logo
Tribunal hears what was lost when Te Aka Whai Ora was taken

Tribunal hears what was lost when Te Aka Whai Ora was taken

The Spinoff08-06-2025
In a major Waitangi Tribunal hearing, Māori health leaders laid bare the consequences of the government's decision to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora. For many, it wasn't just policy – it was personal.
At the end of last month, the Waitangi Tribunal wrapped up its hearing regarding the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, or the Māori Health Authority. An urgent inquiry as part of the wider Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry, the hearings took place over the space of a week and saw dozens of expert witnesses provide their insights into the state of Māori health in Aotearoa.
Established through the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 under the previous Labour government, Te Aka Whai Ora was an independent government agency charged with managing Māori health policies, services and outcomes. It was pitched as a pivotal step towards addressing the long-standing inequities in hauora Māori, grounded in a Tiriti partnership model. Its disestablishment on June 30, 2024, came less than two years into its operation.
'Te Aka Whai Ora was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to not only change Māori health outcomes, but to also change the health system,' said indigenous rights advocate and business leader Chris Tooley in his submission.
But its beginnings were far from simple. Witnesses explained how the authority was required to be built from the ground up: no existing systems, no legacy staff or infrastructure, and no meaningful transfer of Crown power. In contrast to Te Whatu Ora, which inherited the resources and staff of the former DHBs, Te Aka Whai Ora was expected to function as an equal partner with a fraction of the funding, infrastructure or political support.
Its disestablishment was a political decision, witnesses argued, driven not by evidence or performance, but by ideology. 'The fallacy of neutrality that our public health system treats everyone equally and fairly – it's not true,' said public health expert Elana Curtis. 'If you belong to white British colonial culture, then the health system will tend to produce better outcomes for you than someone who doesn't align with those values or that worldview.'
The tribunal itself was not unfamiliar with the issue. A year earlier, it was forced to abandon its urgent inquiry into the government's planned disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora when the coalition government introduced repeal legislation under urgency, stripping the tribunal of jurisdiction. That legislation went through without consultation with Māori, and without input from the authority itself.
Later, the tribunal would find that the process was a breach of te Tiriti.
In the latest round of hearings, witnesses were clear: the authority was beginning to show real promise. A 'new whare' grounded in tikanga and data, commissioning services by Māori, for Māori, at scale.
'We must bring back Te Aka Whai Ora – otherwise we will be continuing to swim in the crap of colonialism,' said submitter Maia Honetana.
Witnesses also argued the disestablishment has weakened existing structures. Iwi Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs), destined to work in tandem with Te Aka Whai Ora, have been left adrift, they said. Some remain in name only, others have shifted focus to service provision, and several are now competing for the same limited funding. At least one board has said that its current funding is set to expire in June 2026, raising concerns about the long-term viability of the model.
The effects are also being felt in clinical spaces. In renal care, the Māori renal health taskforce has been disbanded, and national forums where inequities were previously discussed have gone quiet. 'Equities seemed to be at the forefront of discussions, and that's now gone,' said Kidney Health New Zealand board member John Kearns.
The Crown's position is that the current settings – including IMPBs, the Hauora Advisory Committee and residual provisions in the Pae Ora Act – uphold its Tiriti responsibilities. But several experts rejected that claim, describing the reforms as cosmetic without genuine devolution of power.
'Until the Crown devolves power and resources to these bodies, they are a toothless tiger who give an illusion that the Crown is honouring te Tiriti,' said claimant representative Maia Te Hira.
Rawiri McKree Jansen, formerly chief medical officer at Te Aka Whai Ora, put it more bluntly: 'We aren't getting anywhere with this approach.'
Throughout the week, witnesses called for a return to Māori-led design – not symbolic oversight, but meaningful authority over strategy, funding and service delivery. Many cited the importance of retaining evidence-based equity tools, including the use of ethnicity as a population-level health marker. Without these, several argued, the system will continue to fail Māori by default, not design.
'The fact that we are dying so prematurely, the fact that we have so much morbidity – when you start to do something like Te Aka Whai Ora and then take it away after 10 months, it's not OK,' said Elana Curtis. 'None of this is just or fair.'
Crown engagement during the hearings was limited. Its only witness, deputy director-general of Māori health John Whaanga, had his written brief withdrawn just days before he was due to appear. Whaanga did appear, however, citing active cabinet deliberations about sector reform, while Crown counsel said officials were not authorised to discuss future reforms. No alternative model was presented.
Claimants argued that the absence of a replacement plan was itself a breach of te Tiriti. In their closing submissions, they noted that the Crown had offered no justification for dismantling Te Aka Whai Ora, and no path forward since.
'This isn't a system failing by accident,' said Māori health leader Lady Tureiti Moxon, one of the lead claimants. 'It is a conscious decision to return to Crown control and institutional racism.'
The tribunal's findings are expected later this year. What remains is a growing record of what Te Aka Whai Ora was, what it represented, and what was lost when it was taken away.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Removing te reo Māori from children's books 'damaging step backwards'
Removing te reo Māori from children's books 'damaging step backwards'

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

Removing te reo Māori from children's books 'damaging step backwards'

The Education Ministry canned At the Marae for containing "too many Māori words. Photo: Screenshot / Ministry of Education A leading Māori studies academic says Education Minister Erica Stanford's decision to remove te reo Māori from new early-reading books is "a dangerous move" that breaches both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights. University of Auckland Professor of Māori Studies and linguist Margaret Mutu (Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Whātua) believes erasing te reo Māori from children's everyday learning is "an attempt to maintain the doctrine of discovery" and "inculcate white supremacy". "It's a very, very dangerous move and I feel really sorry for the mokopuna [grandchildren], who are being grossly misinformed and educated wrongly." Last week, the Education Ministry canned early-reading book At the Marae from its Ready to Read Phonics Plus (RtRPP) series, because it had "too many" Māori words. Documents released on Wednesday revealed that decision was part of a wider policy, approved by Education Minister Erica Stanford in October 2024, to exclude all Māori words , apart from character names, from any new books in the series. The pukapuka (books) are used in primary schools to help five-year-olds learn to read. At the time, the decision affected 13 books in development, all of which only included Māori words in character names. The wider series, which currently has 27 books featuring Māori words, could still be reprinted once finished. The report showed the move was driven by concerns from some literacy experts that including Māori words alongside English could confuse tamariki (children), although evidence on this was "mixed". Officials advised the minister that "limited" research existed on the impact of kupu Māori in early reading books. Professor Margaret Mutu claims exposure to more than one language is extremely beneficial. Photo: Supplied / University of Auckland Mutu, who has a PhD specialising in linguistics, said exposure to more than one language at a young age was extremely beneficial. "Children are particularly capable of obtaining a number of different languages up to the age of six," she told RNZ. "At that stage, there is just no difficulty, no complication or anything about a child learning multiple languages. It actually gives them much greater intellectual flexibility to be able to understand a whole lot of different things, because they have access to more than one language. "Being restricted and being monolingual is actually severely detrimental to children," she said. "To deny them this exposure at the age of five is not only stupid, it's very dangerous." A page from At the Marae, an early reading book that the Education Ministry removed from its Ready to Read Phonics Plus (RtRPP) series for having 'too many' Māori words. Photo: Screenshot / Ministry of Education She also accused the Minister of "falsifying what New Zealand English actually is". "New Zealand English is full of Māori words and most speakers don't even think about it. It's just part of who they are, as people living in a Māori country." Mutu pointed to the Dictionary of New Zealand English and the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary as evidence, both containing hundreds of kupu Māori (Māori words) that are neither place names nor rare. "What on earth is she trying to do here? Teach five-year-olds a different version of English than the one that actually exists in this country?" "It's long past time Māori and English were given equal attention in the entire schooling system, so people can be comfortable in this country." Education Minister Erica Stanford's decision has sparked backlash. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The minister's decision has sparked backlash from literacy experts , principals , teachers and Māori education leaders. Te Akatea, the Māori Principals' Association, called the move "an act of white supremacy" and "an act of racism". Mutu agreed and said the change was part of a broader pattern of what she claimed was a "strongly anti-Māori and extremely racist" government. Despite this, Mutu hoped tamariki would still hear and use te reo Māori in their daily lives, but said removing them from what they read in school was "shameful". "This is denying the natural intellectual growth of a child. You rob them of the ability to learn multiple languages that starts when they're very young and fades after the age of seven. "It's a crying shame." She said, if the purpose of removing te reo from children books was to give access to five-year-old children of the words that they hear on an everyday basis, "then this is not the way to do it". "It's just silly. Linguistically, it's quite bizarre." Education Minister Erica Stanford insists she will not remove Māori words from existing books. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii RNZ approached the Minister's office for a response, but was declined. However, on Wednesday, Standford said she would not remove Māori words from existing books and more titles in the series would still include Māori names and place names. She had also directed the ministry to ensure Māori vowel sounds were taught explicitly in the English curriculum, so they were "not left to chance". Stanford also pointed out her part in releasing Rangaranga Reo ā-Tā , a new set of structured literacy books entirely in te reo Māori, earlier this year.

Five times more Māori nurses needed to meet population and health needs
Five times more Māori nurses needed to meet population and health needs

RNZ News

time8 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Five times more Māori nurses needed to meet population and health needs

It would mean increasing the number of Māori nurses entering the workforce from 300 a year to almost 1650. Photo: Aotearoa needs five times more Māori nurses to reflect the Māori population and deliver culturally safe health care, a new report shows. The report, 'Growing, but not fast enough: Māori nursing workforce insights', commissioned by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) and written by Infometrics, was released on Thursday at the Indigenous Nurses Aotearoa Conference in Rotorua. Te Rūnanga o Aotearoa NZNO kaiwhakahaere Kerri Nuku said the country would need about 1350 more Māori nurses a year for the next decade to reach population parity. "That would mean increasing the number of Māori nurses entering the workforce from the current 300 a year to almost 1650 - a five-fold increase," she said. "This is an intense number and shows the intense need we have to ensure Māori get the culturally safe and appropriate nursing they need. Research shows culturally safe nursing is key to achieving better outcomes for Māori." According to the report, Māori currently make up 18 percent of the New Zealand population but just 7.4 percent of the nursing workforce. It also revealed that Māori are dying seven years earlier than non-Māori The report found that 27,000 Māori nursing enrolments would be required to meet demand, as less than two-thirds of Māori nurse trainees complete their qualification. In 2023, 3230 students enrolled in registered nurse training, but only 435 were Māori. "I'm so concerned about the future of Māori health - this country's health. These numbers are so intense and would appear like mission impossible under this Government. But it is our duty to call for what is best for the health of our people," Nuku said. Kerri Nuku, kaiwhakahaere for the Nurses Organisation says the country needs about 1350 more Māori nurses a year for the next decade to reach population parity. Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller Nuku said Māori nurses played a crucial role in improving health outcomes. "The report also confirms for us what we've always known - Māori nurses are more likely to help keep Māori out of hospital by identifying the risk of preventable illnesses, enabling early intervention and saving the health system money." Around 300 Māori nurses are expected to gather on Thursday for the Indigenous Nurses Aotearoa Conference in Rotorua. This year's conference theme is Mauri oro, mauri reo, mauri ora, which organisers said speaks to a return to "vibration, voice and wellbeing through the lens of mātauranga Māori". The Akenehi Hei award will be presented on Friday, and the Tapuhi Kaitiaki Awards, the Māori nurses award, will be held that evening. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Mayor's water services affordability plea rejected by Ruapehu District Council
Mayor's water services affordability plea rejected by Ruapehu District Council

NZ Herald

time9 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Mayor's water services affordability plea rejected by Ruapehu District Council

Ruapehu was among the most economically disadvantaged districts in New Zealand, with many households 'already stretched to breaking point by the cost-of-living crisis'. 'All of this term we've acknowledged this reality, especially for Māori communities. Yet today, some are still prepared to back the most expensive option on the table, a position I cannot understand.' Kirton said the two-council model would almost double the Department of Internal Affairs' (DIA) affordability benchmark that water costs should not exceed 2.5% of median household income. He also cited new information since the original July 9 decision, including a requirement from the Water Services Authority - Taumata Arowai to bring forward costly wastewater treatment upgrades previously delayed for affordability reasons. The Whanganui council had rejected price harmonisation, which would have shared costs evenly across both councils. 'There is nothing in the two-council arrangement for Ruapehu except ability to increase our debt headroom to borrow more for upgrades our people cannot afford.' In the public forum, Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust spokesman Kuru Ketu said the council's role was to make decisions about water services and infrastructure, not water itself. Making a decision on the basis of 'keeping the catchment together' was 'statutory overreach'. 'The relationship and union of the catchment is whakapapa-based and now protected and provided for by Te Awa Tupua legislation. The catchment will remain together regardless of Local Water Done Well arrangements.' Ketu said 70% of Māori in northern Taumarunui ranked among the most deprived in the country. If people could not pay their bills, the council controlled organisation (CCO) could not function. The trust backed a larger multi-council entity for its greater borrowing capacity, cheaper debt and stronger buying power. Deana Wilson, representing Ngāti Rangi, supported the two-council decision, highlighting iwi connection to waterways and the link between water health and community wellbeing. She said collaboration was key to finding solutions to the region's wastewater treatment challenges. Ratepayer Marama Laurensen urged councillors to focus on practical realities such as cost and community impact rather than personal or emotive views about the river. 'I don't expect councillors to be carrying that particular responsibility. People elect you to deliver service to the community, not to use this table as a platform for your point of view or your feelings.' Laurensen said affordability was critical in a deprived community. Without it, 'you don't have the luxury of having wellbeing', she said. Kirton said the decision came down to a moral and financial duty. 'Do we protect our people from costs they can't afford, or do we lock them into a model that will take money they simply don't have?' Councillors Brenda Ralph and Janelle Hinch backed Kirton's position. Ralph warned higher charges would hit tenants, homeowners and businesses alike, forcing some residents to move away. Hinch said expert advice showed larger multi-council models were the most cost-effective, and warned the two-council option could be unviable for Ruapehu and risk being overturned. River protections were enshrined in legislation, and whakapapa to the rivers would not be severed, she said. Continuing with the two-council model would cause unnecessary hardship. Councillor Robyn Gram originally voted to join a larger model but on Wednesday withdrew her support. Deputy Mayor Viv Hoeta stood by her original vote for the two-council CCO. She said she valued the democratic decision already made and the partnership agreed to by both councils. The case for affordability was based on assumptions rather than facts, she said. Councillor Lyn Neeson said she struggled to see how $1000 extra would be imposed on ratepayers. 'I'm deeply concerned that the conversation over the past fortnight has put serious fear into our ratepayers that it is going to be unaffordable to live in Ruapehu.' Neeson said all councils' water rates would rise. 'The water improvements have to be made. They were unaffordable, that's the reason they weren't made. Now we have to make them.' A higher borrowing cap, cheaper debt and more buying power were not exclusive to the larger multi-council model, she said. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.

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