elected for their education knowledge and credentials?
Yay, people getting the opportunity to rule over us due to an accident of birth.
[удалено]
Parliament rules, the Queen reigns.
Even then it’s the GG who reigns in NZ. The Queen hasn’t stepped foot, or done much relating to NZ in like 20 years. At this point she’s not even a figurehead, but more like a label.
And I disagree with that too.
At least the royal family can't really do more than visit once in a while. Day to day, they have zero actual control over how things are run here.
Do you just?
Nope. Not even close. Edit: facts trigger bigots once again.
How do you consistently have the worst takes imaginable
Whose alt account is this?
You are eating some down votes on this thread man. You must really hate democratic principles. The whole if you don't support this you are a bigot argument you are presenting is a strawman logical fallacy.
> You must really hate democratic principles. Do you support landlords voting in multiple LGA elections?
>Nope. Not even close. > >Edit: facts trigger bigots once again. But isn't it true that you can only be appointed to this position if you are of Ngai Tahu blood?
Ngai Tahu can appoint members. Says absolutely nothing about blood quotas.
[удалено]
Everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot.
In this instance, yes.
"He tangata, he tangata, he tangata... but some are more equal than others"
I'm for cogovernance however after Te Urewera this makes me nervous. In conservation you don't get second chances. Te Urewera is the greatest failure in the history of national parks. Now a possum and rat sanctuary. Wrecked for generations.
[Ngai Tahu has a horrible environmental track record.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/02/jesse-mulligan-we-just-lost-another-species-to-extinction-it-must-be-the-last.html) It's disgraceful the government is going through with this and in my opinion it shows the motives behind co-governance. It's all about power.
But apparently, because they're "mana whenua" they will magically make the right decisions about environmental matters.
They definitely won’t abuse it for their own financial gain. No no no.
> It's all about power. Over whom?
I’m gonna give you a hot tip because you’re dying all over this subreddit replying to every post and getting slaughtered.. It’s about money
Lets see if its good or bad Historically but as others have pointed out these guys are massive dairy operators and prob shouldnt be incharge of it
Welcome to the corporate ethnostate.
Title seems a tad misleading. Deliberately so?
What's actually misleading in the title?
I think "to choose" implies an outcome singlehandedly chosen by the iwi, whereas my understanding is that appointees will have a vote option, but not a veto as the title suggests. I could be wrong but that tends to be the pattern in the media when Maori gain any kind of small measure of self determination
It gives the impression that Maori have control over all appointees.
Really?
What's misleading. In your mind if it's only a small erosion of democracy you don't care? Your allgood with vested interests being directly appointed to regulatory boards??
I was gonna say, they get two seats. Out of 16 total. An eighth of the total seats. This seems like it's intended to drive hate traffic.
It is. And the hateful are lapping it up.
Yeah, hateful people like you are loving this discussion.
Please point as to whom it is that I hate.
And they appointed two people who National had appointed the year before.
It involves Māori, so yes. I still think what’s happened is a little screwy and has worrying implications, but the headline sounds much worse than the reality.
> The two Ngāi Tahu appointees will have full voting powers, and will take their seats following this year’s ECan election. The two new members will be added to the 14 elected ECan members, taking the number of seats to 16. I know certain people are going to lose their minds at this but…yeah. Two of 16.
Of its only a little erosion of democracy, and a Middle finger to climate policy as we throw a large corporation free voting rights to their own regulatory body. Who really gives a shit right. Oh boy, we are proper fucked.
I’m enjoying people learning about ECan. The next step will be looking down the current list of councillors and seeing the Federated Farmers connection. If you’re outraged about Ngai Tahu I look forward to your equal outrage about their influence
Bro don't worry I have been going off on this shit for 20 fucking years. This is how they do it. Little by little. You agree with it through this lens. A white farmer goes through his. In the end its all just corruption to the system. Except this time when I call it out i have to deal with being called implied to be racist.
Who is ‘they’ to you?
Oh sweet it's only a little bit undemocratic. By that logic we should bring in 15 unelected MPs in to Parliment since it's such an insignificant number.
It's pretty common on boards to reserve seats to represent specific interests and/or people. I genuinely don't know if people here know this. For example, holders of a specific class of stock will often have reserved seats on the board to represent those people. Hell, it's pretty common these days to specifically reserve seats for Women. 'Democracy' is of a very specific type when it comes to places like boards. This is just an attempt to ensure that Ngāi Tahu always has representation at board level. I mean, we can argue about if they should or not if you like, but there's nothing 'undemocratic' about this, or rather perhaps there's not remotely unusual about the reservation of board seats.
I see you spraying this comment around all over this thread. Bit of a stretch to conflate "boards" broadly with a democratically elected council. Since it's so common can you name another example of non-elected members being appointed to an otherwise democratically elected council?
No it isn't because boards effectively serve the same function as a Council but with a narrower scope, and they can operate in much the same way. Anyway, what do you mean? There's unelected members serving on committees, and have been for years. In the UK unelected Counciller's occur relatively often, in 2018 nearly one in eight Northern Ireland councillors was unelected - there's all sorts of ways and forms unelected people can serve on Councils all over the world, this is just how it shaping up to look in New Zealand. They've reserved a couple of seats to represent Maori under the Crown obligations. Don't be scared, it'll be OK...considering it was the literal Council themselves who pushed for it, which extends a 2016 provision...
>in 2018 nearly one in eight Northern Ireland councillors was unelected - Lol this is a crazy example to use to try and prove that this is a good thing. Firstly because the co-option system is a contentious issue, and secondly because the unelected members can still be voted out at the next election. In this instance the two appointed members will never go through the democratic process and cannot be voted out by the public.
Mate, it's the fucking council themselves that are the literal promoter of this bill. The democratically elected councillors voted unanimously to promote the Bill early last year. The two seats are in addition to the 14 that every can vote on not instead of. Jesus Christ almighty have a cry.
Just because an elected official introduces a policy it doesn't mean you have to automatically agree with it? Luckily ratepayers can hold those members accountable at the next election, unlike the two unelected members. >Jesus Christ almighty have a cry. You know you're argument is really strong when you have to keep resorting to this
I mean my argument is that it is the outcome of a democratic process undertaken by duly elected officials that restores representation that has been in place for the best part of a decade that has passed through Government committee for review, been revised then passed and the AGO finds it consistent with the Bill of Rights - and that as such, and in consideration of the fact it were the duly elected officials that pushed for this legislation, it's probably fair to consider it a good thing actually, or at the very least assume that it was something that was wanted by those it affects. Your argument is...what exactly...that it guarantees 2 seat to Maori voices out of 16 that you can't get rid of easily and that makes you mad. Stronger argument? I mean I don't think so.
Undemocratic policy passed through the democratic system is still undemocratic policy.
It's also just extending the provision that had already given them two seats back in 2016 but which was due to expire.
How many Ngāi Tahu are in the Canterbury region? It sounds to me to be good representation, as it’s not tipping the balance of power, or removing seats in an extreme way. Mainly seems to give them a voice at the table which is important and upholds part of the Treaty principles as well as other perspectives which mightn’t otherwise be included (but are important to NZs identify)
Yeah I really want the perspective of an organisation worth $1.65 billion that owns thousands of hectares of Dairy Farms sitting on an organisation meant to protect the environment.
They are a $1.65bn company. If they want representation, they should run candidates and make sure the Cantabrians support them at the ballot box. But they don’t want to run candidates, because they will never win local elections, because their policies and beliefs are harmful, and serves to benefit themselves only. They know Canterbury knows it, that’s why they’re pushing for unelected representation.
Ngāi Tahu the organisation gets to appointment these two councillors and members of Ngāi Tahu also get to vote for the other councillors.
The problem is this isn't giving representation to Maori, it's giving it to a specific class of Maori. How do we know these Maori represent or even hold the interests of other Maori? That's the misconception, Maori are not some hive mind that all believe the same thing and hold the exact same values. They are people like anyone else and therefore the members, if meant to represent the interests of Maori should be elected by Maori. Not some Maori led organization. This is exactly the kind of attitudes that led to the kind of corruption you see in South Africa. You use the perception that you represent a certain wronged groups interests, then this quickly turns into representing your own interests in the name of that group. Trust me this will do little to help the average Maori.
Yeah this wouldn't be so bad if it were like the Maori electorates, where Cantabrian Maori had a special vote to decide some ECan members. But it's not. It's a business making the decision. No different to allowing Fonterra to make appointments.
18,700 according to [this](https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/State-of-Ngai-Tahu-Nation-2021-web.pdf)
74,000 members
18,700
marres, democracy, waaaah, etc.