Comment: Partnership proposal can be democratic

The Rotorua Pro-Democracy Society has made a comment.

The Rotorua Pro-Democracy Society comments on last month's council vote on the Te Arawa partnership proposal.

We are pleased to see that the partnership proposal put by Te Arawa to the council is to be submitted with the officials' report on four options to the wider community for consultations, applying the Special Consultative Process provisions of the Local Government Act (LGA, 2002).

The society is disappointed that the council (on a majority vote) chose to give "support in principle" for Option 2 set out in the officials' report. Significant minorities of councillors were against the council stating any preference and wanted any decision to wait until the community had been consulted.

We will remember the verbal assurances given by the mayor that the whole of the Te Arawa proposal and the officials' report on all four options would be made available to the public for the Special Consultative Process. Just how that will be done will become known when the details of the Statement of Proposal (and other documents) that council is required to prepare as part of the Special Consultative Process are placed in the public domain.

Mindful of recent public concerns regarding the quality of consultations, the society is keen to ensure that the consultative process is seen as authentic and has a rigorous methodology that will create trustworthy information for the council's decision-making. The society would be pleased to help design a consultative process methodology that meets internationally recognised standards.

The Pro-Democracy Society recognises the legal requirements for the council (LGA (2002)), to "provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to its decision-making processes". It is concerned that in meeting these legal requirements, the intention (as set out in Option 2) to appoint Te Arawa people to certain council committees, and to give them voting rights, would be inconsistent with the principles of democracy. Democracy generally requires representatives to be elected, not appointed, as in non-democratic political regimes. The LGA (2002) does not prescribe or suggest appropriate engagement and consultation infrastructure, or capacity building obligations, leaving both to be determined locally.

During the course of the council meeting, some councillors referred to historical Maori issues and to the undenied contributions that Te Arawa has made to the city in the past and continues to provide. However, the LGA (2002) requires Maori to be given opportunities to contribute to the council's decision-making process and it is not for the purpose of redressing historical claims or as a reward for contributions that Te Arawa makes to Rotorua.

The principles of consultation that are to be put in place must not transgress the normal democratic processes as we all in the community know and expect them be. That is not to say that, in certain circumstances, appointments can't be made to council committees. This is already provided for in the LGA (2002) where a proposed appointee has skills, attributes and knowledge that will assist a particular council committee in its work. To make an appointment or a number of appointments "as of right" (which is what the council's preferred Option 2 provides for) is not in keeping with these requirements, our community's traditions, or the principles of democracy.

Instead, the society suggests, the legislated capacity for council committees to co-opt experts could help meet some of Te Arawa's aspirations for greater engagement in decision-making, while not disturbing the legitimate and democratic responsibilities, authority and public accountabilities of each council committee.

It appears unlikely that Te Arawa's request to appoint one of the three commissioners to the District Hearings Committee can be achieved without the proposed process violating democratic principles, making an appointee vulnerable to a legal challenge on the grounds of having a conflict of interest, and increasing the possibility of corruption. Current appointments are made by council of three elected councillors who have undergone special training. We suggest no change in this area.

In sum, the society is looking forward to engaging in the Special Consultative Process. It is a means of generating a fresh policy settlement on Te Arawa's engagement in a democratic, authentic and systematic manner. It can reaffirm the democratic structures of local government to the benefit of all. It foreshadows a possible Option 5; a democratised version of Option 2.