Opinion: Why isn’t there 50-50 joint management in the Rotorua region?

As explained by lobby group Democracy Action, co-management is an emerging model in New Zealand designed to give equal decision-making power to local government and iwi representatives. This system, which allocates 50/50 voting rights, aims to foster partnership and mutual respect. But such shared governance challenges traditional democratic frameworks that often adhere to the “one person, one vote, one value” principle of equal voting rights. The introduction of equal partnership voting weights, regardless of population proportions, would fundamentally change the distribution of decision-making power.

One of the main reasons for 50/50 joint management Didn’t get any attention in Rotorua There was widespread preference among stakeholders for a system based on equal voting rights. This included many members of the Maori community who saw equal voting rights as necessary to maintain a democratic system. Although Treaty of Waitangi and the Fenton Agreement affirm Maori rights and entitlements, neither explicitly calls for shared governance. In my view, many in Rotorua viewed a more representative approach that protected equal voting rights between the general and Maori population as a fairer model, believing it better supported democratic principles.

Legal restrictions in New Zealand’s human rights framework presented a second and significant obstacle to shared governance in Rotorua. When a Local Law proposal was introduced to formalize the 50/50 joint management structure, The Chief Prosecutor blockedHe argued that this would violate the Human Rights Act by discriminating against the general electorate. This legal decision underlined the complexity of moving from an equal voting rights model to a partnership-based model. By preventing the bill from passing, the legal framework reaffirmed New Zealand’s commitment to democratic justice and voter equality that protects the rights of all citizens in the territory.

According to the 2018 New Zealand Census, 42% of the population in the Rotorua District identifies as Māori, although this figure also includes those under voting age, which affects voter representation. About 28% of eligible Māori in the Rotorua electorate were on the Māori List for the October 2022 local election and about 22% for the 2023 general election.

Rotorua Lakes Council was established in 2015 Te Tatau or Te ArawaA carefully structured Maori policy advisory committee to formally represent iwi in council discussions. Te Tatau members were appointed to key sub-committees with voting rights, thus increasing Māori participation in council decisions without altering the democratic structure of the council. While Te Tatau’s role is generally supported, some community members have expressed concerns about 50/50 shared management, particularly as other issues such as decision-making, fiscal policy, rising debt and interest rates, and homelessness begin to reshape public opinion. Views on council actions between 2016 and 2020.

2021 Representation Review Discussions about governance intensified when the council, working with Ngāti Whakaue (Te Arawa’s largest hapū), proposed a 50/50 joint management model. The proposal met with significant opposition; many argued that this was incompatible with democratic values ​​and New Zealand’s legal framework. Te Tatau, along with groups such as Rotorua Residents and Ratepayers, advocated for a model that allowed for meaningful Maori representation while also promoting equal voting rights. The majority of stakeholders felt that the proposed model did not reflect the vision of democratic governance.

In preparation for the 2023 local elections, the Local Government Commission launched a new neighborhood structure that allows proportional representation. Rotorua was divided into general, Māori and rural districts, creating a council of 10 members, including three Māori, six generals and one rural representative. This neighborhood structure protected equal voting rights while also ensuring that diverse voices from across the community were represented in council decisions. By offering a more pluralistic form of representation that accommodated most local interests, it enabled greater inclusivity without the need for 50/50 shared governance.

The Rotorua co-government debate highlights the fundamental tension between minority and majoritarian rule. Minoritarianism describes a system in which minority groups have disproportionate influence, sometimes at the expense of the majority. Majoritarianism, in contrast, prioritizes the interests of the majority and supports majority rule as a fundamental democratic principle. Although majoritarianism can sometimes ignore minority perspectives, it is often seen as the foundation of democratic governance.

In Rotorua, advocates of 50/50 shared governance favored a minoritarian approach, while many local stakeholders and council members felt that majoritarian principles were better aligned with democratic norms of governance as set out in the New Zealand Local Government Act. These different perspectives have created a divide between Te Ao Māori (the Māori worldview) and Te Ao Pākehā (the European New Zealand worldview), making consensus on the issue difficult.

The Rotorua co-management debate reflects wider debates in New Zealand and internationally. Questions about co-governance in New Zealand often touch on the effects of the Treaty of Waitangi on governance and the nature of biculturalism. More recently, the National Law-New Zealand First coalition’s decision to review legal references to Treaty principles suggests a shift towards a more majoritarian model in which equal rights for all citizens could increasingly replace the partnership-based models established on the basis of the Treaty. This shift represents an ongoing struggle to balance Maori self-determination with the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament.

Similar discussions are taking place abroad. In the United States, tensions between majority rule and minority rights manifest themselves in issues such as voting rights and judicial decisions; There are concerns here that minority influence could undermine fundamental democratic principles. In Canada, policies granting unique rights to indigenous communities within a liberal democracy are intended to preserve cultural autonomy, but critics argue such policies risk further dividing communities.

A pluralistic majoritarian model could offer a balanced path forward. This model respects majority rule while incorporating mechanisms that ensure minority perspectives are included in the decision-making process. Unlike multicultural majoritarianism, which can allow a dominant culture to marginalize minority voices, pluralistic majoritarianism strengthens the balance of inclusivity and democratic authority by integrating minority perspectives within a majoritarian structure. Such a model could potentially help address concerns in diverse communities such as Rotorua, preserving both democratic values ​​and social cohesion.