The rise and rise of a cynical weapon for suppressing public debate
By Anna Radford
The prospect of being labelled racist elicits deep discomfort among most Pakeha – me included.
While there is no question about the need to eliminate racist behaviours, attitudes and rhetoric, awareness of this discomfort is increasingly being used as a cynical weapon for suppressing important questions and debate.
This was evident during a recent Auckland Council Governing Body meeting, which discussed Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s 2020/21 Draft Operational Plan and budget.
But first, some background. The Authority was established to administer 14 volcanic cones (maunga) following a 2014 Treaty settlement that vested ownership in a collective of 13 iwi / hapu but placed the land in trust for the common benefit of that collective - and the other people of Auckland.
The “other people” includes Māori excluded from that settlement, and people from other ethnicities. The lands were designated reserves, thus guaranteeing public access.
To reflect this Treaty partnership, the Authority equally comprises iwi and Auckland Council members.
Any questions about its processes are therefore directed at its Auckland Council representatives as much anybody.
It’s up to Auckland Council to approve the budget
Every year Auckland Council ratifies the Authority’s ratepayer-funded budget, and operational plan. This year’s meeting was held against a backdrop of significant public disquiet about the Authority’s programme to fell nearly 2000 exotic trees from Auckland’s maunga.
Yet, as was the case last year, the vague wording in this year’s plan gave no hint of the intended massive, single-phase tree felling.
Auckland Councillor Christine Fletcher highlighted this deception when she noted last year’s plan had not made it clear so many trees would be felled. She asked how, in approving a similarly worded plan and budget for this year, could the Council be sure it didn’t contain any other fish-hooks.
During the ensuing debate several councillors implied it was racist to question the Authority. The Council subsequently voted in favour of the plan with only one dissenting vote – Cr Fletcher’s.
Likewise, the Honour the Maunga tree protection group routinely experiences accusations of racism based on nothing more than our daring to challenge the Authority’s plans to fell hundreds of trees during a Climate Emergency. As a result, many news media outlets won’t challenge the Authority in any meaningful way or require proof of its increasingly outrageous accusations about us.
This is despite Tūpuna Maunga Authority directly receiving many millions from Auckland Council every year. It utilises many Council resources, so ratepayers’ real financial contribution to its operations will be far higher than the Authority’s budgets suggest.
What is racism?
The Human Rights Commission describes racism as negative statements / actions about any racial, ethnic, or religious group of people.
Criticising a people is never ok. However, criticising a publicly-funded organisation’s deeply flawed processes and calling out questionable behaviour is a sign of a democratic and open society.
A healthy society encourages healthy debate. It requires being unafraid to question all publicly-funded bodies, including Treaty co-governance organisations even though an important part of their mandate quite rightly involves addressing very deep injustices to Māori.
Some of the many inaccurate media headlines about Honour the Maunga.
Yet societal norms have shifted so now there is an unhealthy expectation of unquestioning acceptance of anything done by publicly-funded entities administering Treaty settlement land.
Labelling as racist those who raise valid, process-related concerns provides a convenient distraction from the issues at hand.
There is no question of the need to embrace the cultural redress intended by Treaty settlements but we as a society need to have the courage to learn how to walk that difficult and sometimes uncomfortable line between racism and unquestioning acceptance of inappropriate behaviours and practices.
We also need to learn how to acknowledge the many wrongs done to Māori in a constructive manner that sees Māori and non-Māori developing a workable partnership that benefits all.
Empowerment vs power
However, it is simplistic to assume the answer lies in simply putting the boot on the other foot. The satisfactions this may bring some in the short-term, are unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating.
A more constructive approach is for there to be empowerment rather than power, which carries with it an expectation of responsibility and accountability.
Robust debate should therefore be a part of building mutually respectful and culturally sustainable practices and protocols together. It requires all parties to be held equally accountable within the co-governance partnerships.
Failure to have the courage and integrity to call out baseless accusations and poor practice - no matter who it is done by - enables wrongdoing and emboldens the perpetrators.
Consider what happens in societies that are controlled by self-censorship and fear and where a blind eye is turned away from where light needs to be shone. Is that really what we want for New Zealand?
How is it racist to question the Authority’s plans to spend more than $1 million of ratepayers’ money in felling 345 healthy mature trees on Ōwairaka / Mt Albert? Trees that are providing significant ecological, environmental and amenity value – not to mention providing protective shelter that will maximise the Authority’s return on its $360,000 investment in the native plantings.
How is it racist to question a $30,000 budget for removing one of Ōwairaka’s largest trees by helicopter? It would take an average rate payer more than 8.5 years to cover the costs of that single tree’s removal.
How is it racist to question the Authority's opaque processes and failure to engage with the public in any meaningful or constructive manner?
How is it racist to question why Auckland Council approved the Authority's non-notified resource consent to fell 345 Trees on Ōwairaka / Mt Albert (nearly half its tree cover)?
How is it racist to question why the Authority gained this resource consent six months before it had finished public consultation on it's big-picture plan (Integrated Management Plan) for Auckland's maunga?
It’s time to start a constructive conversation about this issue in New Zealand. If you agree with this article, then please share it on your social media.
Please help us to continue standing strong to honour the beautiful Ōwairaka / Mt Albert and all the lifeforms it supports
Your donation will help us to continue saving trees and spreading the word spreading the word.
Any unused proceeds will be donated to an appropriate environmental charity.
You can help by joining our ongoing tree-saving presence at the maunga. All it takes is two hours per week. Please be aware that in volunteering to help, you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct.
Subscribe to our newsletter and keep up-to-date with our tree-saving progress.
Signing our tree-saving petition is a quick and easy way to show your support for saving Ōwairaka’s trees. Please do not make donations on the Change petition website because those funds go to Change.org to promote the petition. It is more helpful to donate to us via our Givealittle page.