Latest news with #WillieJackson
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Labour keeps door open for Te Pāti Māori, but urges focus on 'core areas'
Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Chris Hipkins says Te Pāti Māori needs to focus on important issues such as jobs, health and homes, like Labour is, keeping the door open to working with them despite three of their MPs being suspended from Parliament. Labour Māori development spokesperson Willie Jackson told Te Pāti Māori not every Māori supported them after three of its MPs disrupted a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill last year with a haka. The party could have responded differently after the three representatives - co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, and first-term MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke - were referred to the Privileges Committee, and suspended , Jackson said last week. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well," Jackson said . Labour Party said last month while it agreed the actions met the criteria of contempt, it was concerned that the penalties were "unduly severe". Labour's own Peeni Henare took part in the haka, but was not suspended after apologising . Hipkins told Morning Report on Monday the feedback he was getting from around the country was that Māori wanted to see Labour focused on the issues that bring New Zealanders together and lead the country forward. "That includes focusing on things like jobs, health, homes, the sorts of things that New Zealanders all want to see their government focused on." He said while his party worked in co-operation with Te Pāti Māori, they were also in competition for votes. "We have previously held all the Māori electorates, we'd like to do so again. We're gonna, you know, we're gonna go out there and contest those vigorously at the next election, but we can also work together on areas where we have common ground." The most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll found Labour could lead the next government, but it would need both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Hipkins said Labour would look to have a similar relationship with Te Pāti Māori as it had with the Green Party and "set out clear parameters for a working relationship". "I think that's one of the things that Christopher Luxon hasn't done with ACT and with New Zealand First to say, 'Look, these are the areas where we think we can work together. These are the areas where we're not willing to compromise.' "And, you know, I think that includes setting clear standards of expectation around ministerial behaviour - so anyone who's going to be a minister in any government that I lead will be expected to behave like a minister, and that doesn't vary by party. "So unlike Christopher Luxon who seems to think that Winston Peters and David Seymour are subject to different rules to everybody else; I think all ministers should be subjected to the same rules." Hipkins rejected a suggestion that Jackson was appeasing pākeha with his comments. "Ultimately, if you want to be part of the government, then you need to follow the rules of the government." Asked how Labour could work with a party whose MPs broke those rules, Hipkins said it was "ultimately" down to voters. "We're going to be going out there competing vigorously for every vote we can get for Labour. If people believe in the sorts of things that the Labour Party believes in, they want to see a government that's focused on core areas like jobs, health, and homes, then they need to vote for Labour in order to achieve that." Willie Jackson. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Hipkins said he would prefer to have an "environment where the government of the day, whomever that was, always had a majority". "That would be great, but that's not the reality. That's not what New Zealand voters have chosen for our electoral system. They've chosen a system in which we have to work with other political parties. "I think unlike the current government though, I'll be clear that, you know, there are some areas where, we, we will have standards and everybody will have to follow them." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Labour's Willie Jackson doesn't want a ‘war with the Māori Party'
Labour's Willie Jackson says Te Pāti Māori needs to compromise and focus on the main issues facing New Zealanders, like health and housing, following three MPs' sanctioning in Parliament this week.
The Spinoff
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
Budget 2025: New funding headlines mask deeper cuts to Māori programmes
The government has touted over $700 million in funding for Māori. But when you strip out the reallocated funds and examine what's actually new, the real number is closer to $38m. Meanwhile, more than $750m in Māori-specific initiatives have been axed. Budget 2025 contains some wins for Māori-focused initiatives, but they come in the shadow of substantial cuts across core housing, education and economic development programmes. Among the key announcements: $14 million over four years for Māori wardens, Pacific wardens and the Māori Women's Welfare League. The funding covers transport, volunteer training and admin support. $54m in operational funding and $50m in capital funding for Māori education. This includes new classrooms in Māori medium and kaupapa Māori schools, te reo and tikanga training for 51,000 teachers, and a Virtual Learning Network for STEM education in kura kaupapa. Reallocated funding to add approximately 50 new teaching spaces for te reo Māori learners. A new housing fund to deliver social and affordable rentals, with Māori providers eligible through the Flexible Fund. $40.2m per year from 2025/26 for the Māori Development Fund to support the Tōnui Māori economic growth plan. Finance minister Nicola Willis said the budget showed 'a responsible commitment to all New Zealanders, including tangata whenua' and pointed to new funding as evidence of the government's support for Māori communities. 'Over $700m has been committed to initiatives supporting Māori outcomes,' she said in her budget day address. However, critics argue these investments are overshadowed by sweeping cuts: The Māori Development Fund itself has been cut by $20m over four years, dropping from $45.2m to $40.2m in year one then continuing annually. $32.5m in cuts to Māori housing supply programmes, including the return of unallocated funding from Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga. $36.1m in cuts to Māori education, including disestablishing the Wharekura Expert Teachers programme and removing Māori resource teacher roles. A further $36.1m reprioritised from kaupapa Māori and Māori medium education. The Kāhui Ako collaboration programme, which included many Māori providers, is being slashed by $375.5m. Labour's Māori development spokesperson Willie Jackson said the government 'should hang its head in shame'. He claimed more than $1bn had been stripped from Māori-specific initiatives across the past two budgets. 'This is a government that promised to reduce waste but has instead targeted kaupapa Māori,' Jackson said. 'We're seeing entire housing programmes scrapped, education investment wound back, and economic development sidelined. Meanwhile, they're increasing the ministerial travel budget and rolling out tax cuts that benefit the wealthy.' Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi also blasted the budget, saying it further eroded the Crown's relationship with tangata whenua. 'This budget doesn't build a future for Māori – it builds our demise. A truly responsible budget would fund our solutions, not suppress them.' Despite the headlines, minister Nicola Willis's claim of $700m in Māori funding is largely built on reallocated or pre-announced pūtea. Budget documents reveal only $38m of new money directly allocated to Māori. Other items of note include: Working for Families thresholds have been adjusted to support more low-to-middle income whānau with children. The income threshold has been lifted to $44,900 from $42,700, providing increased payments for many Māori families. Te Pou Tupua and Te Urewera Board retain their income tax exemptions as per their Treaty settlements. Treaty settlement liabilities and the relativity clauses with Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu remain forecast as fiscal risks, as does the unresolved issue of aquaculture settlement values and timing. Some iwi-led initiatives, such as Toi Tū Tōrangatira in Te Tairāwhiti, have received targeted support through regional infrastructure funds. But others are being consolidated or cut entirely. Māori housing was a central casualty. The Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme, established to address chronic shortfalls in Māori housing, is effectively defunded, with the government citing a need to consolidate efforts under the more general Flexible Fund. Jackson called this 'a deliberate dismantling of progress' and said it showed 'the government is walking away from the data'. The reprioritisation of education spending has also drawn criticism. The disestablishment of the Wharekura Expert Teachers programme, removal of Resource Teachers: Māori, and significant funding shifts away from kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education are seen by many as undermining language revitalisation. 'There's no pathway to revitalising te reo without properly resourcing the people doing the work on the ground,' said Te Kura o Hato Hōhepa Te Kāmura principal Mereana Tipene. 'Repackaging cuts as support doesn't help our kids.' Meanwhile, broader changes to the pay equity regime – part of a plan to reduce future Crown liabilities – are expected to impact thousands of underpaid workers in female-dominated sectors, many of them Māori. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons called Budget 2025 'a wage theft budget' and accused the government of 'stealing from the working class to fund tax cuts for landlords'. The inclusion of targeted tax deductions for Māori authorities donating to community initiatives, as well as the ongoing tax exemptions for settlement entities, are among the few Treaty-based mechanisms retained in full. In summary, while Budget 2025 contains modest new funding lines for Māori and continues some Treaty obligations, it marks a substantial rollback in dedicated support across housing, education and economic development. Critics say the government is shifting from partnership to assimilation – prioritising universal framing while eroding kaupapa Māori infrastructure built over decades.
Scoop
22-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
$1 Billion Of Māori Funding Gone
The Government should hang its head in shame after a budget that takes a knife to more Māori programmes. 'In Budget 2024 more than $300 million was cut from Māori specific initiatives – Te Arawhiti, The Māori Health Authority, and Māori TV. Budget 2025 cuts even deeper with around $750 million cut from Māori Housing, Māori economic funds, Māori Education and programmes like Māori trades training,' Māori Development spokesperson, Willie Jackson said. 'Over the two budgets, Tama Potaka has now slashed more than $1 billion of Māori specific funding and that is shameful. 'Louise Upston has also made the shameful choice to stop funding Māori trade training when Māori unemployment has risen to 10.5 percent, with no plan to support Māori into meaningful jobs. 'The biggest hit is in Māori housing. Whai Kainga Whai Oranga and the whole Māori housing programme has been scrapped. In total $624 million has been wiped from the books. 'Tama Potaka is ignoring the housing data showing Māori are in the most need and has chosen to wash his hands of Māori housing. 'This government is providing a mere $3 million per year worth of new funding for Māori Wardens and the Māori Women's Welfare League – yet has increased its ministerial budget for international travel by $2 million per year. 'At the same time, David Seymour is introducing his Regulatory Standards Bill under urgency that extinguishes more Māori rights, cementing this government's lack of care towards Māori. 'This government has proven once again that it has turned its back on the Māori-Crown relationship,' Willie Jackson said.
NZ Herald
12-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Why the Waitangi Tribunal review is not a hatchet job and what it should cover
Reviewing the tribunal is hardly the 'disgrace' that Labour's Willie Jackson claims it is, but at least Labour has no issue with the reviewers themselves. The Public Service Association went beyond its brief today in calling for the review to be abandoned before it has started. The union says it is an attempt to undermine rangatiratanga and has criticised the reviewers as not being representative of Māori. Not many publicly funded organisations, not even the courts, have gone as long as 50 years without a review. Most PSA members have been subject to a review or reviews of their organisations and many are likely to believe it is time to review the Tribunal. To suggest that any organisation is above review is not remotely realistic in 2025. The Waitangi Tribunal review group comprises two Pākehā and two Māori. The membership of the review group suggests that if New Zealand First were looking for a hatchet job on the tribunal, it did not get its way. It is being led by a respected Auckland KC, Bruce Gray, but one who claims no expertise in Treaty of Waitangi matters. That was clearly the attraction of the Government in appointing him. He brings no baggage to the table. The other three reviewers are more familiar with the work of the Waitangi Tribunal and its role in advising the Crown on Treaty of Waitangi matters. Respected iwi leader Dion Tuuta began his working life as a historian at the Tribunal, has had experience of settling a claim, Ngāti Mutunga, and has had leading roles in Māori business giant Parininihi Ki Waitotara and Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Māori Fisheries Commission. The lower-profile members of the review group are lawyer David Cochrane, who is a former member of the Tribunal, and Kararaina Calcott-Cribb, a senior public servant who has been deputy chief executive at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, responsible for Māori housing. In the brief time they have to conduct their review, among those they should consult will be Māori who have engaged with the tribunal over the years, as well as Treaty experts, lawyers, former members and politicians. NZ First minister Shane Jones, will receive advice from the review group along with Tama Potaka. Photo / Mark Mitchell New Zealand First Minister Shane Jones is already on the record as having blamed the Tribunal for derailing the Ngā Puhi claim. It would be helpful to know why Governments over the years seem to have become more and more dismissive of tribunal reports, or to know which reports have been most helpful and why. It would also be helpful to know from hapū and iwi which inquiries and reports by the Tribunal were most helpful to them and why. There are many other areas of inquiry the review group could cover. The Tribunal is not actually part of the judiciary. It is half in and half out. It is a creature of statute. It has no inherent jurisdiction. The Māori Land Court chief judge chairs the tribunal, and other Māori Land Court judges are able to chair tribunal panels. Why? And should it continue? It may have been helpful when the Tribunal was primarily looking at historic claims, but is it still necessary to have Land Court judges when claims are of a more contemporary nature? Should the tribunal return to a primary focus on contemporary claims, as it had in its first 10 years? Or could there be a greater role for the Tribunal in monitoring commitments made by the Crown in Treaty settlements – the Auditor-General has just issued a report on the failings of the Crown in that regard. The review could look at the gate-keeping of claims. The legislation under which the tribunal operates gives it no discretion to decline claims. It could look at the administration, the funding of the tribunal itself and its size. When it first began in the 1970s, its membership was just seven. It expanded in 1988 to up to 16 members plus a chair, and again in 2008 to up to 20. But some members appointed to the tribunal can wait for years before they are appointed to an inquiry panel. And some members of the tribunal continue to sit for years after their terms have expired, if an inquiry panel to which they were appointed goes on for years. Should inquiries go on for years and years? And should the nature of inquiries be narrowed? Some inquiries seem to last forever, yet when the Tribunal accords itself urgency, it can act very quickly. The Tribunal has finished hearing most historical claims and has turned its attention to contentious subjects in so-called kaupapa inquiries such as health policies, the treatment of Māori veterans and law proposals last year such as the Treaty Principles Bill [since voted down] or the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act [since passed]. The tribunal's current constitutional inquiry is probably the clearest example of a kaupapa inquiry that the Government believes goes beyond the Tribunal's brief. Some see the Tribunal as wholly negative, overtly political and espousing views that, while not explicitly partisan, align closely with views of Te Pāti Māori, Labour and the Greens. Others argue that that doesn't matter when most of its powers are limited to recommendations and that the value of the Tribunal is to act as a pressure valve in some very heated political debates. Suspicion about the review comes after a tsunami of Māori policies by this Government. But a review of the tribunal has been previously advocated by former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson KC and by former Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. And both have argued that the courts, with the power of enforcement, should be the place to hear Treaty claims. Speaking to the Tribunal's publication Manutukutuku in 2016, Elias said: 'Maybe it can return a bit more to a smaller body, and maybe a bit less lawyer-led, which I think it had to be when it was the necessary background to the settlement process and the historical claims had to be processed.' 'But in a way, I would like to see it shift back a little bit more. It is probably the case that there is always going to be the need for some creative thinking to help Governments address their obligations under the Treaty. So I think there is a role for the Tribunal. 'But I would hope that some of the matters that have had to go to the Tribunal will now be sufficiently recognised as claims of right that they can be addressed by the courts.' Finlayson, in his book 'Te Kupu Taurangi', also argued that the courts should take the leading role in hearing claims about contemporary breaches of the Treaty. Is the Waitangi Tribunal fit for purpose in 2025, only 15 years away from the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty? Probably not, but the limited nature of the review that is about to begin is not likely to address that question adequately.
