We All Need The Deed
The Tree Council, Forest & Bird Waitākere and the Waitākere Ranges Protection Society are all delighted to see that Auckland Council finally intends to fulfil its legal obligation under the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act) by producing a Deed of Acknowledgment recognising the important role tangata whenua have in the area.
This Deed is a legal requirement of the Act and Auckland Council is not obliged to consult publicly on its content, or whether it should be produced, so we acknowledge the transparency of the decision making process entered into in this consultation.
However, we are disturbed by the misinformation and racist anti-iwi sentiment that is being circulated by a small minority in a campaign seeking to distort the facts and derail the process. We expect that Auckland Councillors will not be misled by this disingenuous mischief-making and will support the partnership proposed in the Deed. It is not some kind of land grab or undermining of democracy, as is being claimed.
Forest & Bird Waitākere's Chair Annalily van den Broeke says that ' the reality is that the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Act is legislation passed in 2008 that says the place is special, should be protected and made even better than it is, and that everyone needs to work together to make this happen. The Deed is simply the mechanism to ensure that the three parties of The Crown, Auckland Council and tangata whenua will work together to ensure the Act is implemented effectively. It is long overdue and should have been produced soon after the Act was passed in 2008, over 17 years ago '.
The Tree Council's Secretary Dr Mels Barton says that ' the problem that this proposal seeks to address is the fact that Auckland Council has neglected the implementation of the Act, so that the national significance of the area is not recognised by most people. There is no plan for its management, decision making is siloed, enhancement and monitoring is not resourced and cumulative impacts are ignored. All of these things are legally required to be implemented by the Act and are also long overdue. The Deed and the actions that will flow from it will greatly enhance the integrated management of this special area - and everyone will benefit as a result of a more healthy Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area '.
The Waitākere Ranges Protection Society President Anna Fomison ' is confident that the public cares deeply about the protection and enhancement of the Waitākere Ranges and the significant benefits that the area provides to the people of Auckland. Not just for recreation, but for cleaning our air, providing our clean drinking water, absorbing our carbon emissions and the conservation of the largest indigenous forest in the region and the ecosystems that it supports that are so important for a healthy future for us all. We all need the Deed to deliver a healthy and vibrant Waitākere Ranges for future generations.'
The Tree Council, Forest & Bird Waitākere and the Waitākere Ranges Protection Society encourage the public to make a brief submission to Auckland Council supporting the Deed of Acknowledgement before the closing date of 28 April. The more people that make a submission the better.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Untangling the hidden costs of driving faster past schools
A blanket increase in speed limits on local roads, including near schools outside peak hours, is set to have unintended costs for ratepayers and taxpayers. A Government edict reversing speed limit reductions to 30km/h brought in by Labour says councils must lift speeds to 50km/h by July 1. An exemption is possible if protection of schools and children was not used as a reason for lowering speeds when communities were consulted. While cities like Dunedin and Hamilton have been able to show they did not, in many instances, stipulate school safety when taking speeds down, Auckland has been caught by its own photos and words, and must cut limits in 1400 streets. A briefing to Auckland Council's transport committee has heard of an epic bureaucratic tangle as officials move to alert motorists about continuing lower peak hour speeds – but simultaneously move to lift speeds outside peak hours by schools and on other roads this month. Here are some of the knots from the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 that have left Auckland Transport and local boards with no option even if local communities want lower speeds retained: Auckland Council and Auckland Transport both opposed the Government's automatic raising of speeds back to 50 km/h but the rule came into force anyway Because AT had mentioned schools and children's safety, and included pictures of kids on bikes and walking in its original consultation material, it is barred from keeping the outside peak hours speed limit at 30km/h on roads around schools. It can, as roading authority, now weigh other safety factors on such roads and consult with the communities about re-lowering speeds to 40km/h (not 30), but it cannot rely on the costly consultation it conducted just months ago about putting speeds up. It must repeat the exercise. AT already estimated publicly the road and sign changes could cost it $25m, which the Govt refused to subsidise Some of the signs near schools that have already appeared in outlining the higher speed limit, with written lists of the peak drop-off, pick-up 30km/h times, are too small and detailed to read. AT will now have to amend signs, and pay for up to 20 electronic installations to show accepted speeds, at further cost. And, most significantly, it now appears the increased road speeds might lead AT to review and increase its other safety measures for those roads – more road calming and engineering solutions that will require medium-term capital spending. This could lead to … wait for it … more use of road cones. That money for consultation and other safety solutions would have to come from ratepayers and taxpayers under agreed roading spends. Councillors have been astounded by the inflexible parameters, risks to children and others' safety, and the potential extra costs of consultation and physical safety enhancements. Gavin Scott, AT's general counsel, said the reversal rule required a simple factual assessment and Auckland's review found the 1400 roads with lowered limits needed to be lifted. 'Other councils have taken a different view. We've discussed this with NZ Transport Agency, the Ministry of Transport and Hamilton City. 'Why they are different is their factual assessment is different from us. They've formed a factual assessment that a school in the area was not a reason why speed went down to 30 km/h.' Auckland's consultation material had included photos of children on bikes, and AT general manager of safety Teresa Burnett concedes schools were at the heart of its consultation for cutting speeds. Some of the new signs being erected to show the new speed times near schools were being reassessed after public complaints. AT's chief executive Dean Kimpton told councillors: 'Some of them are not particular legible and we will change those, either streamlined or we will swap out the more detailed times.' But there could be up to 20 sites where electronic signage would need to be installed to get over the problem. 'It is relatively small but it's irritating and we will fix it.' Councillor Richard Hills asked what would happen if Auckland simply declined to run the risks to children and did not increase speeds on roads as demanded by the government rule. 'Someone is [going to be] responsible for all these deaths and injuries.' Kimpton told him that would be acting illegally under a valid rule change. But he explained speed limits were just one factor AT used in assessing the safety of its roading system. 'We feel an obligation to keep people safe. We are looking at safety as a system. Speed is one element. 'One outcome of this law is that we have more safety infrastructure on our roads, we end up spending more on capital and innovations with our road system. That's a realistic outcome.' When the coalition Government had directed less funding for road safety last year, the Auckland Council had chosen to hold the 'local share' despite Wellington's share reducing. 'You have the option to maintain or grow your 100 percent share in safer system outcomes,' Kimpton said. Councillor Chris Darby, who also serves as a director of Auckland Transport, said he had been asking if there was any 'wriggle room in this – is there space to check for opportunity?'. The simple mention of a school in consultation materials had meant such roads had to be adjusted. 'Did we ask for a nuanced response?' But Scott said the new rule forcing speeds up applied to those roads where schools were even listed as 'a' factor, not necessarily 'the' factor for the lowered speed regime. Burnett said Auckland also took a wider area around schools than some roading authorities around the country, on the belief children cycled and walked to school from some distance away. Auckland Transport will now assess which of the 1400 roads with raised speeds from July 1 might best be subject to new consultation for another lowering. Kimpton said it did not want to take a blanket, local board, ward, or town centre approach but would seek to engage with communities in a targeted way. Councillor Julie Fairey even raised the prospect of another of the central government's bugbears, orange road cones, being deployed in greater numbers to some of the now higher speed roads to assist with traffic management. Kimpton: 'It could do. It's a function of many other things, but that's one.' Darby said the speed increases appeared to be more favoured by former transport minister Simeon Brown than by his successor Chris Bishop, who had indicated if communities supported lower speeds they could be kept in place. Yet the rule was not being changed. 'Those advocating for doing it the Dunedin way or Hamilton way. All those stones have been unturned. It's not the outcome I want but it's following the law. 'The appropriate place to wave a banner is before the Government.' Some roads that had been able to be exempted, Kimpton said, were where the land use adjoining those roads had changed. He had been to one, in the Howick ward, (coincidentally near Simeon Brown's electorate) that had not had its speed raised back to 50km/h. Councillor Shane Henderson condemned the rule change 'imposed from above on us in local government from central government'. Consultation with communities from last year could not be used to re-assess speeds now. 'That goes straight into the bin. That's hopeless. I don't know what quite to tell west Auckland primary school communities that are saying 'our kids are unsafe and we have to have lower speeds', but I have to tell them they can't do that. 'Communities are not going to get the lower speed limits that they want. They will contact all of us and say 'can you put some pressure on?' and we'll have to say 'Sorry, mate, can't'.' Bishop told Parliament last week the Government had taken a common-sense approach, supported by most New Zealanders, to bring in variable lower speed limits for critical school traffic hours and higher speeds beyond that. 'It's not complicated. At 4am or 6am, you shouldn't have to artificially have to reduce your speed.' Local road authorities could set speed limits in accordance with the new rules, requiring them to consider safety impacts. Asked by Green transport spokesperson Julie Anne Genter if he would take responsibility for any deaths resulting from the automatic lifting of local road speeds, Bishop said. 'No. I think the balance we have struck is the right one.'
The Spinoff
5 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The problem with making ‘educational attainment' the key objective for schools
Honouring a promise in the National-Act coalition agreement, a bill that proposes to demote the place of te Tiriti in the official objectives for state schools is part of a concerning wider pattern, argues Jessie Moss. At first glance, it might look straightforward. The government's Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) proposes to 'enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools'. But scratch the surface of the bill, on which submissions close this week, and you quickly start asking, educational attainment for whom? Spoiler alert: it's not Māori or disabled tamariki. It all gets alarming in section 127, which sets out the objectives for school boards in governing state and state-integrated kura and schools. That's where the government pulls apart education's current focus on inclusive, authentic, localised and culturally affirming schooling for all tamariki. You can trace it back to Act's coalition deal with National. Act wanted (and National agreed to) 'amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools'. And so here we are, with almost that same wording typed into this bill. The problem is that by promoting one objective as 'paramount', you demote all others – and the objectives we currently have are pretty bloody important. They are: That every student is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement. That schools are safe for students and staff and give effect to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993. And, that they take steps to eliminate racism, stigma, bullying and other discrimination. That schools are inclusive of and cater for students with 'differing needs'. And, critically, that schools give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi. Educators, disability rights groups and Māori fought to have the current objectives introduced in order to reverse the equity gap and address institutional racism and ableism in education. The Act Party has no record of evidence-based education policy, but it does have a record of protesting loudly against te Tiriti and equity-based approaches. When this bill was first proposed in October last year, Māori, as well those working in education and children's rights, scrutinised it and then tried to stop this rollback. The Ministry of Education's summary of consultation on the bill (prior to it heading to select committee) shows 80.5% of submitters opposed giving one objective 'paramount' status. Submitters said, 'educational achievement [was] already a key focus of schools and their core responsibility'. They felt the bill's changes 'would deprioritise the other objectives' and 'undermine the requirement to give effect to Te Tiriti'. These submissions explained what should be obvious; that educational achievement can't occur without focus on te Tiriti o Waitangi, inclusion and wellbeing. The consultation on the bill also proposed removing 'unnecessary references' to the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the objectives. It was only submissions by Māori, educators and disability rights groups that saved the references. As for demoting te Tiriti o Waitangi? Educator Kārena Ngata puts it simply: 'Our obligations to te Tiriti o Waitangi should be realised in every aspect of the school's systems, policies and practices.' Māori tino rangatiratanga over Māori education has been sidelined, and the bill also weakens schools' responsibilities for engaging with mana whenua and local communities. Given the impact for Māori, you'd expect consultation would be solid, but the Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill said otherwise, noting there was 'inadequate time for comprehensive consultation with Māori, iwi and hapū'. Once again, the government has decided on a timeframe too short for real engagement. Zoom out and this bill is just part of a wider pattern emerging in education. This government has already downgraded te Tiriti in the New Zealand curriculum, scrapped Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori language programme for teachers, and defunded resource teachers of Māori. So, strap in, because here we go again. The government is taking another crack at putting Māori second in education. And that diminishes education for us all.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Jail for a haka? The arrogance of ignorance in Parliament
Act MP Parmjeet Parmar wanted to know if imprisonment was an option for Te Pāti Māori members who did a haka in Parliament. Photo / Supplied Recently, I took a crack at Te Pāti Māori for being big on theatre but not backing it up with being an effective opposition party. The obvious example was their haka in the House in protest at the Treaty Principles Bill. But I didn't think the haka was the problem. Since then, the government has focused on dishing out utu for Te Pāti Māori daring to bring its brand of political theatre into the House. A privileges committee headed by Judith Collins – who inaccurately claimed the haka prevented Act from voting at the bill's first reading – recommended a punishment of 21 days' suspension from Parliament for Te Pāti Māori's co-leaders and a week for Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. Even that delicate flower Gerry Brownlee, Speaker of the House, seemed uneasy about the harshness of the proposed penalty. But not Act MP Parmjeet Parmar. She wanted to know if prison was an option. When questioned about this, she rolled out the 'just asking questions' line, supposedly wanting to know what the whole spectrum of options were to punish the unruly natives. So, in the spirit of just asking questions, here's a few Parmar might like to consider. Speaking of a whole spectrum of options, does she realise Te Pāti Māori MPs not only represent but belong to communities who had members who were imprisoned, raped, hanged or shot for expressing their political opinions in ways the crown objected to? Does Parmar know the white feather Debbie Ngarewa-Packer often wears in her pōtae is a symbol and reminder of Parihaka and the government invasion of the Taranaki pacifist community where men were imprisoned without trial and, as the Waitangi Tribunal reported, women were raped? Does she know this community was resisting the confiscation of land taken by the crown she represents? Does she know UK newspaper reports about the leaders of Parihaka, Te Whiti and Tohu, influenced Gandhi, who influenced Martin Luther King? Does Parmar know Rawiri Waititi is from the Whakatōhea iwi, whose rangatira, Mokomoko, was hanged in 1866 for a murder he did not commit? That it and the neighbouring iwi Waititi also belongs to had their land confiscated? Does she know Mokomoko's body was exhumed from Mt Eden Prison and taken back to be buried with his people in 1989 and he was eventually pardoned by the crown in 1992? Does she know his final words before he was hanged were a request to sing: 'Tangohia mai te taura i taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata' (Take the rope from my throat that I may sing my song)? Then his neck was broken. Does Parmar know Maipi-Clarke whakapapas not only to Taranaki but also Waikato, who were invaded by the crown and lost a million acres through confiscation? Does she know about Rangiaowhia, where civilians, including women and children, were burnt and shot as they sheltered in a whare? Does she know Waikato men were imprisoned when they refused conscription in World War I because of the invasion and confiscation of their lands? Since Parmar objects to Māori gathering in their own spaces at universities, does she know government policy was opposed to Māori even attending university until the 1960s? Has she heard of Sir Āpirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pōmare and Te Rangi Hiroa, who went to Te Aute College and on to university to become lawyers and doctors, only for the government to pressure the school principal to desist from preparing Māori students for tertiary study? Does she know these three men, along with many iwi leaders, led a targeted – ie, race-based – health campaign that helped save Māori from extinction after the population plummeted due to poverty and disease resulting from land loss? I recently spoke to a leader of an NGO that supports Māori and Pasifika children in education who told me many of the kids they support end up dropping out of university because they are suddenly alone in an alien environment without community support. Does Parmar think that is a problem that should be addressed? Has she ever bothered to read the history of Māori political figures like Ngata and Pōmare, whose portraits hang in the halls of Parliament? Does she know Pōmare walked those halls with a limp, due to an injury he suffered when he was one of the children who welcomed the troops who invaded Parihaka with singing, only to be trampled by horses? In March, Parmar pronounced the University of Auckland should scrap its compulsory Waipapa Taumata Rau course. Does she think a history lesson might be of use to MPs like herself who claim to represent the country but know little of its history? Or does she take her history lessons from her party leader, who mangles or ignores the past to create a constant stream of political controversies to hold the media's attention and misinform and distract the public? And was Parmar's question about the option of sending Te Pāti Māori to jail for a political protest really her question? Or was she simply doing the party leader's dirty work for him?
