logo
Kaipara council's $52,000 Māori report slammed as 'anti-Māori'

Kaipara council's $52,000 Māori report slammed as 'anti-Māori'

1Newsa day ago
Kaipara District Council has spent an unplanned $52,000 producing a document which attempts to spell out what legal obligations the local authority has to Māori.
Mayor Craig Jepson claimed the document would serve as a guide for staff, councillors and the public, clarifying obligations and potentially saving the council money in the future.
But one councillor has described the paper as "actively anti-Māori" while another deemed it "bull****".
The unbudgeted 127-page document was produced by Wellington law firm Franks Ogilvie and formally adopted in late July by a narrow 5:4 vote. Legal advice around local government law change that the firm gave to Hobson's Pledge, a group known for lobbying against co-governance, is included.
Kaipara District Council chief executive Jason Marris commissioned the report following direction from the council's remuneration and development committee, which oversees his performance and is chaired by Mayor Jepson.
ADVERTISEMENT
Marris said he had not received committee direction on how the document should be used with staff but would now consider its implications.
Cr Eryn Wilson-Collins asked whether staff would be required to follow the Māori interaction ceilings outlined in the document, rather than anything more than that.
"There are many questions around its purpose and where it will go from here," she said.
She added that while there was currently no formal direction, she feared the document would serve as the ceiling for council dealings with Māori.
The document was developed as a single point of reference, summarising and explaining council obligations — or lack thereof — to Māori under various laws and frameworks.
These include the Treaty of Waitangi, principles of the Treaty, the Local Government Act 2022, Resource Management Act 1991, Māori Language Act 2016, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Mayor Jepson said the document could serve councils around the country.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There had not been a single source of information around this previously," Jepson said.
"It provides an opportunity for other councils around New Zealand to follow."
Kaipara District Council at its 2022 swearing in ceremony in Dargaville. (Source: Local Democracy Reporting)
The Jepson-chaired remuneration and development committee's members — Deputy Mayor Jonathan Larsen and councillors Mike Howard, Gordon Lambeth and Rachael Williams — voted to adopt the document.
Cr Mike Howard said the document was worthwhile because it addressed actual legal obligations rather than misinterpretations.
However, Cr Wilson-Collins described it as "embarrassing" and said she looked forward to a new council after the upcoming elections.
She said community feedback showed concern about ratepayer money being spent on a document that was divisive and politically charged.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There are a lot of questions that the community have raised with me around the framing of the document," she said.
Wilson-Collins said the document falsely claimed councils were not part of the Crown and therefore had no real Treaty of Waitangi duties, only those narrowly imposed by statute.
"This is false and misleading," she said.
"While councils are not the Crown in the constitutional sense, courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have repeatedly said Crown obligations can extend to councils where powers or functions are delegated."
Te Moananui o Kaipara Māori ward councillor Pera Paniora said the report was "bull****" and an echo chamber of the political positions of some councillors.
She said committee members Jepson, Larsen, Howard, Lambeth and Williams, who had worked on its genesis, should have paid for it themselves.
Several councillors opposing the adoption attempted to pause the meeting vote to allow time for an information briefing, in line with normal council process.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cr Mark Vincent questioned the motives of those pushing for adoption at the meeting without that step.
"We need to give it proper consideration," Cr Vincent said.
Deputy Mayor Larsen said a briefing could happen, after the document had been adopted.
Cr Eryn Wilson-Collins. (Source: Local Democracy Reporting)
Cr Wilson-Collins said the document undermined the Treaty of Waitangi as a constitutional document, treating it more like a political courtesy.
She said the document denied councils had Treaty obligations, claimed Māori had no right to consultation or outcomes, and framed participation as a burden.
"This is disrespectful to local mana whenua," she said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"It said mana whenua mandates had no statutory basis."
Cr Wilson-Collins said this was a complete dismissal of local hapū and iwi rights, with existing obligations spun as optional.
She said the document repeatedly reinforced the idea that council's obligation was to general community democracy, as if that were incompatible with upholding Māori rights.
It referred to the Waitangi Tribunal as non-binding and nearly irrelevant to council operations.
Cr Wilson-Collins said the report was politically biased and echoed rhetoric from NZ First, ACT, and anti-co-governance narratives.
"I'm ashamed and embarrassed that would be the case," she said.
The council's law firm Simpson Grierson peer-reviewed the document.
ADVERTISEMENT
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders
Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders

Scoop

time9 hours ago

  • Scoop

Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders

The Supreme Court has found riverbeds can be included in Māori customary marine title orders, if other legal tests are met. That comes from the second part of the Court's judgement on claims to customary rights in the harbours, river mouths, beaches and seascape of the eastern Bay of Plenty. The first judgement released in December 2024 addressed the meaning of section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA), which sets out the test Māori groups must meet to have their customary rights recognised. It also overturned a previous Court of Appeal decision in 2023 which made it easier to gain customary title. This second judgement resolves the remaining seven issues on the seven separate appeals which were heard together. All this as the government forges ahead with plans to amend the law in question over fears that the 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori iwi, hapū and whānau to have their customary rights over parts of the coastline recognised. Navigable rivers In this case one of the orders for customary title included the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers near Opōtiki. "Navigable river" in this case means a river of sufficient width and depth (whether at all times so or not) to be used for the purpose of navigation by boats, barges, punts, or rafts. The court accepted that the relevant portion of the rivers in question is navigable. The definition of "marine and coastal area" in MACA includes the beds of rivers that are part of the coastal marine area as that term is defined in the Resource Management Act 1991. The Attorney-General submitted that previous Acts of Parliament were intended to "vest the full beneficial ownership - akin to freehold title - in navigable riverbeds in the Crown." The court found that previous Acts were not sufficiently clear to extinguish customary rights or title to the beds of navigable rivers. The court concluded that "the beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them". The court found the impact of these findings on the CMT claims in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, particularly in relation to the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers, can be dealt with by the High Court. Timeline October 2023, just days after the 2023 General Election, a Court of Appeal decision made granting customary marine title easier In November 2023, the coalition agreement between National and NZ First includes a commitment to overturn the Court of Appeal decision September 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal recommends the Crown halt its efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act That same month the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is introduced to Parliament December 2024, the first Supreme Court judgement overturns the Court of Appeal decision. The government hits pause on the amendment bill August 2025, the government presses ahead with the law change.

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

NZ Herald

time11 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga

Otago Daily Times

time11 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store