Such premature arrogance is not conducive to respectful rapport.
Her nursery-rhyme rhetoric vilifying opponents as "male, pale and stale" is immoral and probably illegal because it projects sexist, racist and ageist hatred.
As I read Te Taru, and agree, there is no reason to fear a review of relationships if the distinctions between policy advisory processes and policy making powers, responsibilities and accountabilities are clear, appropriate and sustained.
Stuart's letter also failed to distance himself from the power grab recommended in the TAPp and the extremist rhetoric, and yet, like Te Taru, segued away from the objections to TAPp by reiterating Te Arawa's proud history of effective co-operation.
He then claimed that I had rushed to "judgement about Te Arawa being undemocratic" before "due process" was completed.
Wrong. I made no comment on the quality of democracy in Te Arawa.
But worse, Stuart apparently believes that Te Arawa have the right to control what counts as 'due process' in local governance, to curb my freedom of expression and to limit the freedom of the press to publish all views.
This helps justify why Te Arawa needed to hear about the principles offended by the TAPp and their consequences before they went into their hui.
The arguments had to be rushed into the public domain to counter the stealth and highly partisan manner of the TAPp's preparation.
And to ensure that its naive policy making and implementation schedule was scrapped so that a reconciliation process can still be invented as part of the Council's decision making processes.
Finally, I appreciate the fact that neither Te Taru nor Stuart actually defended the detail of the TAPp.
This implies that Te Arawa is moving on to find a position much more congenial to respectful relationships and mutual benefits in a unique constitutional and legal context, especially mindful of a fully integrated economy, changing demographics and a richly blended culture.
And, hopefully, winding back the extremist rhetoric.
However, as Te Arawa develops its position in its own time, the Mayor and Councillors must also enable other equally complex and legitimate stakeholder groups to participate in the process of refining cultural engagement, and embed the outcomes in the annual planning and budgeting processes.
Why would any of these other groups need any less time?
The promise is that if all stakeholders are given culturally-appropriate participation privileges, they will contribute content and legitimacy to the outcome; a pragmatic policy settlement.
It is not too late for the Mayor and Council to devise and announce such a taihoa and inclusionary process.
Dr Macpherson teaches political philosophy and can be contacted at reynold@reynoldmacpherson.ac.nz.
