During its last meeting, Waikato Regional Council was required to consider a political statement for submission to the Treaty Principles Bill Justice Select Committee.
However, councillors only received the submission on the afternoon prior to the council meeting (instead of the usual five working days).
The public were also short-changed by this manoeuvre – the document was not made available for public scrutiny until the day of the meeting.
The submission, moved by Stu Kneebone and seconded by Noel Smith, was written by council’s iwi relationships team, not councillors. Warren Maher, chair of the Policy and Strategy Committee, declared his frustration at the poor procedural process, and the short notice councillors were given to consider the document. As a result, councillors Maher, Cookson, Dunbar-Smith, Hughes and I voted against the submission, and councillor Downard abstained.
Stu Kneebone
The submission’s introduction says “thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Waikato Regional Council (WRC) opposes this bill and advocates for its abandonment. The bill seeks to eliminate the principle of partnership with iwi and hapū, undermining the foundations of co-governance, co-management and collaboration.
This submission reflects our council’s commitment to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi and fostering robust co-governance and co-management partnerships with iwi and hapū.”
In my opinion, this was a staff submission, not a council submission. A political statement supported by eight of 14 councillors (including both Māori ward members) – is certainly not consensus. Yet the document was submitted as if all of council agreed to it. My request to have the vote outcome included within the submission, for clarity, was rejected, and therefore the inferred support for the document was misleading and deceptive.
The eight councillors who supported this ratepayer-funded submission – Kneebone, Smith, Clarkson, Storey, Strange, Nickel, Mahuta and Hodge – have effectively used council as a political soap box to progress personal points of view. Support or oppose the Act Party’s bill, this was never the business of council as a whole.
As councillors, we’re instructed not to submit on political issues, to be seen as keeping an open mind. Once our position has been publicly declared, we’re told, predetermination excludes us from voting on those issues.
Already this term, Chris Hughes has been excluded from voting on Long Term Plan decisions because of personal submissions made earlier in the year.
Are those councillors who spoke to and supported this submission now excluded from voting on similar issues?
Presenting late agenda items and addendums appears to be a tactic used when council is required to consider controversial issues. Section 46 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 states that agenda items must be publicly available at least two working days before the date of the announced meeting, preferably more.
This is not the first time controversial issues have appeared late on the council agenda. Let’s hope it’s the last.
- That is my personal view.
