South Taranaki’s iwi and council have drawn up a new partnership agreement just as the Aotearoa New Zealand’s new conservative coalition government plans to take an axe to co-governance.

He Pou Tikanga Partnership Strategy sets out why and how South Taranaki District Council will increase collaboration with the area’s four iwi.

The agreement was created by the council and the iwi post-settlement governance entities – Te Kaahui o Rauru, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui, Te Korowai o Ngāruahine and Te Kāhui o Taranaki.

• READ MORE: New NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, ministers sworn in at Government House

Cooperation includes not just leaders but staff from both sides working together.

The agreement says South Taranaki District Council will pay to make this happen.

“As partners to council, iwi must have a participatory role in development of agreed relevant council policy, service delivery, special projects and decision making.

“More resourcing from the council and other avenues is needed for iwi to engage and this resourcing needs to be explicit.”

Cooperation crucial
Mayor Phil Nixon said it was crucial that staff from both sides worked alongside each other.

“If we don’t do it from the ground up — which takes it right from the officers to begin with — if we’re not all on the same page working together it doesn’t work.”

The council’s iwi committee Te Kāhui Matauraura last week endorsed He Pou Tikanga for inclusion in the 2024-34 long term plan.

But just two days later the new government set out its plan to wind back co-governance with Māori, including in local government rules.

The coalition deal said the previous government’s replacement for the Resource Management Act would be repealed by Christmas.

National Environment Standards on freshwater would be also replaced, along with the National Policy Statement on freshwater “to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai to better reflect the interests of all water users”.

Those new rules introduced under Labour had required more say for iwi and hapū in council decision-making.

Replacement rules
The new Minister for Regulation, ACT’s David Seymour, said the replacement rules would instead have “a founding principle of property rights which has been absent from those laws for far too long”.

Mayor Nixon hoped the government would stick with National’s promise to support localism.

“We work well with our iwi; I think we have a really good relationship, and so it’s a matter of building on that and continuing that because I don’t want to see any of this go backwards in any way.”

The coalition agreement also demands that any Māori council wards established without a referendum — which includes two in South Taranaki — face a referendum at the next local body elections.

Nixon hopes the community will get behind the wards and the new partnership agreement.

“When we were first talking about Māori ward . . .  there was a certain amount of apprehension in the community here to what it was.

“But I think now, with the way we’re progressing with it, I think the community is seeing actually this is working.”

He Pou Tikanga has taken more than three years to negotiate, and iwi representatives on Te Kāhui Matauraura were enthusiastic about its potential.

Ngāruahine’s John Hooker said iwi and hapū strategic plans could now be counted in the council’s plans.

Hooker said it made sense for iwi and council planners to cooperate, and for iwi project managers “to work collaboratively with sister projects occurring at district council level”.

He said the growing trust between council and iwi was influential in Ngāruahine refocusing its asset investment back in South Taranaki.

“We’re starting to focus a lot of that investment into our district, instead of it occurring at Wellington or nationally.”

Taranaki iwi representative Peter Moeahu said He Pou Tikanga was a huge change to the antagonistic response he received from South Taranaki’s council 35 years ago.

“What we have now is financial clout and everyone wants to be our friend.

“It cements the relationship between iwi and council so that we can build a better future for the whole community.”

He Pou Tikanga also sets out that:

• Iwi and hapū will be involved as early as possible in decision making
• The council will build its cultural capacity
• Iwi involvement can cut consultation times and improve outcomes
• Council and iwi will work closely on climate and environmental issues
• Iwi and council will develop goals and actions in the annual planning cycle
• The strategy doesn’t negate relationships between individual iwi and the council

Local Democracy Reporting is funded through NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a partner.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins and National leader Christopher Luxon have faced off in a fast-paced but unspectacular debate in the Aotearoa New Zealand general election campaign with co-governance and gangs among the issues producing the liveliest exchanges.

It was the first time the two leaders had squared off against each other outside Parliament and at times the mood was tense during last night’s debate.

Luxon, in particular, appeared frustrated when Hipkins interjected, while the Labour leader appeared to be enjoying himself a bit more.

• READ MORE: Other NZ election 2023 reports

However, with Labour behind in the polls, Hipkins was unable to deliver anything telling enough to put Luxon off his stride.

He did manage some amusing lines, however, such as “We have a proven track record of reducing our emissions . . . it’s not just a bunch of slogans”, “building EV stations is like building petrol stations”, and when asked what was his worst quality he responded with a smile: “I need to delegate more”.

Afterwards both leaders professed themselves happy with how they performed, however, commentators on TV1 were less enthusiastic, with former MP Tau Henare saying there was no excitement and Hipkins had been “too mild”.

Former Labour leader David Cunliffe believed Hipkins had allowed Luxon too much of a free run and the National party leader made the most of it. Both declared the debate a tie.

Wide-ranging debate
The debate was wide-ranging, covering health, housing, crime and gangs, climate change and the economy. 1News political editor Jessica Mutch-McKay kept it moving at a fast clip and co-governance, especially in health, led to some intense debate.

The leaders were both asked if Māori and Pacific people should get priority when it came to the health waitlist. Luxon said need should come first ahead of ethnicity, while Hipkins said Māori and Pacific people having priority was a positive due to their poor health outcomes when compared to the rest of the population.

Hipkins said other parties were using the issue to “race-bait”, to which Luxon interjected “rubbish”.

Luxon said he felt the definition of co-governance had been expanded since the last time National was in government and the public had not been given adequate explanations of what it entailed.

Hipkins said co-governance meant shared decision-making over natural resources which had been successful. He believed Māori and government working together benefited New Zealand.

Luxon said he supported it for Treaty of Waitangi settlements but not for national public services and repeated his party’s intention of axing the Māori Health Authority.

“The Māori Health Authority isn’t having two separate systems,” Hipkins said.

Luxon challenged in Māori health
He challenged Luxon on why he would keep Māori health providers if he did not want two systems of health. Luxon said he wanted to “turbo-charge” community organisations but it would be as part of one health system.

Hipkins said the health system was dealing with systemic issues and it would take time to build capacity to fix them.

But Luxon said every single health indicator had worsened under Labour — although Hipkins countered that by saying falling smoking rates were one example of effective action.

He said he did not feel safe in downtown Auckland and believed many New Zealanders felt the same.

Under Labour the prison population had been reduced by 30 percent — which might have been acceptable if the crime rate had gone down by the same amount — but in fact it had risen sharply, Luxon said.

On gangs he claimed: “We have nine gang members for every 10 police officers in this country.

“We’re going to make sure we ban gang patches in public places, we give police dispersal and powers to break them up from planning criminal activity, we get tough on the illegal guns that they have and we make being a gang member an aggravating factor in sentencing.”

Consequences for young offenders
He also promised there would be consequences for serious young offenders.

Hipkins said the escalation in gang activity was unacceptable and acknowledged that more New Zealanders were feeling unsafe. However, he advocated working with young offenders to turn their lives around which would reduce crime.

On boot camps, told that an expert had said 83 percent of young people who went through them re-offend, Luxon said National would make them “more effective”.

“We need targeted interventions in these young people’s lives. I’m not prepared to write them off.”

When Hipkins tried to intervene and say how boot camps did not get results, Luxon hit back saying Labour had had six years to get it right.

Hipkins said Labour had changed the law so police could be tougher on gang convoys, such as the recent one that closed down parts of Ōpōtiki over a tangi.

Insults fly on housing
Luxon slammed Labour’s record on housing while Hipkins said National’s plan was to offer incentives to landlords whereas Labour was focused on getting people into homes.

Hipkins said there were more “mega landlords” these days and that was not right.

“Will you guarantee your tax breaks for landlords will get passed on to tenants?” Hipkins asked Luxon.

Luxon avoided a direct answer so the Labour leader answered on his behalf, saying “We’ll take that as a no.”

Both leaders stated they supported building more state houses — although Hipkins was critical of how state houses had been sold off the last time National was in government.

Hipkins admitted KiwiBuild had been an “unrealistic promise” but since then Labour had created momentum in house supply which needed to be continued.

Afterwards both leaders were relaxed. Hipkins was reluctant to score himself, saying the voters would decide, but when pressed again opted for an eight.

Luxon said he had enjoyed it and hoped viewers did also while also choosing an eight.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Jacinda Ardern’s resignation as prime minister in January was a courageous and pragmatic decision for herself, her family and her party.

Although many said she had done a great job as leader, she rightly reminded us that a great leader is “one who knows when it’s time to go”.

Since hitting stellar heights in mid-2020, Ardern’s Labour Party had dropped significantly in the polls and was trailing the opposition National Party throughout 2022.

• READ MORE: NZ election 2020: Jacinda Ardern promised transformation — instead, the times transformed her
• Anniversary of a landslide: new research reveals what really swung New Zealand’s 2020 ‘covid election’
• Women leaders and coronavirus: look beyond stereotypes to find the secret to their success

The “Jacinda effect” had switched from being a uniting force to a polarising one. With an election coming in October, it was time for a change.

Her decision to stand down was as politically astute and timely as her elevation to leader of the Labour Party in August 2017. After all, Labour is now ahead of National in recent polls.

By the time she gives her valedictory statement to parliament later today, Ardern will have served as an MP for nearly 15 years. While the intervening period has undoubtedly changed her, she remains in many ways the same person she was as a novice backbencher.

In her maiden speech to the House of Representatives in 2008, she expressed the small-town values that got her started:

Some people have asked me whether I am a radical. My answer to that question is very simple: I am from Morrinsville. Where I come from a radical is someone who chooses to drive a Toyota rather than a Holden or a Ford.

She described herself as a social democrat who believed in human rights, social justice, equality and democracy. She spoke especially about work, education, community and the reduction of poverty – child poverty in particular.

All fine aspirations. But back then, Ardern’s Labour Party was looking at nine long years in opposition after Helen Clark’s three-term government lost power.

Unable to break the run National’s John Key enjoyed as prime minister, Labour went through one leader after another while Ardern rose through the ranks.

In mid-2017, despite a mood for change, it still looked like the election wouldn’t go well for Labour, at the time polling down around 25 percent. Then, at the beginning of August, Andrew Little handed leadership of the party to Ardern. With just seven weeks until the election, it was either an inspired move or the ultimate hospital pass.

As history shows, however, Ardern’s elevation immediately energised Labour’s campaign. It also drew international attention to the New Zealand election, as what became known as “Jacindamania” changed the mood on the streets and in the media.

Accidents of history
Critics sometimes labelled Ardern the “accidental prime minister” — a rookie “appointed” by Winston Peters, whose New Zealand First party held the balance of power in post-election negotiations. Conventional wisdom has it that Ardern simply offered Peters a better coalition deal, despite her party having won fewer seats than National.

But Peters gave those critics some more ammunition during a recent TV interview. He appeared to reveal that New Zealand First was forced to choose coalition with Labour when then-National leader Bill English alerted him to a potential leadership coup by Judith Collins.

According to Peters, English had assured him Collins didn’t have the numbers to pull it off. (Collins would eventually become National leader, of course, losing spectacularly to Ardern at the 2020 election.)

This sliding-doors version of events may be conjecture. But Peters can’t have forgotten how Jenny Shipley had rolled previous National leader and prime minister Jim Bolger in 1997.

That ultimately led to the breakup of the National-New Zealand First coalition in which Peters had been deputy prime minister and treasurer.

Perhaps, then, we have Collins to thank for Ardern’s elevation to the top job. We’ll probably never know.

Rise and fall
The “Jacinda effect” wasn’t a flash in the pan, however. Labour’s election support went from 25 percent in 2014 to 37 percent in 2017, and then to an extraordinary 50 percent in 2020. Coming on the back of Ardern’s exemplary leadership through the covid pandemic, it was an unprecedented result under the country’s proportional MMP system.

Her belief in “kindness” as a political force appeared to have been vindicated, if not for long. While New Zealand eventually recorded the world’s lowest excess mortality rate during the pandemic, this success was far from cost-free. In particular, there was a human and political price to pay for the lockdowns and border closures.

Businesses struggled, many New Zealanders abroad couldn’t return, and many resisted the pressure to be vaccinated. No nation escaped unscathed, and in New Zealand resistance to vaccine mandates boiled over on the grounds of parliament in early 2022.

Some protesters were angered by Ardern’s trademark empathy and kindness, which they now perceived as a false front. Due to the extremist elements among the protests, she refused to address them directly.

Ardern’s positive leadership reputation was earned on her responses to tragedies: the Christchurch terror attack, the Whakaari-White Island eruption, and the pandemic. But no sane politician would have welcomed such crises.

Nor were they part of Ardern’s social democratic plan. In fact, they hindered it. She did a lot for child poverty and family incomes, in line with her core values. But those achievements were overshadowed by a pandemic response that upended her government’s fiscal policy.

Promise unfulfilled
So, if catastrophes were the making of Jacinda’s career as prime minister, they were also the breaking of it. From her first campaign speech in August 2017, she had created a sense of promise that her government was ultimately unable to fulfil.

She claimed climate change was her generation’s “nuclear-free moment”, and that a decent, affordable home was everyone’s right. It sounded great, but on both counts progress fell short of expectation and need. Later, she would capitulate on a full capital gains tax to help solve the housing crisis. That allowed coalition partner Peters to claim credit for the backdown.

But it would also be wrong if the lasting narrative was one of failure to deliver. Her government’s Child Poverty Reduction Act now mandates reporting on progress towards poverty targets, bringing the problem into the engine room of fiscal policy. The Healthy School Lunches program helped reduce food insecurity.

Future governments will encounter strong political resistance if they try to rescind those measures.

Even those tireless advocates for children, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), gave Ardern qualified approval following her resignation — although the truce didn’t last long. CPAG was back on the attack when Stats NZ reported “child poverty rates for the year ended June 2022 were unchanged compared with the previous year”.

A complex legacy
In the end, Ardern did not use the single-party majority she won in 2020 to fix the things she had wanted to fix. When her government saw a problem, its default setting was to say “let’s centralise it” — as if that would do. Good social democratic government was sidelined by bureaucratic shakeups in healthcare, education and (before the plan was cancelled) public broadcasting.

An elaborate structural reform of water services became mired in controversy over Māori co-governance and loss of local democratic control. The sixth Labour government’s only potentially historic contribution to the development of New Zealand’s social security system — a proposed unemployment insurance scheme — was quietly shelved after criticism from both left and right.

So, will Ardern be remembered as one the great Labour leaders? To do so would put her in the pantheon of Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser, who achieved so much in social security, healthcare and education, and who led the country through the Second World War.

It would also place her next to Norman Kirk, whose 1972-75 government universalised accident compensation, introduced the domestic purposes benefit, and stood against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Ardern with baby Neve in 2018, the second prime minister to give birth while in office.
Getty Images

It’s a high bar, but not unreasonable to make the case. Ardern broke through barriers for women, most notably giving birth to her daughter while she held office. She united the country after the mosque shootings, soothing what could have become a divisive moment.

By listening to the scientific evidence and advice about covid, she helped save countless lives.

Ardern will undoubtedly be remembered as one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s outstanding prime ministers. This may not be for reasons of her choosing, though. Once the disaster management is accounted for, there are no major lasting achievements for which her government will be cited in the history books.

What will be remembered is Ardern’s exemplary and highly effective leadership through covid. Yet there is no “kind” pathway through an unkind pandemic.

Nevertheless, Jacinda Ardern is owed gratitude for all that she did — and acknowledgement of all she had to endure — to get her nation through it.

Dr Grant Duncan is associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The heated (and often confused) debate about “co-governance” in Aotearoa New Zealand inevitably leads back to its source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But, as its long-contested meanings demonstrate, very little in the Treaty of Waitangi is straightforward.

Two versions of the 1840 document were written, one in English and one in te reo Māori.

About 540 Māori, including 13 women, had put their names or moko to the document. All but 39 signed the Māori text.

• READ MORE: A growing number of non-Māori New Zealanders are embracing learning te reo – but there’s more to it than language
• Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how
• The Crown is Māori too – citizenship, sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi

But the differences in the translations were so significant that there has been debate ever since about what much of this agreement actually meant, especially Articles 1 and 2.

Article 3, on the other hand, attracts less controversy — which is interesting, because it was and is critical to debates such as the one swirling around co-governance. In effect, Article 3 acted as a mechanism by which the fundamental rights and privileges of British citizenship would be afforded Māori.

The promise of these rights and privileges, coupled with Articles 1 and 2, conferred a fundamental commitment of a partnership, in which the two sides could be expected to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith towards each other.

Although there were many British laws, practices and principles in existence by this time, four particularly stand out.

Participation
The ideal was that laws reflected the community (or a portion of it at least) and were made with the participation and consent of citizens. This was a long-standing principle, in that law and governance could not be something arbitrary or controlled absolutely by one person.

There had been efforts to control royal abuses of power since the Magna Carta in 1215 and the establishment of a “common council of the kingdom”, by which high-ranking community leaders could be summoned to discuss important matters.

Later, the 1688 Bill of Rights required free and frequent parliaments which would contain the right of free speech within them (parliamentary privilege in today’s terms). This meant representatives could speak without fear. Monarchs could no longer suspend laws on a whim, levy taxes at their pleasure, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without the permission of Parliament.

The anomaly that only about 5 percent of British citizens (wealthy and entitled men) could actually vote for members of Parliament was not resolved until legal reform in the early 1830s. This began the expansion of the political franchise and the widening of control over Parliament.

Individual rights
All were deemed equal in the eyes of the law, and the delivery of justice with integrity could be expected. Clause 39 of the Magna Carta stated:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Clause 40 added: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner’s detention, thus preventing unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.

The Bill of Rights prohibited excessive penalties, cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of fines or penalties before convictions. It also guaranteed the right for all citizens to petition, where they could complain or seek help from the authorities, without fear of punishment.

Tolerance and a free press
After the Reformation, religious tolerance among British subjects took centuries to develop. The 1701 Toleration Act allowed some tolerance of the public practising of different religions, although the monarch could never be Catholic. But it was not until 1829 that Catholics — and some other faiths — could even be elected to Parliament in Britain.

The importance of tolerance can be seen in the oral promise made by Governor William Hobson at the time of the signing the Treaty: all established religious faiths would be tolerated in New Zealand, “and also Māori custom shall be alike protected by him”.

Although an oral commitment, to many signatories it was just as binding as the written words.

Public debate and the role of a free press was another important privilege. Although British laws governing libel, blasphemy and sedition were continued after 1688, there was a clear trend toward expanding liberty, allowing both booksellers and newspapers to proliferate.

This helped build the modern belief in the Fourth Estate, and that the media would act as a positive influence on decision makers.

Forward together
Despite the fine sounding language of Article 3 and all the expectations that went with it, the reality was that for many decades after 1840, the promised rights and privileges did not arrive for everyone.

The governor, followed by the early stages of representative government, ruled with a near absolute power that crushed dissent. The law itself was often used to target the rights and privileges of Māori, with some of the darkest examples occurring during and after the New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa.

Equality for most was largely a chimera, tolerance was elusive, and the press did not act as a brake on atrocious decision making.

Thankfully, the world is different today. Positive change has happened through successive generations of Māori defending the rights guaranteed in 1840, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the critical questioning of early and contemporary government policies by Māori, politicians, community leaders, media and scholars.

There have been official apologies, compensation and redress, although only a portion of what was alienated has been returned.

As we move forward and look for new ways to work together to achieve equal and equitable partnership based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is important to remember the relevance of Article 3 and what it continues to offer in a modern context.

Dr Alexander Gillespie, professor of law, University of Waikato; Dr Claire Breen, professor of law, University of Waikato, and Valmaine Toki, professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Iwi leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand have accused opposition parties National and ACT of “fanning the flames of racism”, urging the prime minister to be brave and not walk away from partnership on Three Waters.

With Waitangi events and festivities gearing up for the holiday weekend, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins attended the Iwi Chairs Forum yesterday.

He emerged from the closed-doors meeting saying they had asked the government to continue to work with Māori “to advance the issues that we’ve been working on previously”.

• READ MORE: Other Waitangi Day reports
• Other NZ politics reports

Iwi leaders had also, it seemed, laid down a wero [challenge].

“I have also heard their concern that they don’t want to see ethnicity, race, being used as a way of dividing New Zealanders and I was able to absolutely reiterate my government’s commitment to ensuring that we continue to work together to avoid that happening,” Hipkins said.

“Where there is uncertainty, where there is a lack of clarity, that can lead to fear. Politicians who use that fear or exploit that fear in order to try and gain political advantage need to really reflect on their own actions. That’s something my government will never do.”

He was not afraid to get into specifics, either.

“They don’t want the concept of co-governance to be used to stoke fear, and nor do we,” he said.

“I think it’s been misunderstood and those who seek to use misunderstanding around it for political advantage need to reflect on their own behaviour.

“People can form their own judgments about that but I certainly think the opposition — National and ACT have, as they’ve done in the past — they’ve used uncertainty to try and stoke fear.”

The devastating flooding in Auckland this week may have changed some minds about the need for change in management of drinking, waste and stormwater — something Hipkins will be looking to capitalise on.

“I think that we have to accept that as a result of climate change we’re going to see more extreme weather events, and stormwater — which is an integral part of the Three Waters system — is going to continue to come under more pressure,” he said.

The iwi leaders were not shy about it either, with Tukoroirangi Morgan telling reporters they wanted co-governance or a similar partnership retained in the Three Waters legislation.

“The challenge we’ve put to the prime minister today is will he succumb to the attack dogs of the National party and ACT as they fan the flames of racism and anti-Māori sentiments, and throw us under the bus for the sake of keeping alive Three Waters?”

Morgan, it must be noted, has been appointed chair of the entity set to oversee Auckland and Northland’s water.

“There is nothing mysterious about Three Waters — it’s all about pipes under the ground. Our view is as it has always been: we stand here at Waitangi, the cradle of the Treaty of Waitangi, and here is the embodiment of partnership,” he said.

“What we seek from this government is an ongoing commitment that partnership will amplified and affirmed through Three Waters, [it is an] opportunity for the Crown and Māori to work together in a meaningful and significant way.”

Jamie Tuuta, an iwi leader from Taranaki, also warned against allowing Māori to become a political football this election.

“One of the key messages we want to give to the prime minister and other ministers is that they need to stand up, they need to step up,” he said.

“It’s unacceptable — because again, the racist and biased attacks on Māori in 2023 are unacceptable.”

A Pou Tikanga of the forum, constitutional law expert Professor Margaret Mutu, said it was essential race rhetoric was removed from electoral debate.

“There’s a need to understand and address racism in this country and over recent times it’s got a lot more urgent,” Professor Mutu said.

“We need to make sure that work doesn’t slow down, particularly as the extreme attacks coming in are very, very hurtful. We want to try and stop that hurt.”

Te Arawa’s Monty Morrison said the meeting went “very well, it was very open.”

Ngāti Kuri’s Harry Burkhardt said they “were clear about our message, and I think Chris received that well”.

Luxon, Seymour respond
Co-governance was a topic National’s leader Christopher Luxon chose to address when he visited Rātana last week. His speech accused the government of failing to make its position on the matter clear, and allowing it to become a “divisive and immature” conversation.

National had been invited to meet with the Iwi Chairs Forum but declined. In a written statement after the kōrero at Waitangi today, Luxon said the party had been clear about its position.

“We support co-management between government and Māori for natural resources in the context of Treaty settlements. We do not support co-governance of public services or separate bureaucratic systems for Māori and non-Māori,” he said.

“Labour has progressed a divisive agenda and continually failed to set out its views clearly. It is disappointing to see the new Prime Minister try to shut down the discussion rather than clearly setting out Labour’s plans for the public to judge.”

Luxon has previously raised as examples National does not support:

• The Māori Health Authority, which sets strategy for overcoming racial health gaps and commissions kaupapa Māori health services
• The Three Waters legislation allowing equal representation between council and iwi appointees on a strategic oversight group which appoints the management board of the four entities set to take over management of water services

ACT leader David Seymour — who has Ngāpuhi roots — has been even more stridently critical of these, arguing they are race-based approaches which only further divide.

“If the prime minister thinks that ACT is making co-goverment divisive, wait till he hears what Labour’s been up to,” he said.

“Their modus operandi is to divide public affairs between two groups of people based on race — that is divisive and it’s unsurprising that opposition parties are raising concerns.”

He bristled at being labelled an “attack dog” by Morgan.

“Again, it’s a shame. The Iwi Chairs Forum were an organisation we’ve enjoyed good relationships with.

“That kind of language, calling people dogs, well it doesn’t exactly sound like they’re coming to the table to make the situation any better, now, does it.”

Three Waters changes yet to be decided
Since taking over as Prime Minister from Jacinda Ardern, Hipkins has promised his government will focus more on the “bread-and-butter” issues, targeting cost-of-living pressures and cutting back some of the government’s work programme.

Media speculation has highlighted the unpopularity of the government’s RNZ-TVNZ merger and the Three Waters projects, and therefore likely on the chopping block.

Hipkins signalled announcements within weeks about the slimmed-down work programme, but when pressed about Three Waters early this week spoke about the need to change the status quo — statements he repeated today.

“We’ve been doing so many different things, actually we probably haven’t created the space to make sure people understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and that is absolutely, I think, a lesson for us over the last five years and it’s something we have all reflected on and you’ll see some change in that regard.

“I haven’t said a lot in terms of ruling things in and out, but one thing I will rule out is no reform . . .  we can’t continue with the status quo — it is not delivering New Zealanders the water services they need and that they deserve.

“If we leave it just with the status quo, one thing it will deliver is significantly higher rates for households, and I’m not willing to just stand back and say ‘that’s a council problem to deal with’.”

He has, to date, refused to outline what any of the changes to the project might be — saying those decisions are yet to be made by the full Cabinet — but speculation has centred on the co-governance aspect.

“I think everybody acknowledges that what we’re doing now or around the way we manage our water infrastructure in New Zealand is not sustainable, and it has left us with a pretty disgraceful legacy, frankly, of that core infrastructure being run down.”

Taranaki iwi leader Jamie Tuuta said whatever changes came, they expected the same level of engagement and partnership.

“By and large what we ask is that we are respected and that [Hipkins] and his ministers engage openly with us in the event that there are any changes.”

With an election in October, Morgan and the other leaders present at today’s forum are clear: they want bold leadership and partnership, and however this year’s election plays out — they will still be there.

“This is a ongoing journey for us,” Morgan said. “Absolutely, we would want a very clear and unfettered response and commitment from this government that they’re not going to walk away, nor are they going to throw us under the bus for their own political means.

“Iwi will be at this side of the table come the election, we’ll deal with whoever the government is. What is clear in this situation is we are enduring, iwi will remain as the Treaty partner.

“Whether we deal with Hipkins after the election or the National Party, we will see, but all we say is that we want an equitable share in the major decisions that affect our people – that’s our bottom-line expectation.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Iwi leaders warn Hipkins not to bow on Three Waters co-governance https://t.co/upsPqJEbMm

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) February 3, 2023

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says her Aotearoa New Zealand government will not back down on advancing Māori issues, even if National frames co-governance as central to the 2023 general election.

“You’ve got to be able to sleep at night, knowing that you’ve done your best and you’ve done what you’ve believed is right,” Ardern told TeAoMaori.news

The Māori Health Authority, Three Waters and Māori seats on councils were achievements Ardern said the government was proud of.

• READ MORE: Other NZ co-governance reports

Ardern said she was “comfortable” the government was doing its best to fulfil obligations under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

“We haven’t been perfect. But I am comfortable with what we’ve tried to do to make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations as the Crown, that we’re fulfilling our Treaty obligations.”

Ardern said the Government was proud of the 6.8 per cent Māoriunemployment rate,although she conceded homeless families living in motels still needed tackling.

“I don’t want anyone living in a motel. I want someone in a warm, dry, safe environment. But I also don’t want people living in cars. And so this has been a transition for us while we build more public housing, and we are,” she said.

Mandate protests
Reflecting on 2022, Ardern conceded it was another tough year, singling out the vaccination mandate protests on Parliament grounds as her biggest challenge.

Ardern said the protests were upsetting for many in Aotearoa who saw vaccination as key to reopening the country.

“For New Zealand, I think it deeply affected people,” Ardern said.

There were moments she thought about talking to the protesters but a previous attempt during a government walkabout with vaccinators that was scuppered by protesters prevented that.

“I did stop and try and have a conversation with the people there. And what became clear to me is that the starting point for that conversation was so different for me, and then that was very hard to cut through,” Ardern said.

“I had a practice in the past of talking to protesters in fact. I remember very early on the DPS [the PM security team] having to learn, that was part of the way that I was going to do the job.”

UN declaration
Ardern was asked about comments from Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson that he would be pumping the brakes on co-governance initiatives set out by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP), signed by the National government in 2010, because several recommendations would not fly with certain Cabinet members.

“Why is it someone in Cabinet is ‘not comfortable’ with co-governance? And should someone be in the Cabinet if they’re not comfortable with co-governance?” Ardern was asked.

“What he’s talking about are some of the thoughts and debate around the UN declaration, the next stages of ensuring that we are doing our bit, as yes, the National government signed us up and then did nothing, and left us to figure out ‘how do we fulfil our obligations?’

“What he’s [Jackson] talking about is through that process, there’s been a lot of ideas. Some of them, we can confidently say, New Zealand already does, othersare challenging. So he’s broadly discussing the next steps.”

Ardern said that as she looked ahead to this year’s election, she had no interest in fighting it on race, saying she would campaign on the government’s record.

“When there’s change… people will sometimes be confronted by that, and it’s our job to try and bring people with us, but that will sometimes be challenging,” Ardern said.

“Our record is growing Māori housing. Our record is growing Māori employment opportunities. Now our record is growing the Māori economy. I will happily campaign on our record.”

Republished from Whakaata Māori. First published in The New Zealand Herald.

While ostensibly about improving Aotearoa New Zealand’s water infrastructure, the government’s proposed Three Waters reforms have instead become a lightning rod for political division and distrust.

Critics cite concerns about local democracy, de facto privatisation and co-governance with Māori as reasons to oppose the Water Services Entities Bill currently before Parliament.

With the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch now proposing an alternative plan, the reforms may be far from a done deal.

• READ MORE: The UK’s water industry is broken – here’s how to fix it
• 11,000 litres of water to make one litre of milk? New questions about the freshwater impact of NZ dairy farming
• If we want to improve NZ’s freshwater quality, first we need to improve the quality of our democracy

But behind the debate lies an undeniable truth: clean water is a necessity of life. In fact, 20 years ago this month the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights first affirmed that water is a human right.

The anniversary is a timely reminder of what Aotearoa’s proposed water reforms are essentially about.

Covering drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (hence the “three waters” label), the reforms would have a wider remit than the human right to water. They fold in environmental and cultural considerations alongside public health concerns.

But the human right to water, as well as lessons learned from implementing that right, have important implications for the Three Waters debate, not least around water quality and affordability.

An alternate three waters plan has been proposed by the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch, with control and ownership remaining with local councils, and the type and degree of iwi involvement decided locally.https://t.co/prVSbJuuSL

— RNZ (@radionz) October 31, 2022

A fragile right
By acknowledging it to be a human right in 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights argued water is indispensable for leading a dignified life and essential for other human rights.

Since then, the human right to water has been repeatedly declared, including by the UN General Assembly and the European Union. This right is included in the constitutions and laws of numerous countries.

Despite this, 1 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water, and six out of ten people live with inadequate sanitation. More than 2 billion people live in areas of water scarcity, likely to become an even bigger issue due to climate change.

The human right to water covers five essential factors:

• access to enough water for drinking, personal sanitation, washing clothes, preparing food, personal and household hygiene
• water that is clean and won’t cause harm
• the look and smell of water should be acceptable
• water sources should be within easy reach and accessible without danger
• the cost should be low enough to ensure everyone can buy enough water to meet their needs.

Access and affordability
Internationally, there is evidence that the adoption of a human right to water has made a difference. In South Africa, where access to sufficient water is a constitutional right, the courts have repeatedly referred to the human right to water when determining government obligations around water services.

In 2014, the first European Citizens’ Initiative pushed the European Union to exclude water supply and water resources management from the rules governing the European internal market. This means EU citizens have a stronger voice in water governance decisions.

In 2016, Slovenia became the first EU country to make access to drinkable water a fundamental right in its constitution.

New Zealand’s Three Waters reforms are not unrelated to these basic issues of safety, accessibility and affordability. They aim to address significant problems with the country’s existing water services model, including ageing infrastructure, historical under-investment, the need for climate change resilience, and rising consumer demand.

These all require a serious programme of water service transformation — one the government believes is beyond what local councils (which currently administer most water assets) will be able to deliver.

The projected cost is estimated at between NZ$120 billion and $185 billion (on top of currently planned investment), rolled out over the next 30 years.

Three Waters debates need to be based on fact – Ardernhttps://t.co/mNtkdKTjpw pic.twitter.com/NxvlJgtpeR

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) July 20, 2022

Ambition and equity
One way or another, the work has to be done. Last year elevated lead levels were found in the water in east Otago. Ageing infrastructure and increasing demand are likely to increase the risk of similar incidents unless expensive upgrades are undertaken.

Without reform, the government argues, the huge cost of those upgrades will be unevenly spread across households, with a substantially higher burden on rural consumers.

To be affordable and equitable for everyone, therefore, the Three Waters plan involves creating four publicly owned, multi-regional entities. These will benefit from greater scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility compared to local councils.

But because councils could still contract out water services for 35 years, concerns have been raised about the potential for creeping privatisation.

Indeed, similar concerns, including failed attempts to privatise water services in other countries, were a significant catalyst for asserting the human right to water more than two decades ago.

While international acknowledgment of water as a human right doesn’t automatically create binding obligations on New Zealand’s government, it can still inform the Three Waters debate.

Over the past 20 years, many of the benefits of this right have accrued from its ability to focus attention on securing high-quality and sustainable water services for everyone. That remains an essential ambition for New Zealand in 2022 and beyond.

Dr Nathan Cooper is associate professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

At this year’s local government elections, average voter turnout was 36 percent. This is comparable to the 2019 figure. It compares with voter turnout of 81.5 percent at the last general election.

Local Government New Zealand says that a review into why people don’t vote should be carried out before the next elections in 2025.

We need to know how many people didn’t vote because they didn’t receive their ballot papers and what practical obstacles to voting might have occurred.

• READ MORE: Win for diversity in Wellington, defeat in Auckland as NZ votes local
• Local government elections: A new dawn or a false dawn?
• Don’t be so scared of a little self-determination when it comes to Māori
• Other NZ local government election reports

We also need to know how many people just couldn’t be bothered, and if some people made a conscious choice not to vote. A conscious choice is a legitimate democratic decision.

Wayne Brown’s campaign for the Auckland mayoralty may have succeeded partly because it targeted people who traditionally vote — property owners and people over 50. People who are less likely to be Māori.

However, positioning Māori as Treaty partners to the Crown may also be a factor, because it overshadows The Māori citizenship as a share in the Crown’s authority to govern.

Participating in the affairs of government is a greater political authority than partnership. The state is a large and powerful institution and always the senior partner in the relationships it forms. Its partners may have a voice, but they don’t have the right to help make decisions. Decision-making is the task of the participant.

Democracy requires complementary participation
While there are examples of council/Māori partnerships that work well, democracy requires that they complement participation, rather than take its place.

Te Tiriti wasn’t a partnership between races. It was an agreement over the distribution of political authority. Rangatiratanga, as an independent Māori authority over Māori affairs, on the one hand, and the right of the British Crown to establish government on the other.

Te Tiriti didn’t intend that the rights of government should override the rights of rangatiratanga. Indeed, it provided a check against this outcome by granting Māori the rights and privileges of British subjects.

In 1840 those rights and privileges were not extensive. But, in 2022 they have developed into the rights, privileges and political capacities of New Zealand citizenship.

Most importantly, citizenship means that everybody has the right and obligation to participate in public decision-making. They should expect that their contributions have the same likelihood of influence as anybody else’s.

Nobody should have reason to feel so alienated from the system that they can’t see the point of voting. Māori wards are supposed to guard against this possibility by supporting active participation and influence.

Influence means being able to participate with reference to culture and colonial context.

Yet, in 2019, the Iwi Chairs’ Forum commissioned a report on constitutional transformation, Matike Mai Aotearoa.

Ethnically exclusive Pakeha body
It comments on what rangatiratanga looks like, but it sees citizenship as the domain of its partner, the Crown. It sees the Crown as an ethnically exclusive Pakeha body governing only for “its people”.

In other words, government is for other people. It’s not for us because rangatiratanga is where our exclusive political authority lies. Our relationship with government is as Treaty partner.

Another view is that rangatiratanga and citizenship are different but complementary. While voting doesn’t matter if one is a partner, it’s essential if one is a participant. Participation means, as Justice Joe Williams, argued, that, there is a need for a mindset shift away from the pervasive assumption that the Crown is Pākehā [non-Māori], English-speaking, and distinct from Māori rather than representative of them.

“Increasingly, in the 21st century, the Crown is also Māori. If the nation is to move forward, this reality must be grasped.”

In 2022, I was commissioned by the Ministerial Review into the Future for Local Government to write a discussion paper on Māori and local government.

The review is required to consider Treaty partnership. But it has also decided to be “bold” in its thinking.

Boldness could mean strengthening Te Tiriti and democracy by thinking beyond partnership as a treaty principle, established by the Court of Appeal in 1987, to thinking about the real substance of rangatiratanga and citizenship.

Local government functions by iwi
Rangatiratanga could mean that not all local government functions need to be carried out by councils. There may be some that are more logically and justly carried out by iwi, hapu, marae, or other Māori political communities.

The ideal that decisions are best made at the point closest to where their effects are experienced is a well-established democratic principle.

Citizenship is different from rangatiratanga but especially important because if Māori are, like everybody else, shareholders in the Crown’s authority to govern, then they are entitled to make culturally distinctive contributions to council decisions.

They are also entitled to expect that councils’ powers and decision-making processes will work for them as well as they work for anybody else.

Increasing voter turnout depends on people believing that councils make a positive contribution to their lives.

Professor Dominic O’Sullivan (Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kahu) is adjunct professor at Auckland University of Technology’s (AUT) Taupua Waiora Centre for Māori Health Research, and professor of political science at Charles Sturt University in Australia. He is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published by Stuff and is republished with the author’s permission.

A district mayor says the Aotearoa New Zealand local government sector is ready to launch into a future that embraces more youthful members, Māori and climate change action.

Whanganui mayor Hamish McDouall said the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) annual conference underway in Palmerston North had “launched our heads into the future”.

McDouall, the vice-president of LGNZ, said yesterday the hot topics were the changing face of elected membership, partnership with Māori and climate change.

• READ MORE: Other local government reports

“The clear message is about the future. The future is going to change. It is about youth involvement and embracing hapū and iwi.

“With the next generations’ birth rates significantly higher for Māori than Pākehā, co-governance arrangements and those kind of things just have to be in place.

“The exciting thing about today is you can tell that local government is wanting change, ready for change.”

The sector could not ignore the climate change crisis, McDouall said.

Climate deniers ‘on wrong planet’
“If there’s any climate change denier out there, you’re on the wrong planet. Local government needs to get more active and make bold decisions.

“Any decision we make proactively now is going to make it less difficult to adapt in 10 years. We’ve just got to do things now.

“I have climate change sceptics on my council but anyone entering local government should understand this is the crisis for the rest of our lives.”

The third burning issue at the conference was rating, McDouall said.

“Rates don’t work as a funding tool alone – that’s why Three Waters is happening, because we simply can’t afford it.”

Thirty-five councils across the country will have Māori wards at this year’s local body elections, 32 of them for the first time.

Te Maruata collective ‘thrilled’
Bonita Bigham, chair of the sector’s Māori collective Te Maruata, said the network was thrilled to be welcoming more than 50 new Māori ward members into the sector in October.

Te Maruata spent a day together before the main conference began on Wednesday.

“We were thrilled — really thrilled — for the first time ever to have at least six Māori mayoral candidates in the room,” Bigham said.

But she said it was clear that the council environment does not support Māori elected members. The results of a survey of elected members released by LGNZ this week revealed that half the respondents have experienced racism, gender discrimination and other harmful behaviour.

“So [on Tuesday] we launched Te Āhuru Mōwai, a tuakana-teina initiative which will enable Māori members on any council to reach out into our collective strength and experience for guidance and support,” Bigham said.

In his president’s address, Stuart Crosby said local councils must build relationships and partnerships with all sectors of the community, including tangata whenua.

“It’s not about power and control anymore. It’s all about partnership. We cannot serve our communities and do our jobs justice if we don’t partner with mana whenua.”

Most diverse sector
Far North District councillor Moko Tepania, co-chair of LGNZ’s Young Elected Member (YEM) network, told the conference that “YEMs” represent the most diverse sector of local government.

“That gives an indication of how different local government will look in the future compared to today and the past,” he said.

Tepania, 31, is running for the Far North mayoralty in October’s elections. If successful he’ll be the youngest ever Far North mayor. He was elected as a Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward councillor at the last local government election in 2019.

Ruapehu District’s youngest councillor Elijah Pue is also running for mayor. At 28, he, too, would be the youngest mayor ever elected in his district if successful. He was elected as a Waimarino-Waiouru Ward representative in 2019.

Pue said yesterday co-governance and partnership were being openly and frankly discussed.

“How do we embody the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in a way that allows councils to focus on community wellbeing, and partnerships and relationships for the betterment of our mokopuna?

“We want meaningful change in our communities. Our outlook no longer needs to be for a 10-year long-term plan, it actually needs to be for a thousand-year generational outlook.

Future-focused leadership
“We need future-focused leadership that doesn’t dwell on the past. We need younger, more diverse, more future-focused leadership that puts our grandchildren, born or unborn, at the forefront of our decisions.”

Fellow Ruapehu mayoralty contender, councillor Adie Doyle, said the clear thrust of the conference was that youth and Māori would have greater input into local government.

“It’s just the way the population statistics are going. The importance of partnerships and working together – some people call it co-governance – is a key takeaway.

“These conferences are designed to challenge your thinking. You come away with maybe a different perspective.

“I support the principle of partnerships, but they have to be fit for purpose, and not all partnerships need to be equal – it’s about working together for the benefit of both parties. It’s for problem solving.”

YEM co-chair Lan Pham – the highest polling candidate elected to Environment Canterbury Regional Council in 2016 – said the key imperative of the network of elected members aged 40 or younger was a transformational approach to environmental protection.

“Every major transformation didn’t just happen, they were designed. We think it’s time for this level of change to happen again.”

Decide on next steps
Horizons Regional Council chair Rachel Keedwell told the conference it was crucial for local government to focus on the YEM vision and decide on the next steps urgently.

“We need to start putting those in place now and focus on the legacy that we’re leaving rather than whether we are going to get re-elected,” Keedwell said.

“We’re moving too slow for the size of the crises that are in front of us. I could get overwhelmed by the scale of the task in front of us: biodiversity, pollution, water quality – numerous crises at the same time.

“We’ve focused on economy rather than environment. That’s how we’ve ended up where we are. We’re living beyond the capacity of the earth. We’re living on credit and that credit is borrowed from the next generation.”

The four-day conference is being attended by a record more than 600 mayors, chairs, councillors, community board members and stakeholders who are hearing from the Prime Minister and other Ministers, the Opposition and sector leaders about policy areas and issues that impact councils and local communities.

The conference ends today.

Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air. Asia Pacific Report is an LDR partner.

A Gisborne councillor has called into question the mayor’s ability to lead the region forward, saying her background makes it hard to understand issues affecting Māori.

Third-term councillor Meredith Akuhata-Brown made the comments about Mayor Rehette Stoltz following questions about her intention to stand for the top position at the next election.

Akuhata-Brown, who unsuccessfully contested the mayoralty in 2019, said she was not sure if she would run against Stoltz in October.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Māori leadership

Part of the reason was she felt her chances were impacted on by not fitting the stereotype of what power looked like.

“When Rehette first ran for council, she was elected duly based on ‘that’s what councils look like across the nation’,” Akuhata-Brown said.

“She’s the deputy mayor within a couple of terms … she’s formidable … she’s young. There’s no fight for the position, it’s handed to her.”

First elected to council in 2010, Stoltz was appointed deputy mayor by Meng Foon in 2013.

Made interim mayor
When Foon left his position to become the Race Relations Commissioner in 2019, she was made mayor in the interim.

Stoltz then cruised to mayoral victory later that year with 10,589 votes, ahead of second-placed Akuhata-Brown who secured 3845 votes.

Akuhata-Brown believes the mayor had an easy run because she fit the bill of what people were used to in the make-up of councils around the country.

“We go through an election campaign when the position has already been filled.”

On her website, South African-born Stoltz shares her journey to the top elected position at Gisborne District Council.

Arriving in New Zealand in 2001 for her OE, she took a “holiday job” as the laboratory manager for a wine business before deciding to commit to Tairāwhiti long term with partner Deon.

It wasn’t until a conversation with former councillor Kathy Sheldrake in 2009 that she decided to run for council the following year.

Little debate over mayoralty
Her background is in cardiovascular physiology and she also ran a recruitment business.

Akuhata-Brown argues Stoltz was handed the mayoral chains without much debate among councillors when Foon left prematurely.

“It’s really easy for people from overseas. They come to our place highly qualified, and they are looked upon favourably, and they get the position without fighting for it.

“If you are a certain look, that is particularly not Māori, you are highly probable to get that position.”

Akuhata-Brown said she was being a “vocal local” because she was invested in the region and wanted to highlight the issues that came with integrating governance styles from overseas.

Tairāwhiti was still fraught with racial inequalities and relationships were key for connecting with those who were still trying to eek out a living in the middle and lower classes, she said.

“Those who have money and wealth and governance roles, they can just get on with their lives and not be bothered by any of that because they can just put up higher fences.

No voice for Māori and Pasifika
“For Māori and Pasifika, the voice hasn’t been there for centuries.”

Akuhata-Brown’s final criticism of Stoltz’s leadership was she had been left alone with no extra jobs and it felt like there were low expectations.

Hoping to be made a committee chair in her third term, Akuhata-Brown said positions had instead gone to people who supported the mayor 100 percent.

“There’s a real sense that to get position and acknowledgement you have to be very much on side.

“We don’t even talk, it’s just a non-relationship.”

Mayor Rehette Stoltz responded to the criticisms, saying Gisborne had been her home for 21 years and she had made a concerted effort to get a deeper understanding of the multicultural community.

Tikanga Māori course
That included completing a year-long Tikanga Māori course and becoming a member of the council’s waiata group.

She said that under her leadership, Māori wards had been unanimously voted in and memorandums of understanding signed with hapū.

“I have good working relationships with our iwi leaders and regularly meet to discuss and make decisions in regard to issues that are important to us as a region.”

Appointment to committees and chair positions were made on interest expressed by councillors, experience and merit, she said.

“I won the mayoralty with more than a 7000-vote majority. Mayoralties are not handed down, they are voted on by the community.”

The upcoming local body election is set for October 8.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.