An increasing number of projects now seem to involve “partnering with mana whenua. (Maori tribes)”
Not consulting. Not engaging. Just partnering.
That might sound like a small shift in language, but it’s doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Because here’s the simple question that doesn’t seem to get asked:
When did consultation become partnership?
Because here’s the simple question that doesn’t seem to get asked:
When did consultation become partnership?
No one disputes that Māori, like other New Zealanders, have an interest in land, waterways, and development. That’s reflected — some would say expanded beyond its original intent — in law, where agencies are often required to take those interests into account under various statutes.
But “taking into account” is not the same thing as sharing decision-making authority.
And yet, if you read the way NZTA describes its projects, you’d think some form of shared decision-making was standard practice
It’s not — at least, not in any clearly defined or consistent legal sense.
What seems to have happened is a quiet drift.
A bit of broader interpretation here, a new framework there, a tendency to play it safe — and over time, consultation turns into “partnership.”
No explicit public mandate for ‘partnership’ as it’s now being applied. Just a gradual shift.
We’re often told this is simply how things have to be.
But that doesn’t really stack up.
We’ve seen governments act quickly when something becomes a priority — whether under Nanaia Mahuta or going back to Helen Clark and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.
Agree or disagree with those decisions, the lesson is the same:
When there’s political will, things move — and they move fast.
So if this “partnership” approach continues, it’s not because it has to.
It’s because no one has clearly drawn — or enforced — the line.
And once that line blurs, so does accountability.
It just requires clarity.
Consultation is one thing.
Partnership—especially when it’s undefined—is something else.
IF YOU WANT CHANGE, NOW’S THE TIME
Before the last election, there was a clear expectation—based on campaign rhetoric—that the direction would shift away from the steady expansion of Treaty-based “partnership” models in government agencies.
So far, that shift is hard to see.
An election year is when politicians pay attention.
Not to noise — but to patterns.
One message is easy to ignore. A steady stream saying the same thing is not.
If you think agencies are drifting beyond what the law requires, say so.
We’ve seen before—under Nanaia Mahuta and Helen Clark—that when pressure builds, governments act.
This is no different.
You don’t need a campaign. Just enough people, being clear and consistent.
Because in an election year, silence gets ignored. But pressure gets results.
But “taking into account” is not the same thing as sharing decision-making authority.
And yet, if you read the way NZTA describes its projects, you’d think some form of shared decision-making was standard practice
It’s not — at least, not in any clearly defined or consistent legal sense.
What seems to have happened is a quiet drift.
A bit of broader interpretation here, a new framework there, a tendency to play it safe — and over time, consultation turns into “partnership.”
No explicit public mandate for ‘partnership’ as it’s now being applied. Just a gradual shift.
We’re often told this is simply how things have to be.
But that doesn’t really stack up.
We’ve seen governments act quickly when something becomes a priority — whether under Nanaia Mahuta or going back to Helen Clark and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.
Agree or disagree with those decisions, the lesson is the same:
When there’s political will, things move — and they move fast.
So if this “partnership” approach continues, it’s not because it has to.
It’s because no one has clearly drawn — or enforced — the line.
And once that line blurs, so does accountability.
- Who’s making the decisions?
- Who’s responsible?
- Who are these agencies ultimately answerable to?
It just requires clarity.
Consultation is one thing.
Partnership—especially when it’s undefined—is something else.
IF YOU WANT CHANGE, NOW’S THE TIME
Before the last election, there was a clear expectation—based on campaign rhetoric—that the direction would shift away from the steady expansion of Treaty-based “partnership” models in government agencies.
So far, that shift is hard to see.
An election year is when politicians pay attention.
Not to noise — but to patterns.
One message is easy to ignore. A steady stream saying the same thing is not.
If you think agencies are drifting beyond what the law requires, say so.
- To political candidates.
- At public meetings and campaign events.
- In writing—to MPs, media, and on social media.
This is no different.
You don’t need a campaign. Just enough people, being clear and consistent.
Because in an election year, silence gets ignored. But pressure gets results.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
5 comments:
Mission creep is always gradual and discreet - till suddenly, it is the new normal.
Next steps:
i) partnership + veto for Iwi only; ii) the new Aotearoa written constitution based on Te-Tiriti - type partnership + Iwi veto; iii) He Puapua achieved.
Most of the sheeple would not even notice this. There is still a case for a referendum especially when/ if the veto rears its ugly head. Then tribal rule will have arrived.
Nzf was the party that was supposed to remove all that stuff and they have done nothing except give all these tribes “loans” that never get repaid
This 2026 election should be a reality check for National. Hopefully the National seats will survive the public annoyance of Luxon's non leadership and dopey Net Zero policy.
However thinking NZ voters will require that NZ returns to a multicultural nation where everyone is equal and every vote is equal at the ballot box and workplace .
National have lost their mantle of credibility and the business vote , because National have shunned the majority of adults and focussed on the noisy and unrestrained.
NZ is not better from where National is drifting without direction , rudderless and without sail in nautical parlance .
In short remove ALL divisive Maori rhetoric and policy, return to New Zealanders as a nation and people. All of us , not some of us . Kiwi not Iwi.
slowly boiling the frog continues
This is a well worn question with an obvious answer. In the famous Lands case, Justice Cooke described the relationship between Iwi and the crown as “akin to a partnership” and then described how it was similar to relationship between a trustee and beneficiaries.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… as they say.
Nevertheless, the corporation pretending to be the NZ government got a fright and decided to interpret this “akin”ness as actual partnership ignoring obvious consideration that if Cooke thought it was a partnership then he would have called it a partnership.
The rest is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.