Why Gisborne Locals Are Pushing Back Against Relaxed Alcohol Rules
Article – Zita Campbell – Local Democracy Reporter
The council consulted on excluding 'Sensitive Sites Provisions' in the CBD.
Two-thirds of the public who responded to a Gisborne District Council community consultation have opposed relaxing the local alcohol policy (LAP) rules in the city centre, citing the need to protect schools, marae and sensitive sites from alcohol harm.
However, some businesses and individuals are backing a rule change to help revitalise the city as they fear it is becoming a 'ghost town'.
Gisborne District Council consulted on excluding 'Sensitive Sites Provisions' within its central business district after adopting its current local alcohol policy in June 2024.
Sensitive site rules stop new liquor licences being issued – aside from cafes, restaurants, and special licences – within 150m of sites such as marae, schools, spiritual facilities and recreational areas.
Rongowhakaata Iwi Trust chair Connie Maynard said the proposal to remove the provisions within the CBD was 'disappointing' as marae were protected under the policy.
Rongowhakaata had the mana whenua iwi rights over the land consulted on and opposed the amendments, she told the alcohol policy hearings on Tuesday morning.
For Māori, the issues with alcohol began with the landing of Captain James Cook (his second voyage here) in 1773, Maynard said.
'For whatever reason, we latched on to alcohol and grew to have a dependency on it. It continues to disproportionately and negatively impact Māori.'
The council proposed to either amend and remove the Sensitive Sites Provisions from the CBD or maintain the status quo.
During the consultation, which ran for a month from February 28, the council received 207 submissions – 137 were in support of keeping the provisions, 69 wanted them removed and one submitter was unsure, according to the council hearing submissions panel report.
Kura Kaupapa Māori O Hawaiki Hou moved on to a premise at the end of Gisborne's main road in 2019.
In 2023, the group appealed a new liquor licence granted to Anjuna Beer Garden, a few doors down from the kura. The application was withdrawn last year.
Te Amohare Hauiti-Parapara, submitting on behalf of the kura, said that opposing the application was 'emotionally taxing'.
As a whānau-led kura, she said she represented the kura's whānau, who strongly supported retaining the current rules which were a positive step in the application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
'Particularly the principle of active protection of a taonga and our future tribal base, as defined by the Waitangi Tribunal.'
Under the option to relax the rules, the District Licensing Committee (DLC) would also have the discretion to grant exemptions to the sensitive sites rule for applications outside the city.
Hauiti-Parapara said the proposed change would directly impact their kura and put other kura outside the city at risk.
'Removing the existing protections risks exposing our tamariki to the promotion of alcohol in an environment that should be focused on nurturing their wellbeing,' she said.
Submitter Kristen Maynard, who was in favour of keeping the restrictions, said few licence applications had been rejected under the Sensitive Sites rule.
Robbie McCann, father of Ben McCann, whose licence for Anjuna Beer Garden was appealed by the Kura, also submitted.
He was one of two submissions presenting at the hearing in support of removing the rule.
'Without commercial interest, you won't have a city.'
McCann said there were 34 vacant buildings on the main street.
'We're very close to a ghost town … it's a crisis situation for building owners and business owners alike'
He noted that during early engagement, 82% disagreed with the provisions while 18% agreed.
This engagement process received 62 submissions and 1067 votes through the council's 'Participate' platform and Facebook page.
McCann said he believed the council had not targeted to get the full spread of people during this round of public consultation.
'I only found out by fluke … that's why you've got a little bit of a difference this time.'
Off-licences such as bottle stores had a greater risk of creating alcohol harm than on-licences – such as bars – because it was in a controlled environment, McCann said.
During his submission, police officer Isaac Ngatai, who has been the alcohol prevention officer in the region for 14 years, disagreed with off-licences being the main issue during his submission.
'Over 70% of the incidents that we deal with are alcohol harm-related. That's not just from off-licences; that's from people returning home from on-licences,' he said.
Resident John Wells presented his submission in support of removing the sensitive site rules.
Wells said he had nothing against sensitive sites in the CBD, but they should operate under the same conditions and terms as any other business.
'CBD means 'central business district' … that is where businesses are supposed to be,' he said.
According to the council report, the option to keep restrictions was supported by Tri-Agencies, which encompasses NZ Police, the National Public Health Service and the Chief Licensing Inspectorate.
Several local community groups, as well as Tūrehou Māori Wardens Trust, Te Aroha Kanarahi Trust, Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki Trust and individuals, also gave written submissions in favour of keeping the current provisions.
Several businesses and individuals submitted in support of removing the rule.
Reasons provided included revitalising the CBD, supporting businesses and providing more controlled environments for individuals, the report said.
Council sustainable futures director Joanna Noble said if the hearings committee made a recommendation, the adoption of the amendments would take place at a meeting on May 8.
– LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Tribunal hears what was lost when Te Aka Whai Ora was taken
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.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Seymour on Māori funding: Need over race in Government policy shift
He went from being abused at Waitangi this year to the Bombay Hills to the opening of Tipene, St Stephen's School, a new charter school on the former site of the old St Stephen's College, which was closed in 2000. Untangling Government targeting can be confusing. Apparently funding for Māori-focused schools, be it charter or kura kaupapa, is fine. But funding for a Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora, ended last year, and the authority was disestablished. Specific funding for Māori housing programmes was cut from Budget 2025, and funding for Māori trades training was cut. But funding for Māori wardens was increased, and continued for Whānau Ora. It is okay for Māori health providers to be contracted to increase immunisation rates for Māori babies. But when ACC tendered this year for expertise to reduce work injuries for Māori and Pacific people in the manufacturing sector, where they are over-represented, Act contacted the ACC Minister, and the Minister asked ACC to rethink. Ethnicity has been removed as one of five factors in what is called an equity adjustor for waiting lists in the health system, and a move by the last Government has been scrapped to screen Māori at a younger age for bowel cancer on the basis that they get it earlier. So when is targeting okay and not okay for Māori under Seymour's philosophical approach? Essentially, it's when all factors other than race have been ruled out. But he is defensive about the way Act has been criticised for it. 'In a lot of this debate, people assume we are opposed a group of people or a culture where in actual fact we are opposed to an arbitrary way it comes about.' When it comes to charter schools, Seymour says they present no discrimination, and that the fact that some are set up for Māori is neither an advantage or disadvantage. "There is a misconception that I and Act are opposed to anything Māori," says David Seymour. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'There is no discrimination in the policy. It says if you want to set up a school you must basically demonstrate three things: that you've got an idea, that you've got capacity to plausibly deliver on it and that you have community support. A wide range of people were doing it, including a kaupapa Māori school. 'The thing there is nothing in the policy that says you have advantage or disadvantage in being a Māori school.' The difference with the Māori Health Authority On the other hand, the Māori Health Authority had effectively said that New Zealand would have two health commissioning agencies because the most important thing about a person was their ethnicity.' 'With a charter school, by contrast, there's no putting different patients into different boxes,' said Seymour. 'People themselves can choose a school with a certain style. The difference is that charter schools are bottom-up. The Māori Health Authority was top-down.' Seymour cites the Cabinet Office Circular headed 'Needs-based service provision', which was issued to all in September last year as part of National's coalition agreements with Act and NZ First to set out its expectation that services should be delivered on the basis of need, not race. The salient parts state: 'The Government seeks to ensure that all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity or personal identity, have access to public services that are appropriate and effective for them, and that services are not arbitrarily allocated on the basis of ethnicity or any other aspect of identity. The circular draws on international law, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, for temporary circumstances in which affirmative action is acceptable. It quotes the convention: 'Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved'. The circular is essentially Government policy and sets expectations for ministers, chief executives and officials involved in service design, commissioning, and delivery of government services. Voucher system in tertiary education Seymour does not have a problem with the variety in the education system but does have a problem with any affirmative action courses that have lower standards for Māori or other groups. 'Tertiary education now, at least, is essentially a voucher system,' he said. 'You go to any registered tertiary institution and the state will fund your places. 'Do I have a problem, for example, with Te Waananga? No. If people want to go to the University of Auckland, they should. If they want to go to the Waananga, they should. Will they get different treatment at each one? Probably, but that's a pluralistic society. 'That I don't have a problem with.' But he was completely opposed to lower standards of admission for Māori to say, medical school. 'That is different access to opportunity based on your race, versus presenting and delivering the opportunity in different ways in a marketplace place and the latter I completely support, and that's what charter schools are.' He said he recently chastised a supporter of his who had complained about a netball tournament in Whanganui where you had to speak Māori for the whole tournament, and you could be penalised for speaking English. 'And I just said, 'Why is this a problem?'' It was no different to a camp for French language students where you could speak only French at the camp and there would be no problem with that. 'We have no problem with multiculturalism. It's discrimination and preferential allocation of resources that we have a problem with.' Seymour said he did not have a problem with using Māori health providers to have better access to Māori patients with defined needs. 'If you can genuinely show that ethnicity is your variable and that is better than any other way in making sure that all patients get better service, then we support that. 'But what we don't support is a framework where the starting premise of the law is that we are divided into tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, and that is the lens through which we must always look. That I think is wrong. 'There is a misconception that I and Act are somehow opposed to anything Māori. We are really not.' Changes to ACC targeting So why did Act object to ACC's tender to reduce work injuries in the manufacturing sector, with targets for Māori and Pacific workers who have disproportionately higher injuries? 'There are two very different things here,' said Seymour. 'Do we believe in devolution and competition, and choice in the delivery of social services and we absolutely do. 'But then there is the question of 'should you then group your patients and commission different levels of service, regardless of who the providers are, by their ethnic background?' ACC Minister Scott Simpson had initially believed he had followed the cabinet circular, said Seymour. 'But the cabinet is very clear. It says you can use ethnicity as a variable for directing resources but you need to be very sure there aren't other variables that you could have used first – because we have so much more data than just a person's ethnicity and we can do far more accurate targeting if we are prepared to use the richness of data we have in the IDI [Statistics NZ's Integrated Data Infrastructure] rather than just defaulting to race. 'We need to be a lot more nuanced and sophisticated in our use of data,' said Seymour. ACC has since changed its practices. New guidance for staff has been developed to support the application of the Cabinet Office Circular to ACC's commissioning practices, said Andy Milne, ACC deputy chief executive for strategy, engagement and prevention. 'This will ensure that we evidence the need for any targeted commissioning and demonstrate that we are following the guidelines set out in the Government's circular.' ACC data showed that Māori and Pacific people disproportionately experience high injury rates in the manufacturing sector, which is one of five high-risk priority areas for ACC. In 2024, 18% of work-related weekly compensation claims in manufacturing impacted Māori (Māori constitute 14% of the workforce), and 11% of work-related weekly compensation claims in manufacturing impacted Pacific people (10% of the workforce). The original tender sought a target outcome of 5461 claims to be saved by the end of the benefit realisation period (approximately 10 years from the delivery phase). At least 18% of the claims saved were to be from Māori, and 11% from Pacific people. After Act and the minister's intervention, the tender was reissued by ACC without the ethnic targets, and closed last week. Targeted services is 'good government' Nicola Willis took the paper on the circular to cabinet last year as Public Service Minister, and it also revoked the previous Government's affirmative action, the progressive procurement policy, which aimed to get Government agencies to award 8% of their contracts to Māori businesses. 'I am concerned that retaining targets for a specific group (or groups) of businesses based on ethnicity sends the wrong signal to agencies about awarding contracts first and foremost on public value,' Willis wrote. 'I consider this approach, regardless of how carefully it is implemented, leaves an impression of an uneven playing field and a perception (whether warranted or not) of potential discrimination.' The cabinet paper acknowledges the benefits of targeted services, not just to ethnically defined groups but disabled people, seniors, people living in rural area or those with diverse sexualities or gender identities. 'Services targeted or designed for specific population groups are an established feature of good government,' she wrote. But where targeted services were proposed, 'I expect these to be informed by clear evidence of a disparity, and evidence that culturally responsive or population-specific service models would be more effective. In other words, targeted services should coincide with a focus on need…' She said the proposals were consistent with the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 'We are committed to achieving equitable outcomes for all New Zealanders, and I acknowledge this will often require services targeted or tailored to specific ethnic population groups, subject to the analytical rigour proposed in the circular to confirm such need.' 'I believe the need is overwhelming." Labour Social Development spokesman Willie Jackson. Photo / Mark Mitchell Former Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson was one of the first to condemn cuts to targeted programmes in this year's Budget, including the Māori Trade and Training. 'The Government should hang its head in shame after a budget that takes a knife to more Māori programmes,' he said on Budget day. He felt it keenly. For six years as a minister in the Labour-led Government, he worked with Finance Minister Grant Robertson to build up targeted funding for Māori to a total of about $1b a year by 2023. He also drove the now-ditched progressive procurement policy for Māori businesses to get a slice of the $50b annual procurement of Government agencies. In his view, targeted funding, particularly using Māori providers in health and social services, is the most effective way of getting to Māori in the most need. 'I believe the need is overwhelming and the facts show the need is overwhelming in terms of Māori,' he told the Herald. 'There is a big group and a growing group who just trust Māori processes, and their Māori health provider. And they are shell-shocked at the moment.' 'Our people trust our people' He believes the reason Seymour is averse to targeting on race is because it was his way of 'walking away from Treaty obligations.' So why did Labour decide to set up a Māori Health Authority? Was it a Treaty obligation or a measure for more targeted delivery? 'The inability to access health was a huge factor in terms of the Māori Health Authority. Always at the forefront was need, but of course the Treaty was there too,' said Jackson. 'But I believe we always operated from a position of need, and Māori absolutely fulfilled that criteria. That is why I pushed so hard over that time for targeted Māori funding. 'He can call it racist, but our people trust our people.' There were 'incredible gaps' in Māori statistics that needed to be addressed with ''for Māori, by Māori' strategies.' And he believes most New Zealanders supported it. 'They just want common sense. They want fairness. They don't want extreme in terms of the Māori stuff and where Māori funding is due. They don't want separate everything.' Jackson was not sure if Labour would go to next year's election promising to reinstate the Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora. 'But we will bring back in absolutely Māori-targeted funding. We are committed to targeted funding,' he said. 'We have learnt some of the lessons of the past' 'The reality is Māori want more funding and more resources. I just want to get our people the necessary funding and resources. 'It doesn't have to be in any separate entities, and maybe it won't be if we get back in because we have to learn some of the lessons of the past.' But Robertson acknowledged that funding and resourcing for Māori had been minimal. That was why target funding under Labour rose so much. 'And that is no racist funding. That is funding based on need. 'But also, there is a Treaty obligation. We are a partner, and that's how governments should look at things,' said Jackson. 'It doesn't mean that there is a Māori takeover. It is just an acknowledgement that the biggest need in this country is Māori.' While Jackson believes that National is 'buckling' to David Seymour's view of targeting, it is clear that National's ministers are less vexed by it. 'It was a fiscal, not philosophical' Speaking about the Budget in May, Social Development Minister Louise Upston justified ending funding for Māori Trades and Training on the basis it had been time-limited funding and that was where she first looked for savings. 'The Māori Trades Training fund was established during Covid times and then extended in 2022 and due to expire 30 June 2025,' she said. 'For things that were due to end, there had to be a very, very strong reason why I would have to continue them and have to find savings elsewhere.' Budget 2025 had focused on employment, and the intervention that had been the most successful was case management 'so that is where we have focused the resources'. In the past year, it had funded $21 million for 52 providers for expenses incurred on programmes that supported Māori through Trades and Training. But Upston insisted it was a fiscal decision, not a philosophical one based on the Cabinet Office Circular approved by Cabinet. Louise Upston said the focus in this year's budget went on case management. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'Totally and absolutely. It had nothing to do with the name of it. I looked at all programmes that had a time limit.' She said she had felt no need to conduct any reviews of programmes in Social Development in the light of the circular. 'If you look at Social Development, it is pretty clear who is over-represented in job seeker numbers. It is young people, it is Māori, it is Pasifika, it is disabled and to a lesser degree, women. 'What I wanted to do is make sure we are funding initiatives that are effective, and we have data and evidence to prove they have the greatest impact at supporting people back into employment.' The He Poutama Rangatahi programme for young people not in education, employment or training (Neets) continued, with $33 million, down from $44 million, but that is targeted at all Neets. Housing Minister Chris Bishop, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis, says he wants a more granular housing system. Photo / Mark Mitchell Housing funding consolidated Housing Minister Chris Bishop said the targeted Māori housing fund, Whai Kainga Whai Oranga, administered by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Te Puni Kokiri, had been consolidated into a single funding source with several other housing funds. 'The money hasn't disappeared. It has just been consolidated into a different fund, and one of the things that fund will be looking at is who they can partner with in order to deliver houses for people in need. 'The intention is for the Government to be much more deliberate and targeted about the housing solutions that are invested in around the country. 'That fund will end up investing in a range of different Māori housing solutions around the country.' He was confident it would be an effective fund for supporting iwi in post-settlement governance entities and Māori land trusts that wanted to do things in housing. 'What we are doing with the housing system is to move towards a much more granular system, more evidence-based, where we focus on the right house in the right place for the right people. 'The system at the moment is way too much one-system-fits-all.' He said he wanted the system to be more targeted to need. 'We know where the housing need is, but the system doesn't actually cater for that at the moment. We know where the regional needs are.' There was a role in working with Māori housing providers 'in the same way as there is a role for kura kaupapa, there is a role in working with Māori health providers, who did an excellent job during the Covid pandemic, for example.' Bishop's office later confirmed that $188 million in uncommitted Māori housing operating funding and $383 million capital funding were reprioritised. New housing priorities include: $200m for 400 affordable rentals to be delivered through Māori housing projects ($48m opex; $151m capex) $168m for 550 social housing places to be delivered in Auckland ($128m opex; $40m capex) $300m for 650-900 social and affordable rentals through the new Flexible fund ($41m opex; 250m capex) What's the answer to disadvantage? So, back to Seymour for the last word. What would Seymour's approach be to lifting Māori out of the state of disadvantage they find themselves in in so many social statistics? The answer is dynamism. 'First of all, it's not all Māori and not only Māori. I would say all people who are in a state of disadvantage will benefit from a more dynamic opportunity because when there is more dynamism, there is more opportunity. 'For example, if there are more homes being built, it is more likely a young person will end up owning one. 'If there are more companies being formed with more capital investment, it is more likely that someone who doesn't have a good job or opportunity right now will get one. 'If there is more innovation and more schools opening up that are engaging students in newer and better ways, it is more likely that a person who doesn't have a good opportunity to get an education will get one. 'In my view, it is dynamism. We are seeing this with whole countries. You look at South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Ireland, some of the more successful eastern European countries such as Estonia, they've gone, often in less than two generations, from a situation where essentially everyone is destitute and down on their luck and lacking opportunity…to dynamic opportunity. 'Suddenly, new companies are being built, new houses are being built, and people have recovered their self-esteem because they have taken on challenges and overcome their challenges. 'That's the only thing in my view that makes anyone feel good.'
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Rally Auckland 2pm To Protest Suspension Of 38 Disability Workers
Press Release – PSA What: Disability workers protest rally When: 2pm Sunday 8 June Where: Te Roopu Taurima Head Office, 650 Great South Road, Auckland Who: Speakers include PSA National Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons Disability workers will be making their concerns loud and clear at a rally today to protest the outrageous suspension without pay of 38 workers at disability residential care provider Te Roopu Taurima. Te Roopu Taurima o Manukau Trust is the country's largest kaupapa Māori community disability provider. It operates residential whare in Te Tai Tokerau/Northland, Tāmaki Makaurau/Auckland, Waikato, Waitaha/Canterbury, and a residential mental health whare in Whangārei. The trust CE Karen Smith late on Friday afternoon gave notice of suspension of 38 workers who support people living at Te Roopu Taurima houses without pay for six weeks in response to low level strike action taken in support of their collective agreement. 'This is an oppressive over-reaction designed to intimidate and bully these workers. It's unheard of for New Zealand employers to adopt such a hostile tactic in these circumstances,' said Fleur Fitzsimons National Secretary Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi. 'The strike action only involved not doing some tasks in order to try and put pressure on the employer to listen to these workers.' 'The trust has a vision to 'strive to place tāngata at the heart of our services', this shows the trust is not living its own values. 'Many of these workers are Māori, Pasifika, and migrant workers who deserve fair wages and conditions.' The action comes after Te Roopu Taurima tried to introduce harsh terms of employment including restrictions on secondary employment and 90 day trials as well as a pay increase that fails to meet the increased cost of living facing these workers and their whānau. The PSA and Te Roopu Taurima attended independent and confidential facilitation run by an Employment Relations Authority member in Auckland over four days. The Authority member then provided recommendations to settle the collective agreement. 'The PSA did not get everything we wanted but nevertheless agreed that we would recommend the outcomes to our members. Te Roopu Taurima was still not satisfied though. 'This is an insight into the future of industrial relations in New Zealand under this government. It has emboldened employers to try to take away the small number of remaining employment rights that working people have and use every underhand tactic they can to get there. 'Workers and the community must stand up and fight back.' Note The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi is Aotearoa New Zealand's largest trade union, representing and supporting more than 95,000 workers across central government, state-owned enterprises, local councils, health boards and community groups.
