Seminar focus: who bears the cost, and who decides?
Ākonga debate how a society should distribute a scarce resource and what obligations it owes to people not represented in the first decision.
- Deliberation move: allocation → exposed disadvantage → absent-stakeholder challenge → defended or revised judgement.
- Evidence: a distribution decision that names who loses, why that cost is defensible, and what would make the learner change it.
Ngā Whāinga Ako | Learning intentions
We are learning to make a distribution judgement that exposes its trade-offs rather than hiding them behind the word “fair”.
- I can distinguish equality, need, contribution and future impact as different allocation principles.
- I can name the stakeholder my preferred allocation disadvantages.
- I can defend or revise a decision after hearing a claim from someone absent from the first discussion.
Preparation
Print the fictional allocation case below and four principle cards: equal share, greatest need, greatest public benefit, protect the future. Learners may combine principles, but they must state which principle carries each part of the decision.
Keep the Whanganui source boundary specific. Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 records the Whanganui relationship and recognises Te Awa Tupua as a legal person. Do not generalise that relationship into a claim that all Māori communities define rivers, resources or kaitiakitanga in one way.
60-minute runsheet
- Whakaoho — “fair” is not one rule (5 min): distribute 12 fictional food vouchers among four households using two different principles. Learners write which principle they used; there is no attempt to force one correct allocation.
- Source boundary — Whanganui (7 min): read the short provenance note below. Learners identify what the source lets them say and one claim it does not justify about Māori resource governance generally.
- Common case — 100 rebuilding hours (8 min): introduce the fictional Harbourview case. A council has 100 contractor-hours this week and four urgent projects competing for them.
- First allocation (10 min): groups allocate all 100 hours. Every allocation line must name its principle and one group that receives less as a result.
- Absent stakeholder cards (10 min): each group draws one voice that was missing: disabled residents without car access; renters in temporary housing; workers whose jobs depend on the damaged market; or students who will still be using the rebuilt facilities in ten years. The group must state the strongest claim that stakeholder could make against the allocation.
- Deliberation hearing (10 min): groups pair. One presents the allocation; the other presents the absent stakeholder’s challenge. The first group may defend, narrow or revise its allocation, but must answer the challenge explicitly.
- Final civic judgement (7 min): individual response: “My allocation disadvantages ___ because ___. I still defend / I revised this because ___. I would change again if ___.”
- Exit — future test (3 min): identify one consequence that would not be visible this week but should still count in the decision.
Harbourview allocation case | Fictional teaching data
A fictional coastal town has 100 contractor-hours available this week after a severe storm. All figures below are invented for classroom deliberation; they do not describe a real council or disaster.
| Project | Hours to complete | Immediate effect if delayed |
|---|---|---|
| Repair the accessible footbridge to the temporary clinic | 35 | People without vehicles take a much longer route to appointments. |
| Reopen the covered food market | 30 | Several small traders remain unable to operate from their usual site. |
| Weatherproof 18 temporary homes | 45 | Households remain exposed to rain and cold. |
| Raise the community-hub floor before rebuilding | 40 | The hub can reopen sooner without the work, but remains more exposed to future flooding. |
Constraint: you have 100 hours, not 150. Any allocation creates a cost somewhere. Your job is to make that cost visible and justify it.
Allocation principles
- Equal share: distribute effort as evenly as possible across competing claims.
- Greatest need: prioritise the people facing the most serious immediate harm.
- Greatest public benefit: prioritise the work expected to help the largest number of people.
- Protect the future: spend some present capacity reducing a serious future risk even when that delays a visible current benefit.
These principles can conflict. A strong response does not pretend the conflict disappears; it explains why one principle carries more weight in this case.
Whanganui provenance | Specific relationship, not generic doctrine
Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au. Te Awa Tupua legislation records this as expressing the inseparable relationship between the iwi and hapū of Whanganui and the Whanganui River. Teach it as a Whanganui relationship with its own history and authority.
The civic lesson is not “Māori economics equals guardianship”. The useful challenge is narrower: public decisions about resources can involve relationships, rights, responsibilities and future effects that are not captured by a simple price calculation. When another iwi, hapū or place is discussed, use that community’s own sources.
Aromatawai | Evidence to collect
- Secure: the allocation totals 100; each choice names a principle; the learner identifies a real loser/cost; the absent-stakeholder challenge is answered.
- Needs repair: the response calls the allocation “fair” without criteria, hides the disadvantaged group, or treats future impact as automatically more/less important without reason.
- Extension: design one additional piece of evidence that could justifiably overturn your current allocation and explain why it matters.
Hononga Marautanga | Curriculum
Local government decisions affect daily life (e.g. parks, libraries, water, transport).
Te Mātaiaho (2025) · Social Sciences · Phase 4 · Civics and Society · mandatory statement 21277. The fictional council case makes the effect of public allocation decisions concrete across access, housing, local commerce and future flood resilience.
Sources and checking
- Primary legal source: Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017.
- The Harbourview allocation, project hours and stakeholder cards are fictional teaching data written for this lesson.
- Local iwi and hapū sources remain authoritative for local relationships, tikanga and resource-governance practice.