Auckland iwi boss accuses NZ First, ACT MPs of 'scaremongering' with Waitākere Ranges claims
(File) Te Kawerau ā Maki chief executive Edward Ashby.
Photo:
supplied
NZ First and ACT MPs Shane Jones and David Seymour need to "learn to read", the chief executive of a West Auckland iwi says, after they criticised a proposal by Auckland Council to work more closely with the iwi as "co-governance".
Edward Ashby said the central government MPs were up to "mischief", spreading "misinformation" and "scaremongering".
Jones and Seymour are concerned about the potential for iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki to be part of a committee overseeing the Waitākere Ranges, but Auckland Councillor Richard Hill said the proposal simply progresses something that was agreed to 17 years ago.
In 2008, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act recognised the area as nationally significant, and specified it needed to be protected. It also said it would progress a
Deed of Acknowledgement
that the Auckland Council, the Crown and the nominated iwi would enter into.
Now the council is moving forward to create that deed, with
consultation on the proposal
closing yesterday.
Auckland councillor Richard Hills explained the deed would "in practice" acknowledge the relationship and interest a range of parties have in the Waitākere Ranges.
That could be to "invest in it, do trapping, do planting, do pest control, enable more recreation and protection of the ranges into the future".
"This was asked for unanimously by the local boards and also unanimously by the Auckland Council."
Part of the proposal is to establish a joint committee under the Local Government Act with equal representation from Auckland Council, the Crown and tangata whenua - in this case Te Kawerau ā Maki.
NZ First MP Shane Jones has condemned the idea, saying his party will never agree to an iwi having "50 percent sovereignty over the Waitakere forest".
"We campaigned, we negotiated, and we agreed, in our coalition agreement, there would be no more co-sovereignty, no more co-governance of these public service orientated outcomes."
He said the moment you have a "50/50 committee set up as part of the SuperCity" it will "morph in no time whatsover into shared sovereignty over the Waitākere".
"What about the trampers? What about the runners? What about the walkers? That is an asset that primarily must serve all the interests and all the needs of Auckland."
The Waitakere Ranges at Karekare Beach
Photo:
123rf
Coalition partner and Epsom electorate MP David Seymour agreed, saying the Waitākere Ranges is a "very special area to many Aucklanders".
"The idea it should be governed half by people whose ancestors arrived 800 years ago, and half by people whose ancestors arrived more recently, is an anathema to the Kiwi spirit."
He was also concerned about decisions being made to close tracks, saying those needed to be made "according to the best science".
"And the people with the best science are the people who have the skills, experience and qualifications to make the decision.
"Being born Māori, while a wonderful thing to be proud of, is not actually a scientific qualification."
CEO of Te Kawerau ā Maki Edward Ashby suggested the MPs "learn to read" because "that's not what the information out there says".
Ashby pointed out it had taken 17 years to act on what the legislation had promised, "which is a deed to be progressed". That was all the iwi was doing, he said.
He explained the deed would do two things, "acknowledges our association" and "identifies opportunities for us to contribute to the management of the public land".
"And so one of the ways we wanted to do that was basically set up a forum or a table for us and the Crown and Council to talk."
He said that would be a "non-statutory" body, and would be used to coordinate a plan for the area.
Ashby maintained the proposal was not co-governance and said the MPs were up to "mischief".
"I think it's scaremongering. I think it's misinformation.
"It's obviously on trend for some members of this government, and politics in general, at the moment, to beat up on iwi."
He said he thought Te Kawerau ā Maki were being used as a "political football', and the idea that the proposal was co-governance was "misinformation".
"If it was co governance, there would be land in a different structure, a different entity, there'd be decision making over money and things like that. And none of those things are on the table.
"Land isn't changing title. Money isn't changing hands. Power isn't being taken away from anyone."
He explained the council would still make final decisions over land it manages, as would the Department of Conservation, as would Te Kawerau ā Maki.
He said the idea that there'll be "Kawerau police" telling people what they can and can't do on the property was an "absolute fairytale".
Councillor Hills echoed this, saying "there's no change of ownership or change of decision making," and that it was simply about "doing what we're already doing in disparate ways", but bringing local boards, council, mana whenua together to "improve the future of the Waitākere Ranges and ensure the investment is going in the right places".
He said this is "nothing like" the co-governance the government approved a couple of months ago for Taranaki.
Seymour acknowledged it was ultimately a decision for the local council, and said that is why ACT plans to stand candidates in the local body elections for the first time.
"The legislation in question is actually a local bill, which is quite difficult for Parliament to change without the local council asking for it to happen.
"Hence, we're standing local candidates so precisely that can happen."
Jones said he wouls be taking the issue to caucus, and he will be taking it up with the Minister of Conservation - Tama Potaka.
RNZ approached the minister for comment but he declined because it is a local government issue.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
14 hours ago
- Newsroom
Why our rates are rising as valuations drop – and the wealthy exceptions to the rule
Analysis: Howls of pain are emerging from Auckland as homeowners compare the declines in this week's new rateable valuations with the rises in their rates bills, taking effect from the start of next month. My family lives in Onehunga. This week's new figures show our home's rateable valuation is down 8 percent on 2021, yet our rates will rise about 5.8 percent ($315) from July 1. Add to that a 7.2 percent hike to Watercare charges, and it's costly. (Not everybody's valuation has diminished. For instance – and for the property voyeurs among us – the capital value of the Mowbray mansion in Coatesville has increased 3 percent, from $39.3 million to $40.5m. The CV for the former Hotchin mansion in Ōrākei has jumped from $58m to $72.5m.) On average, Aucklanders' CVs have dropped 9 percent. And while Auckland's cries may echo loudest, because there are more of us, the discrepancies are even more stark elsewhere in the country. Wellington residents, for instance, will pay on average 16.9 percent more in rates, even though their property values have dropped 24.4 percent – a big chunk out of their wealth that will push some into negative equity (on the books, at least). The Mowbray mansion in Coatesville has increased from $39.3 million to $40.5m. Nelson locals face a 6.5 percent rates rise, despite their house values dropping 9.4 percent. Understandably, homeowners' realisations that they are are less wealthy, yet they're being asked to pay more, will harden opposition to rates rises. And that will shape the political debate in October's local elections. Christopher Luxon's Government has told councils to 'get back to the basics' of fixing pipes, filling potholes, and delivering core local services. Challenger local candidates who promise to rein in rates rises will no doubt get a more sympathetic hearing from local electors; those incumbents who are aware just how hard that is will struggle make their arguments heard. But let's set aside some of the spin and look at this more dispassionately. Rates hikes v residential property valuation changes The ways in which central government taxes and local government rates are set are critically different. Central government starts with tax rates (PAYE, company tax, GST, etc) then asks revenue officials to make an informed guess about what that rate will raise. If my gross earnings increase, I pay more tax – but generally I don't complain too much because I can see it's a consistent rate. Every year, as individual and company earnings and expenditure increase, the Government takes a bigger clip from a bigger ticket – and that helps cover its increased costs servicing a growing population. What this means is that the Government increases its tax take every year, without having to make any active decision. The passing of the Budget Appropriation Bill does not require MPs to vote on increasing tax revenue. MPs don't face the wrath of those who elected them, for voting in favour of a tax revenue rise. It just happens. Every year. Local government is required to work the other way round. It predicts how much money it will need to service its own growing population, then works backwards to decide how big an increase in rates revenues is needed to pay for that. What this means is that when your house value rises, increasing your equity and making you more wealthy, that doesn't flow through to paying more rates. All it does is slightly change the share you pay of your city or district's total rates bill, relative to your neighbour whose house value may have declined. The net effect is that over the past century, tax increases have massively outstripped rates rises, leaving local government genuinely struggling to pay the bills. Tax v rates as a percentage of GDP The Government's tax take relative to GDP has soared, while council rates have remained static. Source: Productivity Commission That's why Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, this week, is putting the hard word on the Government to allow the city to charge bed taxes to fund tourism infrastructure. That's why Local Government NZ and its members (61 of the country's 67 city and district councils) have been pushing for new revenue tools, like a share of local GST take, or the ability to charge rates on Crown estate. That's right, even though the Government's books are in a much healthier state than councils', and its debt is lower by global measures, it still exempts itself from paying rates. So, as the local government elections roll around in October, by all means hold your councillors to account on their spending and the rates rises they've imposed – but listen cautiously to MPs who punch down on cash-strapped councils. Be sure you're comparing apples with apples – because the big picture is, successive governments have increased their tax take far faster than councils have hiked their rates.
Newsroom
14 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
a day ago
- The Spinoff
Inside the Waitangi Tribunal's Mana Wāhine hearings
The Waitangi Tribunal's latest hearings delved into the historical and systemic marginalisation of Māori women – and the constitutional future their voices demand. As the cold embrace of Hine Takurua set upon Te Upoko-o-te-ika-a-Māui, the wharenui at Te Herenga Waka Marae was warmed by the testimony, challenge and reassertion for the Mana Wāhine claim. Last week, the Waitangi Tribunal held hearings for the Mana Wāhine Kaupapa Inquiry: a landmark claim addressing the Crown's ongoing failure to uphold the status, rights, and constitutional authority of wāhine Māori. Heard before judge Sarah Reeves and panel members Robyn Anderson, Kim Ngarimu, Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Ruakere Hond, the Mana Wāhine inquiry centres on the enduring impacts of colonisation, patriarchy and the Crown's exclusionary systems of power. From the appointment processes of state boards to the structure of commercial fisheries, the claim argues that wāhine Māori have been deliberately sidelined from decision-making, leadership and economic participation. Claimant representative Natalie Coates opened with a challenge to look inward as well as out: 'Acknowledging that the patriarchal ideas infiltrated our tikanga and how we conduct and order ourselves in our whānau, hapū and iwi is a necessary part of our healing journey as a people.' It was a confronting reminder that while colonisation imposed new systems, some damage manifested through the reshaping of tikanga. Legal academic Ani Mikaere was the first witness, opening proceedings with a clear articulation of what has been lost: 'Our creation stories and tikanga once upheld the mana of wāhine Māori, recognising them as leaders, protectors of whakapapa, powerful spiritual figures. Colonisation has rewritten those stories, often with misogyny, fear and racism layered over our own truths.' Across four days of presentations and cross-examination, a diverse group of lawyers, historians, researchers, kuia and claimants took the stand. The hearings wove together a narrative that was both historic and current, doctrinal and lived. The claim traces its lineage to one woman in particular – Mira Szászy. As the sole wahine commissioner on the Māori Fisheries Commission in 1990, her exclusion from subsequent appointments was a catalyst for Wai 381. Several witnesses described her as having 'grandparented' both the fisheries settlement and the Mana Wāhine claim. Ripeka Evans, an original claimant, told the tribunal: 'The opportunities for wāhine Māori weren't lost. They simply weren't presented.' Much of the testimony outlined how the Crown's systems are structurally incapable of recognising mana wāhine on their own terms. Tribunal veteran and claimant representative Annette Sykes framed the inquiry as 'a constitutional moment'. 'This is the first time the tribunal has been called to confront the Crown's breaches through the distinct and intersectional lens of wāhine Māori.' That lens includes land and resource alienation, gendered violence, the denial of political agency and systemic exclusion. According to historian Aroha Harris, the doctrine of discovery and the English common law model erased not just indigenous rights, but indigenous women. Tina Ngata highlighted the stark link between the two: 'The doctrine of discovery replaced our systems of sacredness with a hierarchy. The more white, and the more male you were, the more sacred. The further you were from that, the more disposable.' That disposability has consequences. Deputy dean for the faculty of business and economics at the University of Auckland Carla Houkamau presented research highlighting how contemporary state systems continue to harm Māori women, particularly in education, health and criminal justice. 'Our pain is more likely to be ignored. Our leadership is more likely to be invisible. Our participation, purposefully hidden.' But the hearings showed that wāhine Māori are not just participating – they are leading in the way. The final day was dedicated to testimony from the Māori Women's Welfare League, led by current president Hope Tupara. The league, with its ECOSOC status at the UN and more than 70 years of intergenerational organising, emerged as a central vehicle for mana wāhine. Former president Areta Koopu described the league as a whare: 'We are one family, one house. We stick together.' That unity was tested over decades of Crown interface. Tupara told the tribunal: 'They don't value our mātauranga. The Crown doesn't understand our way of thinking, because it doesn't operate that way.' Several former presidents outlined how Crown processes had repeatedly sidelined the league from major policy decisions. One spoke of the 'opportunity cost' of the Crown's insistence on engagement with newer pan-Māori bodies: 'Despite our leadership in communities, we were increasingly outside the consultation room.' A core focus of the next steps is remedies. Many witnesses called for changes to appointment structures, constitutional recognition of mana wāhine, and support for pathways rooted in whakapapa rather than CVs. Indigenous rights lawyer Dayle Takitimu urged the tribunal to consider the fundamental shift needed: 'Wāhine Māori have inherent mana and authority embedded into us. The Crown must confront the ways it has polluted or denied that truth – not just in history, but in policy today.' Barrister Natalie Coates reinforced that any future framework must move beyond individual fixes: 'We're talking about the wellbeing of wāhine Māori being inseparable from the communities from which we come from… It's not a zero sum struggle, it's a return to collective health and justice.' The claimants were also clear that this was not about slotting women into existing colonial frameworks. Rather, as Mikaere said, it is about restoring a reality that existed long before colonisation – one where mana was understood as shared, relational and grounded in whakapapa. 'It is only when women achieve mana recognition that the Māori people will rise up,' she said. Last week marked the first round of hearings in a long process. However, for many present at Te Herenga Waka, it was also a reclamation. In the words of former Māori Women's Welfare League president Druis Barrett: 'We were always doing the mahi. The question is when the Crown will finally see it.' The Wai 2700 hearings will continue later this year.
