Latest news with #TeTiriti
RNZ News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
‘Keep our Māori wards' campaign kicks off with security caution
Dinnie Moeahu says supporters of Maori wards need to know their stuff to counter deliberate misinformation. Photo: Te Korimako o Taranaki via LDR A bid to retain Māori representation at Taranaki council tables kicked off on the weekend with a call for whānau-level pushback against what campaigners say is deliberate disinformation. Speakers at Saturday's organising meeting also warned referendums on Māori wards across New Zealand would spark vitriol - and potentially worse. New Plymouth councillor Dinnie Moeahu called the hui, saying misinformation was causing misunderstanding and fear, while disinformation was dividing communities. He represents New Plymouth's five-councillor 'at-large' ward, having topped the poll with general roll voters in 2022. Likewise, he said, anyone could stand in a Māori ward to be elected by Māori roll voters. "Non-Māori can also stand in the Māori ward seat. Ōrite: it's the same." Moeahu said opponents were incorrectly labelling Māori council seats as 'race-based'. Māori wards were Treaty-based, he said: created to ensure effective representation and help meet Crown obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as spelled out in the Local Government Act. Almost all Māori wards and constituencies face being extinguished via referendum at October's local elections, including those at Taranaki's four councils. The government changed the law a year ago, requiring binding polls on local Māori seats to fulfil National's coalition deals with ACT and New Zealand First. They said the change was to restore democracy to communities on a significant change to local democracy. Moeahu said anti-Māori groups were ready with a campaign labelling the wards race-based as soon as the government reintroduced referendums last July. "It was well-resourced, it was strategised superbly and executed with perfection - and less than 24 hours after the law received Royal Assent." Former New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd copped abuse when he backed Māori wards a decade ago - and he warns more is coming. Photo: Te Korimako o Taranaki via LDR Andrew Judd won New Plymouth's mayoralty in 2013, standing down at the next election after his unyielding support for a Māori ward drew persistent, often public abuse - including of his children. Judd said he predicted more of the same from opponents of guaranteed Māori representation. "My intel is that they are well geared-up, and they are going to be ... destructive," Judd said. "Because their hatred is real - and we cannot let hate win." Te Waka McLeod has agreed Moeahu will accompany her to meetings for fear of confrontation during election season. Photo: Te Korimako o Taranaki via LDR Moeahu said the escalating risk of physical threat prompted him and councillor Te Waka McLeod to agree he would accompany her to public meetings till the election ends. McLeod is the first councillor for NPDC's new Te Purutanga Mauri Pūmanawa ward. Despite attracting online and in-person abuse, McLeod said she had been supported by fellow councillors and staff, and the council was building stronger relationships with hapū. She said supporters from all communities must help family members better understand Māori wards with accurate information. "It's having those conversations with your nana, with your grandma, with your uncle at your whānau kitchen table," she said. "They may be sitting on the fence and they just need to hear a little bit of truth." The meeting drew people keen to join the fight to keep Māori wards. Photo: Te Korimako o Taranaki via LDR Other speakers included Labour MP Glen Bennett and NPDC councillors Amanda Clinton-Gohdes and Sam Bennett, who is running for mayor. Moeahu plans more meetings to galvanise helpers ahead of a public event when voting gets underway. Referendums must be held by 37 district and five regional councils. No other type of ward can be voted down. At the meeting, Margy-Jean Malcolm told LDR it was crucial to have clear information. "This is actually institutional racism, when we treat Māori wards differently from say a rural ward or any other ward. "We don't give the entire population a vote as to whether those wards should exist or not." Lance Mepham had seen candidates pushing misinformation. "I went to a few meetings here recently, and I was really surprised at the rhetoric and just some of the nasty things that were being said about the Māori ward." He said Māori brought good things to the table for everybody. "Economic and also cultural contributions - there's just so much that Māori can give and offer this community." EJ Barrett said the wards had already boosted Māori participation in local democracy by 22 percent. "My children are Māori so I have a vested interest to make sure there's always going to be a space for them in representative democracy - and so they can see themselves in democracy." "It's just the right thing to do, mate." LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Seymour's Attack On UN Official ‘Offensive And Irresponsible'
Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi (PSA) is expressing outrage at the conduct of David Seymour for his offensive treatment of the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - and its disappointment that this stance was endorsed by the Prime Minister. PSA Kaihautū Janice Panoho called on the Prime Minister to issues a formal apology to the Rapporteur, Dr Albert Barume, and for Foreign Minister Winston Peters to provide a meaningful, Tiriti-consistent response to the UN to the concerns raised with them about the Regulatory Standards Bill and the erosion of Māori rights that have occurred under this government. "The Rapporteur was simply doing his job in seeking a response from the government to legitimate concerns that have been raised with the UN. "David Seymour's disrespectful response to the Rapporteur not only undermined Foreign Minister Winston Peters who is responsible for leading our diplomatic relations, it was also ignorant and reeked of colonial defensiveness. "This further exposes this government's complete disregard for the foundational place of Māori as tangata whenua of Aotearoa. The Regulatory Standards Bill, for example, deliberately excludes Māori worldviews, ignores tikanga, and seeks to erase Te Tiriti obligations, and when the international community raises red flags, the response is open hostility. "Even more disturbing is the Prime Minister's public admission that he 'fully agrees' with the contents of Seymour's letter. This is not a mere misstep in process, this is an active and deliberate dismissal of indigenous rights, and a signal to Māori and the global community that this government believes it is above scrutiny. "This coalition government continues to prove itself unfit to govern in a Tiriti-based nation. The actions are not just diplomatically embarrassing, they are a direct attack on Māori and our rights as affirmed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi and international law," says Panoho. "Māori will not be silenced by arrogant dismissals or political games. We will continue to use all available channels to hold this government accountable, nationally and internationally."
Scoop
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Majority Of Submitters Opposed The Gene Technology Bill
An overwhelming majority of submissions rejected the Gene Technology Bill as it threatens exports, domestic economy, consumer choice and democracy. Of the 14947 submissions received by the Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill 97% were opposed to its passing into law. By any measure, this Bill fails to meet basic Regulatory Standards due to its flawed and heavily biased industry input that has deliberately omitted an economic analysis on its costs and benefits as well as considering the real time impacts of the cruel failures of the GE field trials conducted in New Zealand over the past 30 years. Fears of exempted unregulated genetically engineered (GE) organisms harming the economy also prompted large organisations who supported some parts of the Gene Technology Bill to warn it needs major changes or will threaten exports. The Gene Technology Bill's GE exemptions not requiring regulation removing any liability for contamination and people's basic right to choose prompted Lisa Er's petition to 'Halt the Gene Technology Bill and set up a Commission of Inquiry.' Lisa Er, the original founder of Lisa's Hummus has always listened to the public demand for GE-free food and the right to avoid genetic engineered ingredients. Lisa says "The Gene Technology Bill failed to follow sound and fair processes and did not consult with the public and other stakeholders. "The range of gene editing techniques that would be excluded from regulation would mean GE products entering the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabelled. "There was inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination." Stopping to hold an inquiry will allow major flaws in The Gene Technology Bill to be considered and addressed, including: Ignoring the Protective Precautionary Principle: risking ecosystems and rural jobs. Excluding Treaty of Waitangi Principles: disregarding Māori rights and perspectives. Denying Consumer choice: by excluding many GE organisms from regulation and labelling. Shifting Liability: without requiring GE users to manage risks. Clean up of Genetic drift and contamination is at the cost of the contaminated party. No Supply Chain Segregation: removing the ability to preserve the integrity of GE-free crops and exports. No Ethical Standards: excluding animal welfare and ethical concerns from consideration. Ignoring Economic Risks: losing the added value of New Zealand's non-GMO exports. Ignoring Reputation Risks: deregulating away New Zealand's competitive advantage and global reputation for clean, safe, GMO-free food. Removing local councils' ability to enforce GE-free regions, precaution or local protections under the RMA. There will be a formal handover of Lisa's petition on the steps of Parliament on the 15 July. There will be a gathering at 12 -1pm. [1]
Scoop
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Sovereignty ‘Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
Article – RNZ Much of hap hui agenda taken up by discussions of sovereignty and bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngpuhi. A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a 'red line' in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial 'agree to disagree' clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation – while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. 'It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper,' he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was 'giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold'. However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. 'We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media.' Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. 'We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to.' Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. 'One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have.' 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' – Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. 'We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that.' Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi – which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country – into 'economic confetti'. He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. 'Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into,' Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. 'The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty],' she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. 'In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown.' Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi 'Wassie' Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.
Scoop
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Sovereignty 'Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a "red line" in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial "agree to disagree" clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation - while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. "It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper," he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was "giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold". However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. "We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media." Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. "We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to." Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. "One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have." 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' - Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. "We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that." Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi - which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country - into "economic confetti". He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. "Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into," Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. "The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty]," she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. "In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown." Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi "Wassie" Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.
