Democracy or division: The wrangle over Ngāi Tahu and ECan

Friday, 1 April 2022

It was the debate that saw Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson​ kicked out of Parliament for calling an opposition party fascists.

The opposition, meanwhile, were confused about who he meant.

This happened in December 2021, during the first reading of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill​. The bill will add two unelected Ngāi Tahu appointees to the board of Environment Canterbury (ECan) after the 2022 local body elections.

Jackson is obviously a fan. He described the member’s bill introduced by Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene​,as a “reaffirmation of tino rangatiratanga in terms of Ngāi Tahu”. He said it “acknowledges Ngāi Tahu has mana over their lands and affirms their special association in terms of this particular kaupapa”.

**READ MORE:

* MPs receive 1700 submissions on bill to entrench Ngāi Tahu seats on Environment Canterbury

* Ngāi Tahu representation bill passes first reading in Parliament

* Green Party, Christchurch City Council, lend support to Ngāi Tahu bill

* Call for open debate on Ngāi Tahu representation bill

* February 2011: Earthquakes allow Christchurch's culture to change

**

He was in the middle of explaining what he thought the National Party does not understand about the Māori-Crown partnership when National’s Selwyn MP, Nicola Grigg​, interrupted with a laugh.

“Don’t laugh, whoever you are,” Jackson countered, and that was when things became fiery.

After arguing that some old grandees of National, such as Sir Doug Graham​, would have been ashamed of the party’s opposition to the bill, Jackson said “democracy is also about recognising indigenous people and an indigenous voice – something that the National Party lot and the right-wing fascists on the right here, the ACT Party, have forgotten and don’t understand, because you want to suppress, oppress, and depress Māori”.

Cue the expulsion. When National MP Maureen Pugh​ demanded Jackson apologise, it was pointed out to her that he meant the ACT Party.

Not all the debate was that explosive. Yet it was one more indication, if one was needed, of how fraught issues of race and politics have become in New Zealand, especially around questions of Māori representation and co-governance, and how quick some are to see a partnership as a threat.

The public submissions to the bill, which recently became available to read on the Parliamentary website, reveal bitter opposition to Māori partnership in local politics.

But first, what is the bill, and why do ECan and the Government think it is necessary?

It is pitched as the reinstatement of a “transitional governance arrangement” from 2016, in which two members were appointed to ECan on the recommendation of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. That was under National.

It was repealed in 2019. Tirikatene’s first member’s bill to reinstate it was defeated at its first reading when NZ First voted against it. But now Labour has the numbers, and Tirikatene’s second attempt passed its first reading.

ECan wants the bill to proceed, as it gives mana whenua a voice at the table. The two unelected members would be added to the 14 elected members.

ECan rejected the idea that Government ministers could keep appointing representatives, or that iwi members should vote for two positions, as it “presents various difficulties in identifying eligible electors and compiling rolls” and is not consistent with Ngāi Tahu tikanga. Instead, direct appointees by Ngāi Tahu are preferred.

When he spoke in Parliament, Tirikatene anticipated and addressed the likely criticisms.

Will it give Ngāi Tahu special treatment?

“Let me say to those people that this bill is not about special treatment. This bill is about ensuring there is enhanced representation in an age where a mana whenua voice is critical, in which Ngāi Tahu councillors have previously demonstrated the value they have added to a range of Environment Canterbury's work.”

Nor is it, he said, about a special privilege for Ngāi Tahu.

“You’re looking through the wrong lens. This bill is about recognising the responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has as kaitiaki of the air, waters, land, and coast of the region and enabling them to perform that duty. That responsibility lies with Ngāi Tahu directly, not with Māori generally.”

And finally, he responded to the claim that this was undemocratic.

“To those who say this bill will adversely impact on representation and democracy, I say this: this bill will ensure that more, not fewer voices will be heard at the council table, and because of that, it provides an enhanced additional level of representation informed by generations of knowledge and environmental awareness.

“There can only be advantage and value from such inclusiveness and mutual understanding. That is a fundamental element of this bill.”

What it means to be mana whenua

A National source told Stuff its MPs opposed the bill in 2019 as they knew it would be defeated anyway, due to NZ First’s opposition. Supporting it would have given NZ First a platform.

Yet National spoke against it again in 2021, arguing that it bypasses democracy and “will change 150 years of electoral law,” according to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey​.

Grigg, the new National MP Willie Jackson failed to recognise, had a relatively nuanced approach. She said “the importance of mana whenua representation at all levels of political decision-making is not lost on us in the National Party”, and the Government should remember the advances Māoridom had made under former National governments, including a number of major Treaty settlements.

The landmark Ngāi Tahu settlement was one of those.

However, Grigg said, there is already mana whenua representation at the ECan table, due to the two Tumu Taiao​ roles, “very ably filled by Iaean Cranwell​ and Yvette Couch-Lewis​”.

Tumu Taiao are described as mana whenua experts. They can advise but do not vote.

That all sounded persuasive, but Parliament has an expert with a rare perspective in Eugenie Sage​, a Green MP who was once an ECan councillor. Even an Alanis Morissette​ song could not be this ironic.

“It's somewhat ironic that we have the National Party opposing this bill and talking about democracy,” Sage said, “because, of course, it was the National Party that got rid of 14 elected councillors on Environment Canterbury in 2010 and did not return democracy to Canterbury for nine long years. I was one of those councillors that got unceremoniously removed.”

Sage went on to say the Green Party supports this bill because her experience of the Canterbury Regional Council was that it had a long way to go in implementing the Treaty partnership.

“One of the few good things that came out of the appointment of commissioners in Canterbury was the place of Ngāi Tahu and its two representatives around that council table, and the greater recognition that forced the council to have of things Māori and of Te Tiriti.

“I can remember, in 2007, having to argue strongly for the first representative who had expertise in tikanga Māori to be appointed to the hearings panel on the Waitaki​ River, and that being opposed by other councillors despite the importance of the Waitaki River to Ngāi Tahu because it rises in the headwaters of Aoraki – their tūpuna.”

“This bill begs the question of what it means to be mana whenua,” Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb​ added. “Is it just someone who we invite to give a karakia or a pōwhiri from time to time or is it someone we engage in meaningful discussion, who we have actually around the table on an equal footing?”

There was one more party to hear from and that was the ACT Party. It opposes giving special rights to special classes of people, as MP Simon Court​ explained.

“If the Government proposes to allocate some rights to special classes of people because of who their grandparents were or because of their lineage, that takes us back thousands of years, back to the feudal history that New Zealanders who came here by sailing ship, by steamship, and, more recently, by aeroplane left behind in the countries that they left to come to New Zealand for a better life.”

Tirikatene had the last word.

“I don't really want to go into the remarks around feudalism and the likes from the ACT Party. Suffice to say that the foundation of Aotearoa is built on a Treaty foundation, built on the bicultural reach between the iwi, between the chiefs, and the Crown,” he said.

“That is the foundation, and that is the guiding beacon which this bill actually represents, because Ngāi Tahu representation – why? Because Ngāi Tahu is the Treaty partner. Ngāi Tahu aren’t gaining any great advantage. They are only getting what the Treaty guarantees them, and Environment Canterbury understands that.

“They have put that into this bill. It’s been proven successful in the past, and they’re just reactivating it through the passage of this bill.”

For and against

So that is what the politicians thought, and the positions seem clearly argued. But what about the public?

If you counted submissions alone, you would think the public doesn’t back it. Yet it is clear the bill has attracted a coordinated opposition.

The group Hobson’s Pledge​, which is also campaigning against the Three Waters​ reform, the He Puapua​ report and the use of the name Aotearoa, and who believe the Treaty did not create a partnership between the Crown and Māori, drew up a template for submissions.

They made four points against the bill.

They argued that all members on the council should be elected and accountable to voters. They said changes such as this should follow consultation with the community, not a direction from on high.

They thought Ngāi Tahu’s business interests and assets meant there could be conflicts of interest. Most opposing politicians have resisted making this claim, although NZ First MP Shane Jones​ went there in 2019.

And, lastly, the Treaty, as Hobson’s Pledge have interpreted it, guaranteed the same rights to all citizens, whereas this law would give greater rights to one group based on race.

How effective was the template?

“As we asked supporters to email the select committee themselves, we don’t have a precise number on how many emailed in,” Hobson’s Pledge Trustee Casey Costello​ says.

“However, looking at the submissions on the Parliament website, I see the committee has grouped 1225 submissions together that have used the Hobson’s Pledge suggested text.

“Additionally, many other submissions use language similar to the Hobson’s Pledge suggested text.”

As there were around 1700 submissions in total, that means Hobson’s Pledge was directly responsible for almost three quarters of submissions, and indirectly responsible for many more. The “equal rights” group Democracy Action​ also offered a list of talking points.

Two big themes emerged: it was undemocratic and there was a risk of conflict of interest. Some went further than both groups and warned about Apartheid, saying the racist system they marched against in 1981 was now coming to New Zealand.

One submission against the bill simply consisted of three historic photos of anti-Apartheid rallies.

There were other concerns. Opponents of the bill called it “separatism” that would benefit a “Māori elite”. One argued that Ngāi Tahu is the most “westernised” iwi in New Zealand and therefore doesn’t need special treatment.

Some called the Government divisive. Others opted for “Communist”.

One wrote: “I regard myself, a pakeha Kiwi, as tangata whenua as much as the next person.” Another wrote that they felt angry and depressed because of this bill, and the increasing use of Māori words and phrases. It belittles “our European identity and our right to belong to this land”.

Before readers assume that these voices are typical of Canterbury, submissions came from all over New Zealand and location bore little relationship to political position.

Some saw the bill as a warning. If we tolerate this in Canterbury, they thought, your council could be next.

Most of the opposition came from individuals, inspired by Hobson’s Pledge​. Former National leader Don Brash​ was the best-known name.

He wrote that “this Bill would be totally contrary to any recognised concept of democracy. Democracy gives an equal opportunity to every citizen to express his or her opinion.

“This Bill clearly violates that basic principle by giving members of the Ngāi Tahu tribe ‘two bites at the cherry’ – the right to vote in common with all citizens and an additional, and more powerful, right to appoint two directors, appointed because of their ethnicity.”

But only a handful of groups or organisations opposed it. They included the Beckenham Neighbourhood Association​ in suburban Christchurch, the Primary Land Users Group​, which formed to back farmers over river use changes in Waikato, South Canterbury Federated Farmers​, and Canterbury members of Grey Power​.

Those in support of the bill were fewer, but they were more diverse in their expression.

They included the Christchurch City Council and former councillor Peter Beck​, former Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore​, the Canterbury Regional Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Selwyn Mayor Sam Broughton​ and Lincoln University environmental policy lecturer Sylvia Nissen​.

“My experience has been that complex issues are dealt with best when all parties are in the room and involved from the start,” Broughton said. “This bill will build understanding and trust, it will keep future decisions from heading to court, it will lower costs, it will speed up processes, and it recognises that mana whenua hold rangatiratanga of the rohe as the government has already stated over 20 years ago in their apology.”

That was in his personal submission. In his submission on behalf of the Selwyn District Council, he said adding two mana whenua representatives with voting rights to a subcommittee had saved time and money, “through sharing decision-making and listening to one another at the front end of a process before and including at the decision-making stage”.

The Greater Christchurch Partnership​ also has full Ngāi Tahu representation, he added.

Another former ECan councillor, Cynthia Roberts​, said “working with Treaty partners to dig deep and sort out what was needed was an enriching experience and one that produced quality outcomes”.

Nissen wrote that her research has covered questions of representation in environmental decision-making, including for Māori.

She described the bill as “an important and overdue step towards upholding mana whenua rights, particularly relating to Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

“Given the significant impact of the decision-making of the Council on land and water, a lack of assured Ngāi Tahu representation compromises these rights.”

She concluded: “I would like to clearly state that as a Pākehā resident of Canterbury I do not in any way consider the Bill separatist, but rather an important step towards ensuring our decision-making processes are more inclusive and robust.”

Confusion

The report from the Māori Affairs Committee is due in June, before the bill has a second reading.

When he spoke about the bill in 2019, Tirikatene acknowledged that while the appointment of Ngāi Tahu representatives by National arose out of controversial circumstances, it was an arrangement that worked. He shook his head over National’s seeming reversal.

“They are absolutely confused,” he said. “They appointed Ngāi Tahu commissioners, and now they've tried to come up with every excuse under the sun to cancel their own decision. What opposition party rails against what they did in government?”

Some see this as the party not fulfilling the more enlightened legacy of Graham, Jim Bolger​, Chris Finlayson​, John Key and other National politicians who made progress on Treaty issues. Others might say it is simply how politics is played.