More oppose Maori bill

Press, 18 December 1989, Page 2

More oppose Maori bill

By

MICHAEL RENTOUL

-I Two more local authorities have declared their opposition to the draft legislation creating local government Maori advisory I committees. The Selwyn District Council ■opposes the committees at district level while the Marlborough District Council is against local government funding of the committees. Opposition to the bill by the Kaikoura District Council and the Fendalton-Waimairi District Council has already upset the Minister of Local Government, Dr Bassett, who says local authorities should send submissions on the bill to the Government rather than grandstanding to The news media. At a Marlborough District Council meeting on Thursday it reduced the support it was earlier willing to give the bill, from a proposal . that local authorities share the cost of funding the committees. The Selwyn District Council has rejected the committees at the district level, but is not opposed to regional representation. Selwyn councillors’ rejection of district committees centres on the bill’s failure to define “iwi” (tribe). The district secretary, Mr George Singleton, said the bill’s intention was for each territorial and regional authority to establish a committee with membership representative of the tangata whenua of the region. “It must be accepted that the tangata whenua currently recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal is [ only the Ngai Tahu. Other hapu or sub-tribes may take the contrary view but as the iwi has not yet been determined in this draft legislation then rightly or wrongly the only tribe eligible for recognition is also the Ngai Tahu,” he said. “Is it then necessary for there to be 29 committees covering all territorial and regional authorities (in the South Island) or should these committees be regionally based?” The bill did not recognise the trademarks of local body reform — increased accountability, transperancy and efficiency. “It merely separates competing cultures without recognising the interests of other sectional groups. “The' document proposes that there must be ‘appropriate consultative mechanisms to ensure adequate Maori input into local government decision-making.’ “Certainly local government must respect the traditional and spiritual ‘rights’ of Maori just as it must have regard to others of differing ethnic origin' or' the under-privileged — but where have these rights been specifically enshrined in legislation? “The Government has already enshrined Maori representation to Parliament by election and it must be noted that many ‘European’ seats on both sides of the House are very ably filled by members of Maori descent. “Is' there 'any necessity to

legislate for Maori committees when the highest offices in the land are filled on a multi-cul-tural, rather than bi-cultural basis? “We must accept the special place of Maori in our society without being paternalistic as this proposed legislation would appear.” - The bill proposed that territorial and regional authorities should fund the committees, including members’ salaries and expenses, yet the members were to be appointed instead of elected and the committees themselves deemed not to be committees of the “parent” body. While the committee functions were to be limited to those referred to them by the authorities concerned, with the power to make recommendations only, the bill 1 proposed delegations similar to those granted community boards, and to appointed. rather than elected representatives. “Where is the accountability to the electorate or indeed the iwi?” Marlborough District councillors are also concerned about the funding cost. Councillor Michael Briggs said while the idea of consultation had merit, the committees would cost a substantial amount to finance. Every ratepayer or organisation was free to approach the council and the committees could be seen as unfairly advantageous to one group. Councillor Larry Pigou said the council should oppose the Government’s arrogance in legislating for mandatory Maori representation and ratepayer funding. Councillor Bryan Bruce said the committees should be funded by the taxpayer, not the ratepayer. Councillor Yvonne Burns said it was clear from the legislation that the Government intended councils to foot the bill, and this was the only way Maori input could be assured. Mr Singleton said there should be a limit on the number of deputies an iwi was able to appoint in place of absent committee members. . • “Taken to the extreme, (the) result could be shambolic. “I fail to see the reasonableness or significance of this provision particularly when no provison is made for deputies on regional or territorial bodies where members are elected to their positions.” Committee meetings should be conducted in accordance with the standing orders of the authority concerned, not in the way iwi saw fit. Submissions and recommendations by the committees should be on a written basis only, once again in line with accepted procedure, not written or oral as proposed. Mr Singleton also recommended that the committees’ term of office be the same as that of the local body concerned. Council members accepted Mr Singleton’s report on the legislation as the basis of a‘ council submission on the bill.