"Shoot me now!"

"Shoot me now! New Zealand’s system of science education continues to go down the toilet (along with Donald Trump’s papers, I guess) as everyone from government officials to secondary school teachers to university professors pushes to make Mātauranga Māori (or Māori “ways of knowing”) coequal with science, to be taught as science in science classes. All of them intend for this mixture of legend, superstition, theology, morality, philosophy and, yes, some “practical knowledge” to be given equal billing with science, and presumably not to be denigrated as “inferior” to real science. (That, after all, would be racism.) It’s one thing to teach the indigenous ways of knowing as sociology or anthropology (and but of course “ways of knowing” differ all over the world); it’s another entirely to say that they’re coincident with modern science....
    "And so here we have a professor and a college administrator, Dr. Julie Rowland of Auckland University, pushing to get spiritualism and MM taught either alongside science or as science.... Rowland is not only a structural geologist, but the deputy dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Auckland, considered (for the time being) New Zealand’s best university....
    "Click here to see another batch of bricks crumble in the foundation of New Zealand’s science."

~ evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne, from his post 'NZ Science Dean wants schools to teach Māori “spirituality” and “non-secularism” in science'

"There has been considerable debate around the intersection of NCEA, mātauranga Māori, and science. But it is the wrong debate...."

"There has been considerable debate around the intersection of NCEA, mātauranga Māori, and science. But it is the wrong debate....
    "Like many of the significant shifts we have seen in education and NCEA over the last few decades, the current debate is underpinned by slogans and little if any evidence....
    "First, there should be no doubt that our national teaching of science, technology and mathematics (henceforth just “science”) delivers cruel results.
    "In 2018-19 our 13-year-olds scored their worst-ever results in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (60 countries); and 15-year-olds had their worst-ever Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results in reading, mathematics and science (about 90 countries)....
    "We have been in both relative and absolute decline for more than 20 years. The economic costs to the nation and the impact on individuals of this are truly appalling. Read An empirical portrait of New Zealand adults living with low literacy and numeracy skills, by an AUT study group, and then weep – I did....

"But ... the relative performance of Māori and Pasifika peoples in science education is a dark stain on our nation, and we simply must address it.
    "The current slogan for the NCEA changes [requiring the teaching of mātauranga Maori as coequal to science] appears to be, 'Many Māori are disengaged from science because they don’t see their culture reflected in it.'
    "There is no evidence that such a claim has any bearing on education success rates...

"It is ridiculous to assume that students who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds, or who are Māori and Pasifika, are not as smart, or able; it is about opportunity to learn. Our system and its prejudices denies the opportunities to those who might most benefit.
    "Another slogan: 'Elevating the status of mātauranga Māori is not about undermining science. It is about incorporating genuinely useful indigenous knowledge, such as approaches to environmental guardianship, that complements science.'
    "My view is that that is a very generous interpretation of what the NCEA changes actually offer. But more importantly, such tinkering with some NCEA standards is not going to deal with the real problems.
    "Because ultimately, this debate reflects a cynical ploy by the Ministry of Education, pretending to address the seriously inequitable outcomes of our system. The real issues are very hard and there is no quick fix."

~ Gaven Martin, matfermatics professor at Massey University, from his op-ed 'We are having the wrong debate over how we teach science'

[Hat tip Jerry Coyne, from his post 'What's Going On in New Zealand? Three Easy Pieces.' Also worth reading is his thoughtful follow-up: 'Is Learning Through Trial and Error 'Science'?'

"Mātauranga Māori is mythology, not science"

TO PARAPHRASE AN AD from a a few years ago, they're reading our bullshit over there...

Toby Young summarises the bullshit for the UK Spectator:

As a defender of free speech, I sometimes feel like a man falling through a collapsing building. Just when you think you’ve finally reached rock bottom, the floor gives way again. That was my sensation last week when I read about the disciplinary investigation of Professor Garth Cooper by the Royal Society of New Zealand.
    For background, Professor Cooper is about as eminent as you can get in his field. He is professor of biochemistry and clinical biochemistry at the University of Auckland, where he also leads the Proteomics and Biomedicine Research Group. He’s principal investigator in the Maurice Wilkins Centre of Research Excellence for Molecular Biodiscovery, a member of the Endocrine Society (USA), and he was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (UK) in 2013.
    So why is this distinguished scientist at risk of being expelled from New Zealand’s most prestigious academic society? Several months ago he was one of seven signatories to a letter in the New Zealand 'Listener' that took issue with a proposal by a government working group that schools should give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom. That is, the Maori understanding of the world — that all living things originated with Rangi and Papa, the sky mother and sky god, for instance — should be presented as just as valid as the theories of Galileo, Newton and Darwin.
Knowing about Rangi and Papa won’t get you into medical school.

Or more bluntly, as Czech physicist Lubos Motl puts it in the title of his post on the drama: "Mātauranga Māori is mythology, not science."

Dr Cooper and his colleagues were less blunt, however, while ready enough to recognise a place for mythology -- albeit not a place at science's table:

The authors of the letter, ‘In Defence of Science’, were careful to say that indigenous knowledge was ‘critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy’ and should be taught in New Zealand’s schools. But they drew the line at treating it as on a par with physics, chemistry and biology: ‘In the discovery of empirical, universal truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself.’
    In a rational world, this letter would have been regarded as uncontroversial. Surely the argument about whether to teach schoolchildren scientific or religious explanations for the origins of the universe and the ascent of man was settled by the Scopes trial in 1925? Apart from the obvious difficulty of prioritising one religious viewpoint in an ethnically diverse society like New Zealand (what about Christianity, Islam and Hinduism?), there is the problem that Maori schoolchildren, already among the least privileged in the country, will be at an even greater disadvantage if their teachers patronise them by saying there’s no need to learn the rudiments of scientific knowledge. Knowing about Rangi and Papa won’t get you into medical school.
    But the moment this letter was published all hell broke loose.

"Hell" in the form of being attacked by their professional colleagues, along with an open letter from these witch-finders calling for their sacking from their university, and expulsion from NZ's  Royal Society -- and, presumably, polite society as well. 

It's worth reminding ourselves that the original Royal Society was at the heart of the original Enlightenment project -- that historian moment when science was finally wrenched free (we thought) from religious entanglement and science was finally placed upon the throne of reason.

This fact is probably lost on today's defenders of mythology as science, among them the Royal Society, the New Zealand Association of Scientists, the Tertiary Education Union — as well as their own Vice-Chancellor, Dawn Freshwater, and two academic colleagues who for two years have been in the forefront of calling for all of us to "respect the science": Dr Shaun Hendy and Dr Siouxsie Wiles. Indeed, it was this last two whose 'open letter' against the Science Seven first roused the rabble against them. 

Note that these rabble-rousers themselves are careful not to say (yet) that mythology is science: the most the vice-chancellor allows, for instance, is to say uncontroversially that 

We believe that mātauranga Māori and Western empirical science are not at odds and do not need to compete. They are complementary and have much to learn from each other.

Instead they've talked abut the "hurt" they say they feel. And they have been silent when others have shovelled on the bullshit:

Daniel Hikuroa, also an academic at Auckland, pointed out that Mātauranga Māori like Māramataka (the Māori lunar calendar) “was clearly science.” Tara McAllister said “we did not navigate to Aotearoa on myths and legends. We did not live successfully in balance with the environment without science. Māori were the first scientists in Aotearoa.” Tina Ngata wrote that “this letter, in all of its unsolicited glory, is a true testament to how racism is harboured and fostered within New Zealand academia.” 

An exemplar of where this is going is the letter from the NZ Psychological Society, penned by its president Dr Waikaremoana Waitoki who says, 

"In reviewing the letter, it is readily apparent that racist tropes were used, alongside comments typical of moral panic, to justify the exclusion of Māori knowledge as a legitimate science.... Science, in the hands of colonisers, is the literal gun."

"Racist tropes." 'Colonisation.' A "literal gun." The writer concludes, on behalf of her society, that this outrage underscores "the need to decolonise the power base held in our learning institutions." By which she means, expel the heretics -- and their views.

HOW DID WE GET HERE? We got here by their opponents remaining silent when postmodern philosophers and their mouthpieces in academia mouthed that race and the "lived experience" of colonisation and slavery trump actual facts -- that epistemology (the theory of knowledge) is grounded in race knowledge and racial identity rather than the non-contradictory identification and integration of observations -- that science if about subjective "paradigms" rather than demonstrable evidence -- and the corollary, or the result, that everyone's true subject now has become "victimology," with the winner being the group (in this tribal age it's always a group) who can display the most historical scars.

Fortunately not everyone has been silent in this stoush. A measure of how far removed the witch-hunters are from the mainstream is the reaction from around the world. Two reactions in particular are worth quoting in full: an open letter from British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (who needs no introduction), and another from his colleague from the University of Chicago, Jerry Coyne (who has written a much longer piece on this subject at his blog). Neither are cowed by the witch-hunters...

To: Dr Roger Ridley
Royal Society of New Zealand

Dear Dr Ridley

I have read Jerry Coyne’s long, detailed and fair-minded critique of the ludicrous move to incorporate Maori “ways of knowing” into science curricula in New Zealand, and the frankly appalling failure of the Royal Society of New Zealand to stand up for science – which is, after all, what your Society exists to do.

The world is full of thousands of creation myths and other colourful legends, any of which might be taught alongside Maori myths. Why choose Maori myths? For no better reason than that Maoris arrived in New Zealand a few centuries before Europeans. That would be a good reason to teach Maori mythology in anthropology classes. Arguably there’s even better reason for Australian schools to teach the myths of their indigenous peoples, who arrived tens of thousands of years before Europeans. Or for British schools to teach Celtic myths. Or Anglo-Saxon myths. But no indigenous myths from anywhere in the world, no matter how poetic or hauntingly beautiful, belong in science classes. Science classes are emphatically not the right place to teach scientific falsehoods alongside true science. Creationism is still bollocks even it is indigenous bollocks.

The Royal Society of New Zealand, like the Royal Society of which I have the honour to be a Fellow, is supposed to stand for science. Not “Western” science, not “European” science, not “White” science, not “Colonialist” science. Just science. Science is science is science, and it doesn’t matter who does it, or where, or what “tradition” they may have been brought up in. True science is evidence-based not tradition-based; it incorporates safeguards such as peer review, repeated experimental testing of hypotheses, double-blind trials, instruments to supplement and validate fallible senses etc. True science works: lands spacecraft on comets, develops vaccines against plagues, predicts eclipses to the nearest second, reconstructs the lives of extinct species such as the tragically destroyed Moas.

If New Zealand’s Royal Society won’t stand up for true science in your country who will? What else is the Society for? What else is the rationale for its existence?

Yours very sincerely
Richard Dawkins FRS
Emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Science
University of Oxford

To: Dr Roger Ridley

Royal Society of New Zealand 

Dear Dr. Ridley,

I understand from the news that New Zealand’s Royal Society is considering expelling two scientists for signing a letter objecting to teaching “indigenous” science alongside and coequal with modern science. As a biologist who has done research for a lifetime and also spent time with biologists in New Zealand, I find this possibility deeply distressing.

The letter your two members wrote along with five others was defending modern science as a way of understanding the truth, and asserting that Maori “ways of knowing”, while they might be culturally and anthropologically valuable, should not be taught as if the two disciplines are equally useful in conveying the truth about our Universe. They are not. Maori science is a collation of mythology, religion, and legends which may contain some scientific truth, but to determine what bits exactly are true, those claims must be adjudicated by modern science: our only “true” way of knowing.

I presume you know that the Maori way of knowing includes creationism: the kind of creationism that fundamentalist Christians espouse in the U.S. based on a literalistic reading of the Bible. Both American and Maori creationism are dead wrong—refuted by all the facts of biology, paleontology, embryology, biogeography, and so on. I have spent a lifetime opposing creationism as a valid view of life. That your society would expel members for defending views like evolution against non-empirically based views of creation and the like, is shameful.

I hope you will reconsider the movement to expel your two members, which, if done, would make the Royal Society of New Zealand a laughingstock.

Cordially,
Jerry Coyne
Professor Emeritus
Department of Ecology and Evolution
The University of Chicago
USA

You may pen your own (polite) letter to Dr Roger 

Ridley if you wish not to remain silent. His email is [email protected]. 

What is 'He Puapua'? [updated]

He Puapua is a report commissioned by the Ardern Government to carry out The Key Government's commitments after signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a "legally non-binding resolution passed by the UN in 2007" without New Zealand's vote -- which was withheld by the Clark Government. Among other rights and pseudo-rights asserted in the Declaration are said to be "the indigenous peoples' right to [their] own type of governance." That is almost specifically the aim of the He Puapua report, which 

sets out a timeline for ... transformational constitutional change which will divide the polity into "'hree streams: the Rangiratanga stream (for Maori), the Kawanatanga stream (for the Crown) and the Rite Tahi stream (for all New Zealanders).'

In the words of Elizabeth Rata, the report's commissioning and conclusions make it "clear [that] New Zealanders are at a crossroads." 

We will have to decide whether we want our future to be that of an ethno-nationalist state or a democratic-nationalist one.

The report itself makes its own aim abundantly clear: it "describes our future as an ethno-nation."

Delivered to the Ardern Government last year, and only released because it was leaked to the Opposition, the words "He Puapua" themselves translate as "a break," or "a separation."

While it’s usually used in reference to the ocean and a break in waves, in this case the expression centres on a 'breaking of the usual political and societal norms and approaches.’

Such a sundering is not a trivial thing. It brings to mind another famous Declaration, which recognised that "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Neither decency nor respect has impelled any such declaration in this case. Instead, as Rata says in an excellent take-down of the report:

Displaying an astonishing confidence, the authors claim that 'We consider Aotearoa has reached a maturity where it is ready to undertake the transformation to restructure governance to realise rangatiratanga Maori (self-determination).' I hope [says Rata] that this 'maturity' can accommodate the vigorous debate that is certainly needed if we are to abandon democracy - for what exactly? While each sentence of the Report deserves scrutiny I will confine myself to two points. The main one is the Report's premise of the political category as an ethnic one. The second concerns judicial activism in constitutional change.
    He Puapua envisages a system of constitutional categorisation based on ancestral membership criteria rather than the universal human who is democracy's foundational unit. Ancestral group membership is the key idea of 'ethnicity'.... The word entered common usage from the 1970s followed by 'indigenous' in the 1980s. 'Ethnicity' was an attempt to edit out the increasingly discredited 'race'. However changing a word does not change the idea. 

The report, in total, and the separate future it demands, is race-based. Explicitly. 

"When we politicise ethnicity by classifying, categorising and institutionalising people on the basis of ethnicity," warns Rata, "we establish the platform for ethno-nationalism. Contemporary and historical examples should make us very wary of a path that replaces the individual citizen with the ethnic person as the political subject." No such worries appear to occupy the report's authors.

"Interestingly," she continues, "those examples show the role of small well-educated elites in pushing through radical change." The report's authors are exactly as described. And as well-educated, well-heeled, and well-connected "culturalist intellectuals," their bios reveal them to be virtually all of one mind:

• Claire Charters, "(Ngāti Whakaue, Tainui, Ngāpuhi, Tūwharetoa) [and the Report's chair] gained her LLM from NYU in the US, and her PhD from Cambridge University. She is an associate professor at Auckland Law School, University of Auckland, and Director of the Aotearoa Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law. She has been an advisor to the UN President of the General Assembly on Indigenous Peoples’ participation at the UN (2016 – 2017); chair of the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples, Trustee (2014 -2020); chair of the cabinet-appointed working group to provide advice on the realisation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2019-2020); co-chair of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission Kaiwhakatara Advisory Group on human rights, Te Tiriti rights, and Covid-19; and worked on the negotiations for the adoption of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1998 – 2007)."
• Canadian Kayla Kingdon-Bebb is "the current Director of Policy at Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation. Previously she served for three years as Principal Advisor (and earlier, Private Secretary) to two successive Ministers of Conservation. Kayla has extensive experience in the machinery of government, and has led programmes of cross-agency and collaborative work on policy issues relevant to indigenous rights and interests... Kayla has a PhD and MPhil from the University of Cambridge. Her doctoral and master’s theses focused on Treaty law, indigenous customary law and legal pluralism in the context of natural resource management."
• Tamati Olsen is the "Chief Advisor Maori at Housing New Zealand Corporation" and "Director (Acting), Wellbeing, Policy Partnerships. Te Puni Kōkiri – New Zealand Ministry of Māori Development" formerly "Manager Cultural Wealth" at Te Puni Kōkiri"
• The 26-year-old Waimirirangi Ormsby "is project manager at Ka Awatea Services Ltd, developing Ka Awatea strategic vision document base on Mātauranga Māori principles." "Of Waikato, Ngātiwai and Te Arawa descent, [she] has foraged deep into her whakapapa to help environmental sustainability resonate more with her people. But for her the key is to live it herself every single day.... Together with her husband she created Pipiri Ki A Papatūānuku or PKP, which encourages a month of passive environmental action every year. People agree to a period of minimising their waste, tūkino free eating where they try to avoid industrially-farmed produce, begin composting or recycling and minimising plastic waste, or anything else they feel they can commit to.... Longer term, she has much grander ambitions for the recognition of traditional ways. “Te pae tawhiti, my vision for the future is, to be honest, one or two generations from now to have indigenous people leading the way and having indigenous knowledge systems be implemented into constitution, into law and policy, into the way that we live our lives, for everybody.” 
• Previously at the Office of Treaty Settlements, Emily Owen is "General Manager Policy, Department of Corrections NZ. She holds a Masters in History from Massey University."
• "Passionate about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights," Judith Pryor holds "a PhD in Critical and Cultural Theory from Cardiff University in the UK (2005)." Her "doctoral research in constitutions - examining law, history, policy and practice from a theoretical perspective - was published in 2008 as Constitutions: Writing Nations, Reading Difference." "Since returning to Aotearoa in 2006 from the UK, I have predominantly worked in Te Tiriti or human rights-related areas, including at Te Kāhui Tika Tangata, the Human Rights Commission; the Waitangi Tribunal, and the former Office of Treaty Settlements." She "can advise and support you and your agency to develop a capability plan as now required under the Public Service Act 2020. I can also devise a training programme for you, and can deliver Te Tiriti analysis training. Drawing on my previous experience in Policy, my workshop is particularly aimed at policy practitioners, and can be adapted for other audiences. The training covers:​ What the role of the Crown is in the Te Tiriti relationship; Why Te Tiriti analysis is critical for developing sound policy; How to embed Te Tiriti at each stage of the policy process (including engagement); How to practically work through a policy problem using a Te Tiriti framework."
• Jacinta Ruru "is co-Director of Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga [New Zealand's Māori Centre of Research Excellence], and Professor of Law at the University of Otago." Her "research interests focus on exploring Indigenous peoples' legal rights to own, manage and govern land and water. Jacinta's PhD thesis (University of Victoria, Canada, 2012) is titled "Settling Indigenous Place: Reconciling Legal Fictions in Governing Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand's National Parks."
• Naomi Solomon has an LLB from VUW. She is Ngati Toa's "General Manager, Treaty and Strategic Relationships."
• Gary Williams is a "Disability Sector Leader ... [whose] particular interests are issues for disabled people and especially disabled Maori, leadership development and training, the rights of disabled people and effective organisational governance and management. [Formerly] CEO of DPA [Disabled Persons Assembly], he has extensive sector networks, both nationally and internationally, and networks within government agencies."

Rata herself is explicit that what begins in ethno-nationalism often ends in bloodshed. "In Rwanda the ethnic doctrine 'the Mahutu Manifesto' of 1953 was written and promulgated by eleven highly educated individuals identifying politically as Hutu. The raw material of the ethnic ideologies that fuelled the violence in Bosnia and Serbia was supplied by intellectuals. Pol Pot began his killing campaigns immediately on his return from study in Paris." In all these cases, the bad philosophy preceded the horrific outcome. In Rata's 2006 speech to the NZ Skeptics she said: 

In New Zealand we are obviously not far down the track towards ethno-nationalism. However we need to recognise that the ideas which fuel ethnic politics are well-established and naturalised in this country and that the politicisation of ethnicity is underway". Fifteen years later the He Puapua Report shows the progress towards ethno-nationalism. Why has this racial ideology become so accepted in a nation which prides itself on identifying and rejecting racism?

The answer, of course, is what the report's authors call their philosophies. PhDs in subjects like Critical and Cultural Theory* have a real-world impact that appear in documents such as these. As Rata concludes:

'He Puapua' means a break. It is used in the Report to mean 'the breaking of the usual political and social norms and approaches.' The transformation of New Zealand proposed by He Puapua is indeed a complete break with the past. For this reason it is imperative that we all read the Report then freely and openly discuss what type of nation do we want - ethno-nationalism or democratic nationalism?

* * * * * 

* Quick reminder that Critical Race Theory and the like are not merely “Let’s teach the bad parts of history too” -- it's more like "Let's teach that history is all bad. And racist." Richard Delgado, for example, founder of the critical race theory school of legal scholarship, noted for his 'scholarship' on hate speech, and for introducing storytelling into legal scholarship baldly asserts:

Unlike traditional civil rights [e.g., Martin Luther King’s approach], which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

Also, Critical, Cultural Theory etc, its not a theory. 
"The critical race theory (CRT) movement [says Delgado in Movement, Activists, Transform, Power] is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power."

So it's a "theory" only in the same sense that AntiFa is an idea.

Don't say you haven't been told. 

[Hat tip Stephen Hicks, Peter Renzland]

“There are ‘big changes’ on the way in terms of how we are governed…”

After reading the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan, guest poster Christopher Lee now understands what Tipene O’Regan meant when he said there are “big changes” ahead on the way in terms of how we are governed.

At a meeting last week I listened to Professor John Burrows and Tipene O’Regan talk about the government’s Constitutional Review, on which they are panellists, where I was unsettled to hear O’Regan announce there are “big changes” ahead in terms of how we are governed.   (This was the same week he announced that all those opposing continued further Maori influence are next door to Nazi sympathisers.)

I have also been watching with particular interest the debate going on about the Draft-Auckland Unitary Plan.  An article by Michael Coote from the NBR on 31^st May (and his submission to the Council on the Plan), brought my attention to several issues of which I had previously been blissfully unaware. Maybe you’re also unaware of the passages in the Unitary Plan concerning issues of significance to those the plan dubs “Mana Whenua.” * Coote writes he is

concerned about the Maori racial supremacy bias that Auckland Council is attempting to embed permanently into its public policy through the Draft-Auckland Unitary Plan via Treaty of Waitangi-related clauses of legislation such as the Resource Management Act and various court decisions, and through additional political decisions Auckland Council has made off its own bat.
    This bias is particularly evident around, but not limited to, issues concerning … “Sites of significance to Mana Whenua” …

I’ve since had a read through the passages pertaining to Mana Whenua in the Plan, and I am very disturbed by the extent of the rights that would be granted to iwi over and above rights as Auckland citizens. Embedded throughout this plan are proposals which I believe attack the very heart of our democratic system and the property rights of ratepayers and citizens. In my opinion, if these are adopted it will create two classes of citizen, Mana Whenua and others.

Maybe this was what Sir Tipene O’Reagan was alluding to in his speech.

Our democratic and property rights are very important to me, as I imagine they are to the vast majority of fellow Aucklanders. It appears that here, as elsewhere, the terms ‘partnership’ and ‘principles’ of the Treaty are being used by local iwi to claim ‘co-governance’ of major resources.

Co-governance would establish a political system where the power and authority of one party, iwi, is unchallengeable by every other party.

This party is not appointed by the people, and therefore not accountable to the people. The Council’s ‘commitment’ to the Treaty therefore, as explained in the draft Unitary Plan, comes directly up against the principles of democracy.

There are two areas I have identified as being particularly concerning. These are:

• Mana Whenua having an “equal partnership” with Council in the management and governance of our natural resources would fundamentally undermine both the principle of equality of citizenship, and the democratic system it supports. Precedents have already been set here with the steering group set up for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan—the governance structure consisting of 8 representatives of our democratically elected governing bodies, and 8 Mana Whenua members. The justification for this 50/50 co-governance being “This structure provides equality of representation consistent with the principle of partnership within the Treaty of Waitangi.”
• The scale and extent of the Mana Whenua significant sites, which if they choose to do so, as it appears in the plan, would enable iwi to inflict their wishes upon the property rights of other citizens; imposed on the say-so of iwi authorities, unaccountable to anyone else in Auckland.

I believe it is abundantly clear that Mana Whenua influence would not be confined to environmental governance and resource management. Precedent here has been set under section 85 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which allowed the Independent Maori Statutory Board to appoint a maximum of two persons to sit as members on each of the Council's committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.

These members are unelected, with full voting rights alongside our democratically elected councillors.

However, the Independent Maori Statutory Board's legal advice suggested that the entitlement to appoint representatives are even more extensive than many probably anticipated. Consequently, unelected Independent Maori Statutory Board members sit on 16 Auckland Council committees and forums, and nominated members also sit on a range of hearings panels and working parties. Most of these bodies have no obvious link to the stewardship of physical and natural resources.

The Unitary Plan clauses that give me most concern are outlined below:

In Section 2.1.4 under the heading “Decision making, environmental governance, partnerships and participation:

• “Mana Whenua seek greater participation in resource management decision making. They want co management, joint management and co governance arrangements concerning shared decision making”; and
• “Building stable and equal partnerships is an important process for Mana Whenua to enable active and meaningful participation in the management of natural resources.”

There is even provision for Mana Whenua to take full control in some instances, for example:

“The full transfer of powers in accordance with s. 33 of the RMA is an option Mana Whenua would like to pursue for particular resource management activities”.

And again in Section 2.5.1 it is shown just how wide ranging these powers could be:

“Objective no. 4 [under the heading “Recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnerships and participation”]
‘Enable the transfer of powers and/or establishment of joint management agreements for certain functions relating to the development and management of ancestral lands, water, air, coastal sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga, and the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, where an iwi authority:
           a. has an ancestral connection or mana over a resource 
           b. has a clear mandate to represent the interests of that iwi or hapū
           c. can demonstrate the ability to fulfil the requirements of the RMA, whether directly 
                or by  outsourcing.”

The scale and extent of policy regarding Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua is also wide ranging, not only numerically, but also in scope, i.e. not just confined to sites but to include whole areas. If these proposals were to be adopted there is the likelihood that the property rights of many citizens would be impacted upon. These sites are to be nominated on the say-so of Mana Whenua. I see nothing in the Unitary Plan allowing any such such assertions to be challenged by any affected parties.  See if you can:

Section 3.1.2 Māori cultural heritage
There are thousands of areas, features and sites within Auckland where there is a high likelihood of Māori cultural heritage being discovered or affected.

Māori cultural landscapes (areas of significance to Mana Whenua)
Māori cultural heritage extends beyond individual sites of significance and includes wider ‘areas’ of historic occupation, where Mana Whenua values and associations with the landscape are reflected through landmarks, place names, portages, areas of seasonal occupation and historical transport routes that are also of importance to Mana Whenua.
    Mana Whenua liken their cultural landscape to their cultural footprint/tapuwae – which is of Maori cultural heritage in its own right. It is not site-specific; rather it is the context of the landscape, the volcanic maunga fields, and the numerous waterways and tributaries overlaid by layers of Maori history. Maori cultural landscapes provide the context and identify relationships within which areas, features and sites of significance to Mana Whenua exist, recognising that sites do not exist in isolation.....................................”

Section 3.1.2 Information management
Maori knowledge is traditionally passed down orally from one generation to the next. Tohunga and kaumatua are repositories of knowledge and are highly regarded for their knowledge of the spiritual and physical realms. These customs are still commonplace in Maori culture and it is important that sensitive information is managed in accordance with protocols that have been agreed with Mana Whenua.

Section 3.3.5.2 - Sites of significance to Mana Whenua
Where there is sensitive information regarding the significance of the sites special protocols agreed with Mana Whenua will outline the management of this information.
    Mana Whenua are aware of many other areas, features and sites that may be equally or more significant, and acknowledge there may be shared interests over scheduled locations. It is intended to identify further areas, features and sites nominated by Mana Whenua through future plan changes including those identified through other legislation.

Objective

1. The tangible and intangible values of scheduled sites and features of significance to Mana Whenua are protected and enhanced.

Policies

1. Avoid adverse effects on the values of scheduled areas, features and sites of significance to Mana Whenua.
2. Require subdivision, use and development to:
   a. enhance the values of the area, feature or site of significance and the relationship of Mana Whenua with their tāonga, commensurate with the scale and nature of the planning application
   b. incorporate mātauranga, tikanga and Mana Whenua values, including spiritual values
   c. incorporate the outcomes articulated by Mana Whenua through consultation and within iwi planning documents
   d. demonstrate consideration of practicable alternative methods, locations or designs which would avoid or reduce the impact on the values of sites of significance to Mana Whenua
   e. include mitigation that is compatible with Mana Whenua values and is commensurate with the extent of the effects.
   g. demonstrate consideration of practical mechanisms to maintain or enhance the ability to access and use the area, feature, site for karakia, monitoring, customary purposes and ahikā roa by Mana Whenua.”
3. […]
4. […]
5. […]
6. Manage subdivision so that areas features or sites of significance to Mana Whenua are not split into multiple land parcels.

4.1.16.1 Treaty of Waitangi and Mana Whenua and also 4.1.16.1.1 Consultation and engagement

1. The provisions below provide guidance as to when consultation and engagement is required with Mana Whenua for resource consent applications, applications for public and private plan changes and notices of requirement.
2. Engagement with Mana Whenua is required for resource consent applications, applications for public and private plan changes and notices of requirement which involve any activity that is on, adjacent to, or likely to impact on Mana Whenua values and interests in relation to:
    a. ancestral lands, water, air, coastal sites, wāhi tapu and other tāonga, for example:
        i. any areas, features or sites of significance to Mana Whenua including Māori cultural
           landscapes identified within iwi planning documents
        ii. any sites of cultural, historical or spiritual significance to Mana Whenua identified within the
            Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua overlay
        iii. where Māori cultural heritage is present or there is a high likelihood of Māori cultural heritage
            being present…
    c. the exercise of kaitiakitanga [guardianship] over resources of particular interest to Mana Whenua, for example, coastal areas, waterways, geothermal, ecological areas and matters relating to the mauri [life force]of natural and physical resources associated with freshwater, ecosystems and the coast. In particular, when applications are required for the following:
        i. discharges of waste water
        ii. discharges of to air
        iii. take or use of surface water, ground water or geothermal resources
        iv. the construction of a dam
        v. damming of water
        vi. drilling to construct a bore
        vii. structures affecting river beds and the [Coastal and Marine Area]
        viii. disturbance to river bed and the [Coastal and Marine Area]
        ix. reclamations.”

That’s a fairly comprehensive range of private places, properties, plans and projects over which the Draft-Auckland Unitary Plan proposes granting unelected Maori representatives virtual veto power.

If you are not already aware of the issues raised, I suggest that you take a look at the unitary plan found at: http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/xc.enquire/UnitaryPlanElectronicPrint.aspx

I refer particularly to the proposed rules in these sections:

1.2; 2.1.4 ; 2.5; 2.5.1; 2.5.2; 2.5.4; 3.1.2; 3.3.5.2 ; 4.1.16.1.1; and 4.4.5.1 (2) Notification.

I can understand and appreciate the desirability of governance arrangements that value Maori knowledge and participation. However we cannot ignore the fact that iwi, wishing to realise their economic potential following treaty settlements, are developing commercial arms which are at the start of a growth phase. This being so there is a high likelihood of potential conflicts of interest in iwi being both regulatory decision makers and also commercial developers.

You may share my concerns and if so it would be great if you could alert others by raising this with associates, friends and family.

* * * * *

* Defined by Te Puni Kokiri as “the exercise of traditional authority over an area of land [whenua].”