Guest Post: TE ARAWA 2050 COMMITTEE: A NEW PATHWAY TO INTERNAL CO-GOVERNANCE
A guest post by Reynold Macpherson, Chairman of Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers:
I watched the launch of this committee online this morning and was left with ambivalent feelings. While I strongly support Te Arawa having a fair and proportionate influence on Council policymaking, I was struck by the way politically critical implications were overshadowed by a cultural tide of goodwill and, at times, naïveté.
Committee Composition and Decision-Making Dynamics
The committee’s membership includes the mayor, all 11 elected councillors, and the chair plus four other members of Te Tatau o Te Arawa (elected to represent all Te Arawa constituencies). In an ideal scenario—where their five key projects consistently align with the intersection of the Te Arawa 2050 Vision and the Rotorua Lakes Council’s community outcomes—this structure could function harmoniously.
However, in a worst-case scenario, where committee votes split along tribal versus broader community interests, Te Arawa could hold a 9:7 majority if the four elected councillors with Te Arawa whakapapa align with Te Tatau. Even if the vote were split 8:8, Te Arawa would still wield a de facto veto. Even in a less extreme case, this potential veto power could cast a long shadow over the committee’s work.
The evidence from today’s meeting suggests that Te Tatau will push its priorities, secure the generally compliant endorsement of elected council members, and then present recommendations to the full Council with an expectation of formal ratification, funding through ratepayer contributions, and implementation. In effect, the committee appears to be a form of co-governance that advances Te Arawa’s priorities within the Council’s decision-making process.
Uncritical Reception of Te Arawa 2050 Vision
The Te Arawa 2050 Vision was received uncritically, with no effort made to compare it to Council’s Vision 2030 to identify areas of overlap or divergence. Given that Vision 2030 has been omitted from the Long-Term Plan 2024-2027, Te Arawa 2050 now stands as the dominant framework for envisioning the district’s future. A council without a clearly articulated vision lacks a solid foundation for its mission, objectives, programs, key performance indicators, and evaluation frameworks. This leaves it vulnerable to external agendas shaping governance priorities.
Bias in Project Selection Process
The process for identifying and ranking the five key projects was noticeably skewed toward Te Tatau spokespersons’ priorities. The online participant from Te Tatau was inaudible to other viewers except for a passing reference to rates. Unlike Te Tatau, which had clearly caucused and aligned its priorities beforehand, Council representatives had not clarified their priorities—allegedly to avoid predetermination—despite these priorities being outlined in the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034.
Initially, the discussion identified seven shared priorities:
- Sustainable Wastewater
- Housing
- Voter Turnout
- Rates
- Digital Literacy
- Reo Rua (Two Languages)
- Technological Innovation
However, after lobbying by Te Tatau programme managers, Reo Rua surged to the top of the list, followed by:
2. Housing
3. Sustainable Wastewater Management
4. Election Management
5. Technology, Innovation, Connectivity, and Digital Engagement
Notably, Rates disappeared from the final list—a development that will likely come as a shock to residents and ratepayers who were expecting relief.
Projects that fell outside the five-priority limit included:
6. Engagement in Local Government
7. Rangatahi
8. Stocktake of Council Policies and Procedures
9. Civil Defence Preparedness
A key question now is whether officials drafting project plans for the next meeting in April will clarify where expectations exceed the legitimate functions of local government. Will they distinguish between must-havecore services and nice-to-have well-being initiatives as defined by central government?
Avoidance of Critical Governance Questions
Broader questions about governance quality were brushed aside. When asked about the meaning of “partnerships,” officials framed it as effective relationships aligned with participation and engagement requirements under the Local Government Act. There was no mention of co-governance, democracy, or an equivalent policy-making process for non-Te Arawa stakeholders.
Similarly, when concerns were raised about using public resources to boost voter engagement, the Chief Executive assured attendees that all staff activities would remain apolitical.
Conclusion
Te Arawa has now effectively secured an internal co-governance pathway to advance its priorities—enabled by a Rotorua Lakes Council that no longer has its own distinct vision and whose members have not developed independent priorities consistent with their accountability to all residents and ratepayers.
Ratepayers are advised to monitor this committee’s proceedings with great care.