Crown and council to take voting edge over Māori on Waitakeres body
From initial proposals of an equal five seats for tangata whenua and five representing public bodies, the latest deed to establish the oversight committee has moved to six to five in favour of the council and Crown entities.
The change leaves west Auckland-based iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki feeling 'a little bruised, and beaten up' after years of waiting, but accepting it 'could live with' the council's change of representation and wanting to get on and protect the ranges.
Iwi chief executive Edward Ashby told Newsroom: 'It was pretty clear there was a fear – and I do think it is an irrational fear because it's an advisory body and we are not the boogie man. But we are really focused on the outcome. We are not too worried by the numbers.'
The deed for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Forum, a body to be set up under a 2008 law but only now being finalised, goes before Auckland Council's policy and planning committee on Thursday.
The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act recognised the 27,700 hectares of publicly owned land in the ranges as nationally significant, needing protection. It specified the Crown, council and nominated iwi to develop the deed and oversight body, a non-statutory body to identify areas of cooperation and develop a strategic plan for the area.
It aims to identify areas tangata whenua can contribute to the management of public land and to acknowledge their traditional relationship with the ranges. The five seats for Māori are initially to be taken up by Te Kawerau ā Maki, as another iwi listed in the Act, Ngāti Whātua, has declined.
Under the deed, there will be no change of ownership of land under the deed or forum structure, and the forum would not be able to direct spending of council or Crown funds, other than its own delegated budget.
In April, the New Zealand First party complained the forum would be an example of 'co-governance' with Māori able to set strategy and veto council or government measures related to the ranges. MP Shane Jones said his party would never agree to an iwi having '50 percent sovereignty over the Waitakere forest'.
Ashby dismissed the criticisms in April as scaremongering and said the forum as proposed was not co-governance. If it had been, there would have been a different structure and entity established. The deed simply acknowledged tangata whenua's special relationship with the ranges area.
Around 2250 people and organisations made public submissions on the heritage forum deed, with 51 percent in favour, 39 percent against and 10 percent recorded as 'other'.
Analysis of the submissions by research firm Ipsos said there was concern among those opposed to the deed at the prospect of 50-50 representation on the joint committee giving tangata whenua 'disproportionate influence' over management of the public land.
Those in favour of the deed and shared oversight acknowledged the iwi role of kaitiaki or guardian and the importance of tangata whenua having a strong voice and seat at the table.
It appears that public feedback, rather than the political claims by NZ First and the Act Party, has now seen the forum membership weighting changed to favour the public bodies.
Council staff recommend three seats for the Waitakere Local Board, two for the council governing body and one for the Department of Conservation – and five seats to be occupied by Te Kawerau ā Maki, to be shared with Ngāti Whātua should that iwi choose at a later date to participate. The role of chair would come from the iwi side and deputy chair from the public bodies.
Waitakere ward councillor Shane Henderson says the composition of the forum changed 'in response to feedback, not to scaremongering from central government politicians but the voices of West Aucklanders that fed back into the process'.
He said the new balance allowed half of the six-member Waitakere local board to join the forum, with two ward councillors. DoC's strong interests in the heritage area also needed representation. 'So the new numbers work a little better on that basis too.'
Te Kawerau ā Maki chief executive Edward Ashby. Photo: Supplied
Ashby says the change in representation came after the consultation and was put to Te Kawerau ā Maki by the council.
'It's a place the council came to that we could live with at the end of the day. It's about giving these people some certainty that there would not be a super majority of Māori on the committee. There's been a lot of misunderstanding of the original proposal.
'It's good the deed is out there and people can read it; it clearly says it's advisory, about public land, it does not have power to make any decisions about budgets. That's all in there.'
He said the political claims from Jones and Act's David Seymour, among others, led to fears among some members of the public. 'I do understand that if you are reading scaremongering headlines on Facebook you might react. It's unfortunate.
'It's just the political reality of the time. The original proposal was for 50-50, not out of any power grab but simply that the Crown and council was on one side of the equation and on the other side was Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua. It was as simple as that.'
He noted much of the feedback against the proposed deed had come from beyond Waitakere and Auckland.
'But, there's this beautiful area. It's our heartland and I'm biased. It really needs to be looked after. We really need to get together on how we make it work.'
The six-five composition of the forum was 'at least an outcome that takes some of the edge out of some people's concerns, even though I think they were not well-founded concerns'.
He hoped the compromise result did not turn the clock back in other areas of the country.
'I like to think most New Zealanders are fair minded … and I would hope that progress made is not lost. There's been some really good progressive stories.'
The council's policy and planning committee considers the proposed deed on Thursday, with the full Governing Body having the final say before the forum is appointed.
Ashby says: 'We just want to get on with it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
13 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.
NZ Herald
15 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
Otago Daily Times
15 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."
