New Zealand is built on the values of unity, equal citizenship, and shared responsibility for our common resources. However, a recent proposal by the Auckland Council to introduce co-governance in the management of the iconic Waitakere Ranges threatens to undermine these very principles. The proposal, which would see local hapū share power with the Auckland Council in overseeing the Ranges, is not only unnecessary but risks creating a divided society where ethnic lines determine who holds decision-making power over public spaces.
The Waitakere Ranges, a 27,700-hectare area enjoyed by one million visitors each year, are governed under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. This Act ensures that the land is managed in a way that recognises the cultural significance of the local iwi, Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua, while also ensuring that the governance remains with the Auckland Council. Under the current arrangement, the relationship between the Crown, Council, and local Māori is acknowledged through a “Deed of Acknowledgement,” but crucially, this does not give Māori groups the power to make decisions that affect the general public. The ultimate authority remains with the Auckland Council, ensuring that management decisions are made in the interests of all Aucklanders, not just one group.
However, the new proposal, which calls for a joint committee between the Council and local hapū to manage the strategic plan for the Waitakere Ranges, would mark a significant shift in governance. Under this plan, 50% of the committee would be made up of Māori representatives, with the other half consisting of Council and Crown representatives. This structure introduces co-governance, a system where decision-making power is shared based on ethnicity, creating a two-tiered society where one group has more influence over public land management than the rest.
Shane Jones and New Zealand First have strongly opposed this proposal, arguing that it would set a dangerous precedent for New Zealand. They contend that co-governance is unnecessary and divisive, especially in a country that prides itself on equal citizenship for all. Jones has voiced his concern that this move could lead to “ethnic creep,” where more and more public spaces and resources are governed by tribal groups, sidelining the broader community’s interests. The idea that public parks like the Waitakere Ranges, which are enjoyed by all Aucklanders, could be managed in a way that gives Māori a disproportionate say is a step towards fragmentation, rather than unity.
The proposed joint committee would allow Māori groups, including Te Kawerau ā Maki, to have a direct role in decisions that affect the Ranges, including the closure of tracks and the establishment of predator-free sanctuaries. While the protection of the Ranges' unique ecology, including combating the spread of Kauri dieback, is an important issue, critics argue that such decisions should be made through the usual democratic channels. The Auckland Council, which is elected by the public, is the proper body to make these decisions on behalf of all Aucklanders, not just a select group.
Furthermore, the introduction of co-governance could lead to less public accountability. As noted by critics like Fiona McKenzie from the Centre for Political Research, co-governance could result in decisions being made behind closed doors, with little to no input from the wider community. Proposals such as the creation of a 6,145-hectare predator-free sanctuary within the Ranges, which would involve the closure of several tracks, could be implemented without the consent or approval of the broader public. This lack of transparency is concerning, as it risks eroding the democratic principles that New Zealand is built upon.
The proposal also raises questions about the role of Māori in decision-making. While it is important that Māori have a voice in the management of culturally significant land, critics argue that their involvement should not come at the cost of equal representation for all New Zealanders. Māori can and should have input into the management of the Waitakere Ranges, but this input should be sought through public consultation and open meetings, rather than through a formalized co-governance structure that elevates one group over others. As Shane Jones put it, “Why on Earth does the council need to do anything other than provide an opportunity for the Maki people to pop along to a public meeting and provide their perspective as to what’s important in the management of the reserve?”
Ultimately, the Waitakere Ranges should be managed for the benefit of all Aucklanders, not just a specific group. The introduction of co-governance would create a system where governance is based on ethnicity rather than democratic representation, leading to further division in our society. Co-governance is not the answer for New Zealand, and it is certainly not necessary for the future of the Waitakere Ranges.
New Zealand First, along with many other critics of the proposal, argues that the Waitakere Ranges should remain under the sole governance of the Auckland Council, which is accountable to all Aucklanders, not just a select group. While it is essential to recognize the cultural significance of the land and the role that Māori have played in its stewardship, this should not result in a system of governance that undermines the equal rights of all citizens. We must reject co-governance in the Waitakere Ranges, and instead preserve the unity and equality that are the bedrock of New Zealand society.
The Waitakere Ranges belong to all of us, and it is only through inclusive, transparent, and accountable governance that we can ensure the preservation and protection of this iconic New Zealand treasure for future generations.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
However, the new proposal, which calls for a joint committee between the Council and local hapū to manage the strategic plan for the Waitakere Ranges, would mark a significant shift in governance. Under this plan, 50% of the committee would be made up of Māori representatives, with the other half consisting of Council and Crown representatives. This structure introduces co-governance, a system where decision-making power is shared based on ethnicity, creating a two-tiered society where one group has more influence over public land management than the rest.
Shane Jones and New Zealand First have strongly opposed this proposal, arguing that it would set a dangerous precedent for New Zealand. They contend that co-governance is unnecessary and divisive, especially in a country that prides itself on equal citizenship for all. Jones has voiced his concern that this move could lead to “ethnic creep,” where more and more public spaces and resources are governed by tribal groups, sidelining the broader community’s interests. The idea that public parks like the Waitakere Ranges, which are enjoyed by all Aucklanders, could be managed in a way that gives Māori a disproportionate say is a step towards fragmentation, rather than unity.
The proposed joint committee would allow Māori groups, including Te Kawerau ā Maki, to have a direct role in decisions that affect the Ranges, including the closure of tracks and the establishment of predator-free sanctuaries. While the protection of the Ranges' unique ecology, including combating the spread of Kauri dieback, is an important issue, critics argue that such decisions should be made through the usual democratic channels. The Auckland Council, which is elected by the public, is the proper body to make these decisions on behalf of all Aucklanders, not just a select group.
Furthermore, the introduction of co-governance could lead to less public accountability. As noted by critics like Fiona McKenzie from the Centre for Political Research, co-governance could result in decisions being made behind closed doors, with little to no input from the wider community. Proposals such as the creation of a 6,145-hectare predator-free sanctuary within the Ranges, which would involve the closure of several tracks, could be implemented without the consent or approval of the broader public. This lack of transparency is concerning, as it risks eroding the democratic principles that New Zealand is built upon.
The proposal also raises questions about the role of Māori in decision-making. While it is important that Māori have a voice in the management of culturally significant land, critics argue that their involvement should not come at the cost of equal representation for all New Zealanders. Māori can and should have input into the management of the Waitakere Ranges, but this input should be sought through public consultation and open meetings, rather than through a formalized co-governance structure that elevates one group over others. As Shane Jones put it, “Why on Earth does the council need to do anything other than provide an opportunity for the Maki people to pop along to a public meeting and provide their perspective as to what’s important in the management of the reserve?”
Ultimately, the Waitakere Ranges should be managed for the benefit of all Aucklanders, not just a specific group. The introduction of co-governance would create a system where governance is based on ethnicity rather than democratic representation, leading to further division in our society. Co-governance is not the answer for New Zealand, and it is certainly not necessary for the future of the Waitakere Ranges.
New Zealand First, along with many other critics of the proposal, argues that the Waitakere Ranges should remain under the sole governance of the Auckland Council, which is accountable to all Aucklanders, not just a select group. While it is essential to recognize the cultural significance of the land and the role that Māori have played in its stewardship, this should not result in a system of governance that undermines the equal rights of all citizens. We must reject co-governance in the Waitakere Ranges, and instead preserve the unity and equality that are the bedrock of New Zealand society.
The Waitakere Ranges belong to all of us, and it is only through inclusive, transparent, and accountable governance that we can ensure the preservation and protection of this iconic New Zealand treasure for future generations.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
11 comments:
What about the ranges being the catchment for Aucklands water supply? How convenient.
Gullible politicians passed legislation requiring some action by the Council. Response should be the absolute minimum to meet requirements. Organised maori have been allowed to take the initiative and advance proposals. A committee, half of externally selected maori activists, the balance Council and Dept of Conservation, is proposed. Inevitably at least one cancellation fearing non maori will side with maori, exceptionally there will be stalemate and thus at best veto. As with the Tupuna Maunga Authority maori will effectively rule, all at similar associated great expense. Maori are motivated by the urge for mana, and by money. Being in control and thereby able to stick it to colonists acquires the former. Endless paid consultation and influence for lavish work and use of maori contractors will satisfy the latter. The maori imposed rahui and effective continuance of has eliminated keen trampers from rough tracks and remote and off track parts of the Regional Park. A total ban on a large area is advocated. The Park is no longer of interest to trampers and adventure groups. Despite the area owned by Auckland ratepayers for recreation, very many trampers, scout groups etc have to journey to Pirongia and beyond for a natural experience. Meanwhile the few trace maori remnants of a tiny tribe who eked out a tenuous existence in parts of the area eons ago, and little interested in tramping experience, with their activist supporters, have determined policy and are set for even greater influence.
For an exclusive insight into the outcome please refer to the state of the Ureweras.......
Yes, water on the agenda.
Controversial Peter Brabeck-Letmathe named Interim Chair of WEF. The controversy around him stems from remarks he made in the 2005 documentary “We Feed the World.” He described the idea that water is a public right as “extreme” and argued that water should be treated as a foodstuff with a market value. He suggested that putting a price on water (privatizing) would make people more conscious of its value.
The part Maori Iwi must have recorded that documentary.
The Ureweras have set a precedent of abysmal Maori behaviour since being co managed by Maori . 22 huts burnt down and trashed . Predator control abandoned . Auckland Council must maintain an increasing vigilance of the Waitakere ranges and that includes total management .
This Hills bloke from the Council is spinning lots of nonsense telling us that it's not co-governance when it's blatently true.
Watch him and his Council mates try and smoothly get this through and watch the Maori radicals then demand control of Auckland's water.
Stop it now !!
What does it need to stop people like this assuming power ?
According to the gulity party, Finlayson, the Urewera debacle is not directly analogous. In that case the park was given to the local still significantly occupant tribe; the Waitakeres are honestly owned by the Councli, although the mostly scattered remnants of the former tribe and their activist string pullers have largely dictated policy.
Hills led the condemnation of ACT's TP Bill by ACC - without any consultation with ratepayers.
Can’t help but wonder if council bureaucrats see these kinds of co-governance agreements as a way to delegate their workloads, or at least get to spend more time on hui than doey. As for Councillor Richard Hills, I’d be as likely to trust Ardern as Hills… i.e. not at all and never.
Hills is disingenuous. Sure Council has the final say. But councillors do not have the time or information to cover all the ground of the proposed committee in order to question its output. Once a proposal is slid past the maori dominated committee it is very unlikely a majority of councillors will counter. Unless perhaps emerging stories of maori domination of the committee prove to be grossly offensive.
To appreciate what a disaster co-governance is, just look at the Tupuna Maunga Authority that was given control of Auckland's volcanic cones. It is controlled by greedy, arrogant part-Maori activists who come up with deranged ideas about "decolonising" the cones by cutting down all non-native trees. In other words, vandalism paid for by ratepayers.
Post a Comment