Playing the ‘racist’ card to stifle robust debate
The prospect of being labelled racist elicits deep discomfort among most Pakeha — me included. Awareness of this discomfort is increasingly being used as a weapon for suppressing important questions and debate. This was evident during a recent Auckland Council Governing Body meeting, which discussed Tu¯puna Maunga Authority’s 2020/21 Draft Operational Plan and budget.
The authority was established to administer 14 volcanic cones (maunga) following a 2014 Treaty settlement which 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 Ma¯ori 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 as anybody.
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 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 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.
Several councillors implied it was racist to question the authority. The council subsequently voted in favour of the plan with only one dissenting vote — councillor Fletcher’s.
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.
The Tu¯puna Maunga Authority receives many millions from Auckland Council every year. It utilises many council resources, so ratepayers’ real financial contribution will be far higher than the authority’s budgets suggest.
The Human Rights Commission describes racism as negative statements or actions about any racial, ethnic, or religious group of people. Criticising a people is never okay. However, criticising a publicly-funded organisation’s deeply flawed processes and calling out questionable behaviour is a sign of a democratic and open society.
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.
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 Ma¯ori in a constructive manner that sees Ma¯ori and non-Ma¯ori developing a partnership that benefits all. However, it is simplistic to assume the answer lies in simply putting the boot on the other foot.
A more constructive approach is needed for there to be empowerment rather than power, which carries with it an expectation of responsibility and accountability. Robust debate should be a part of building mutually respectful and culturally sustainable practices and protocols together.
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 controlled by self-censorship and fear, where a blind eye is turned from where light needs to be shone. Is that what we want for New Zealand?