By: IHI (Iwi Have Influence) Action Group

c/o Helen Te Hira, Lena Henry, Rau Hoskins, Shane Cook, Keita Kohere, Kowhai Olsen, Rangimarie Abraham

8 Thomas Rea Place

Te Atatu South

Auckland 0610

No Super City Without Us, No Super City Without Maori!

This submission is representative of many iwi, hapu, whanau, Maori and non-Maori communities, residents of Tamaki and individuals throughout Aotearoa who have participated in the Tamaki Hikoi on 25 May 2009, Vigil Dawn Gatherings on Maungawhau on July 6^th – 10^th, 2009 and a National Hui on “Maori and Local Government- Beyond the Super City” on 4^th December 2009.

We participate in this submission process knowing that our requests for genuine recognition of the interests of Mana Whenua and Maori representation at the governance level have been ignored. This Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill demonstrates the short sightedness of this government in its lack of consideration of and commitment to Treaty based relationships between Mana Whenua, Maori and Local Government.

Mana Whenua are currently discussing with the Crown through the Treaty Settlements process, breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and the injustices that iwi of Tamaki have experienced through legislation, local government policies, settlement of Auckland etc.

However, at the same time through the proposal of this bill, Mana Whenua are again relegated to the position of an advisory board, whereby the power still remains at the governance level where Manawhenua have no guaranteed presence and no guarantee of being genuinely heard at the decision-making table.

We submit that the Declaration below summarises the pertinent issues and recommendation that we strongly urge the Committee to consider in regard toClause 45- New Part 7.In 2007, the Labour Government initiated a Commissioner’s enquiry into the workability of local government arrangements in Auckland. In March 2009, the Royal Commission Report on Auckland Governance was completed with a set of recommendations that “sought to be forward-looking and to produce a structure capable of meeting the needs of the region as it evolves over the next 20-50 years”. There was a strong recommendation that Maori should be represented on the Auckland Council in the form of three seats, shared between manawhenua and Maori. The Royal Commission also recommended the appointment of a manawhenua forum with powers to appoint members of Watercare’s Maori Advisory Group.

” Thousands of people from across the Auckland region marched in the Hikoi for Maori seats, ninety percent of oral and written submissions to the select committe confirmed suppport for a new way of working with tangata whenua by including Maori seats at the Governance level of the new supercity” says a spokesperson for IHI, Helen Te Hira.

” At the end of the day the decision to ignore the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the confidence cosmopolitan Auckland has in Maori potential is a sign that Don Brash’s neo-colonial attitudes have not left the National Party”

IHI Action Group believe the task at hand now is to regroup and acknowledge the pledges of support that have come in over the last 24 hours from Iwi and New Zealanders across Auckland and the Country. This issue is one of democracy and a maturing nation. ” We will not allow the antiquated attitudes of a business elite to hold back our progress, our voice and democracy”

For further comments

Contact : Helen Te Hira 0210554969

Chaired by the Hon Tau Henare, the committee includes Simon Bridges of National, the Maori Party’s Hone Harawira, and Labour’s Shane Jones. Metiria Turei of the Green Party said she might also attend.

The Maori Committee will be hearing submissions at Orakei Marae at Takaparawha (Wed 8 July), Te Puea Marae in Mangere (Thu 9 July) and Hoani Waititi Marae in Glen Eden (Fri 10 July).

“This is the first time that a special Maori Committee has ever been established in this way,” said Mr Henare, “and we hope it won’t be the last.”

“We’ve got time for formal submissions (9am-12pm), and we’ve also set aside time for a more informal approach (1pm-5pm), to encourage as many Maori as possible to come and have their say about the most important changes to take place in Auckland local government in a generation,” said Mr Henare.

We’ll be there next week. We’re keen to hear from the people. The rest is up to you,” said Mr Henare.

Ends.

For comment contact:

Hon Tau Henare, Chairperson, ph 04 817 6984

Wed     08 July         Orakei Marae

 09am – 12pm            Formal Written Submissions

01pm – 05pm            Informal Submissions

Thu      09 July         Te Puea Marae

 09am – 12pm            Formal Written Submissions

01pm – 05pm            Informal Submissions

Fri        10 July         Hoani Waititi Marae

 09am – 12pm            Formal Written Submissions

01pm – 05pm            Informal Submissions

 Don’t stay at home and moan about it folks.

Come to the Marae and moan about it !!

Waitakere City Council Votes For Maori Representation on New Council

Waitakere City Councillors voted unanimously at last night’s Council meeting for Maori representation on the Super City Council. This position will form a key part of Waitakere’s submission to the Government on the proposed Supercity Bill.

Vocal protests were held during the Council meeting calling on the Councillors to support Maori seats in their submission.  Spokesperson for the protest Helen Te Hira of IHI (Iwi Have Influence) West said they were pleased with the outcome as the Council has moved from a draft position earlier of wanting only a Maori advisory board.

“Thousands of Westies joined last month’s Hikoi calling for Maori representation, Waitakere City demonstrated tonight that unlike the Government they are willing to listen to the call of their Community.”

Ka wikitoria tatou ka tutuki o tatou wawata mehemea ka whakakotahi tonu tatou

For further comment contact Helen Te Hira on 0210554969

4:00AM Thursday Jun 11, 2009
By Susan Healy

It is right that Brian Rudman recently reminded us of the debt we owe the benefactors to our city and region. There was, however, one notable omission in the article, which recognised settlers of European descent.

The original, most substantial and ongoing benefactors to the city are the Ngati Whatua people of Orakei.

It was they who, in 1840, encouraged Governor William Hobson to establish his administration on the shores of the Waitemata and gave him an initial grant of 1416ha (3500 acres) on which to settle his people. This area effectively covers the central city of present-day Auckland.

It is important to recognise the magnanimity of Ngati Whatua in granting Governor Hobson and his people the opportunity to establish a settlement that would flourish socially and economically.

The background to Ngati Whatua’s grant to Hobson is given in the Hillary Lecture 2001, available on the Auckland Museum’s website.

The lecture, Land and Identity in Tamaki: A Ngati Whatua Perspective, was delivered by the late Sir Hugh Kawharu, former Professor of Anthropology and Maori Studies at the University of Auckland.

Although Maori were keen traders, they did not regard land as something to be bought and sold. Sir Hugh says: “Philosophically, at least, it was land that possessed the people. Land was a medium for building and maintaining relationships.”

He gives examples to illustrate this latter point. In the 1830s, Ngati Whatua gave land to neighbouring tribes to strengthen alliances with them.

These gifts were not alienations of land. They were the granting of a right to use the assigned land while the mana or authority of the land remained with the donor group. In Maori terms, it was a “tuku” of the land. In European terms, one could say that a “tuku” is more like a lease than a sale.

When the receiving group moved away, the land returned to the givers. Also, while the receiving group was in occupation they would express their appreciation for the gift by showing respect for and consulting with those who held the mana of the land. Commonly, they gave their benefactors some share in the benefits they gained from the use the land.

On the other hand, those with the mana of the land had a duty to see that all who resided on their land were protected. A relationship of mutual benefit was established.

The 1830 grants to Ngati Whatua’s neighbours, like the later ones to Hobson, were significant and were known as “tuku rangatira” – gifts between chiefs. Sir Hugh explains the chiefs in making these “tuku” were acting as representatives of their people.

He says “such transfer of use rights in land was an effective and proven mechanism for establishing alliances – a mechanism, however, in which the underlying title remained with the donor group”.

In relation to Ngati Whatua, who extended their initial grant to a further 3237ha (8000 acres), it is not surprising they assumed and have continued to expect they would be involved as partners in setting directions for the city.

Dr Merata Kawharu outlined in a Herald article how Ngati Whatua have continuously sought to be involved in the governing boards and councils of the city.

Surely it is time for those of us of settler background to acknowledge Ngati Whatua of Orakei as the original and substantial benefactors to central Auckland, and welcome their input into the governing of our city so their intention of establishing a mutually beneficial relationship is fulfilled.

* Susan Healy, a Pakeha New Zealander of Irish, English and Cornish heritage, has a doctorate in Maori Studies from the University of Auckland.

I #*! Super City: Why Metro has got it wrong. Really

Metro‘s Simon Wilson: Cheerleading Rodney Hide’s Auckland “super city” power grab.

FOR sheer Pollyanna puffery, Simon Wilson’s “Why We Love Super City”, in the latest issue of Metro, takes some beating. The image of a perky cheerleader dominates Wilson’s text, and that is wholly appropriate. When your sub-heading is “Why Rodney Hide has got it right. Really.” – cheerleading is pretty obviously the name of the game.

It’s a pity really, because Wilson is usually a thoughtful writer, and not given to lending his support to the sort of PR glad-games currently being rolled out to justify one of the most audacious power-grabs in New Zealand’s political history.

The article begins with the picture of a region suffering from “economic underperformance, blighted urban planning and social dysfunction” – all of it, Wilson implies, the dystopic residue of incompetent “local fiefdoms”. He has to do this, of course, because if it could be proved that Auckland’s multiple afflictions (if they exist at all) are in no way the fault of its local authorities, then the whole rationale for Hide’s “Super-City” disappears.

But, this is precisely what Auckland’s history does; it completely explodes both Hide’s and the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance’s arguments for collapsing local democracy into regional “governance”. The city’s woes, going back to, and beyond, 1865, have almost always arisen out of Auckland businessmen’s determination to turn politics into profit.

Whether it be Thomas Russell, fomenting war with the Maori king to expedite his company’s land-grabbing; or the powerful “development” business nexus, which spawned the sprawling, car-dependent culture of post-war Auckland; or the mirror-glass speculators, who tore down what remained of the city’s graceful Victorian architecture in the deregulated 80s; it has always been that fateful combination of greed and ambition (both local and national) which made Greater Auckland so much less than it could have – should have – been.

Were the cities and boroughs of Auckland responsible for the motorway system which demolished so many thriving communities in the 1950s and 60s – or was that the work a handful of Auckland roading contractors and property developers, operating hand-in-glove with their National Party cronies in the Capital?

Was it Auckland’s local politicians who shut down the great manufacturing plants of south and west Auckland in the 1980s – or was the resulting “economic underperformance” and “social dysfunction” the legacy of the MPs for Mangere, Manurewa, Te Atatu and Auckland Central?

Was it the avarice of mayors and city councillors which saw the wealth of middle-class Aucklanders wiped out in the crash of ’87 – or was it the greed of the wide boys who drank at the Rogues Bar and worked for Equiticorp?

Was it the Auckland Regional Council which stalled the electrification of Auckland’s rail services for the past four years – or was that Michael Cullen and his Treasury advisers?

The key premise behind the Super City proposal is that Auckland’s local problems are the fault of Auckland’s local politicians – and it just ain’t true.

Wilson, as an editor of New Zealand history, and one of Metro’s senior writers, should know all this. So why is his article a history-free zone? Perhaps because it’s so much easier to declare, bluntly, and without the slightest supporting evidence, that: “The status-quo is not an option.”

But even if we accept that some sort of change is desirable, the more important question: “Why Rodney Hide’s version of change?”, is one that Wilson does not even begin to answer.

It’s all very well to play-up the Royal Commission’s emphasis on social, economic, environmental and cultural “well-being”, but the brute fact of the matter is that all of its “namby-pamby, feel-good sloganising” has been rejected by both the National and Act Parties. They have a very different set of priorities.

And before citing Singapore, Seattle, Glasgow and Barcelona as examples of “vibrant” urban economies, why didn’t Wilson do a little research into the nature of their governmental structures.

Rightly celebrated throughout the European Union as one of its most progressively governed cities, Glasgow, with a population of 580,690 citizens, is roughly comparable in size to the present City of Auckland. The similarities end there, however, because instead of Auckland’s 19, Glaswegians get to elect 79 city councillors – one councillor for every 7,350 citizens. Compare that “vibrant” and very democratic ratio with Rodney Hide’s one Super City councillor for every 65,000 citizens. Even Barcelona’s 1.6 million citizens, living under a municipal constitution drafted in 1960 by General Franco’s fascist regime, are entitled to 41 councillors (1:39,000).

What Wilson has either failed to understand, or refuses to acknowledge, is that the Auckland Super City has been designed by neo-liberals, for neo-liberals. From its very beginnings, as the brainchild of senior Auckland business leaders, it’s purpose has never been to generate the “social well-being” which the members of the Royal Commission so naively attempted to interpose in their report, but its opposite. What Rodney Hide and his backers want to see in their shining Super City on a hill, is that universal hallmark of neo-liberal success: growing income inequalities.

That’s why Hide is promoting the democratic obscenity of 20 councillors for 1.3 million citizens. (With eight of the 20 elected “at large”, an electoral option rejected by New Zealanders more than 20 years ago.) It’s why he’s promoting 20-30 powerless “community councils”, rather than the four, more influential, “city councils” recommended by the Royal Commission. It also explains his vehement opposition to special Maori representation, and why the straightforward, democratic, expedient of taking the 75 councillors currently representing the four major cities of the Auckland region, and putting them under the roof of a single chamber, simply wouldn’t occur to him. Why not? Because, fundamentally, neo-liberalism and democracy are incompatible.

In his final paragraph, Wilson quotes the Royal Commission’s vision statement, noting approvingly its preference for “an integrated sustainable approach” and its wish that the city’s business be “actively and effectively managed … in a responsible way”. But this is the bloodless language of corporate bureaucracy – not popular democracy. Nowhere in his article, and in spite of all his condescending concern for the “common folk”, does Wilson acknowledge that it is their right to self-government – not good governance – that is at stake for Auckland’s 1.3 million citizens.

A Super City Council of Aucklanders, by Aucklanders, for Aucklanders.

All Aucklanders.

“Who doesn’t want that? Who doesn’t think we need it? And who seriously thinks we’ve got it already?”

This commentary was originally published in The Independent of Thursday, 4 June 2009.

Nothing about the hikoi suggested the Government was on the wrong track with its Super City proposal, or that it should not hold the line on the vast majority of its proposals. The protesters’ ambitions were narrowly focused on the Maori seats. This, however, is an issue on which the Government has boxed itself into a corner for no good reason. Its stand has cast a shadow over its relations with the Maori Party, and the significance of Mr Key’s gesture in inviting that party to be part of his Government. It also put the Government at odds with a thoroughly researched and significant aspect of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, which had given Maori every expectation that their wish for representation would be acknowledged.

Appointed councillors – Maori or otherwise – are not the answer. But there is plenty of room for a compromise that, most logically, would leave Maori with two seats on the council. Those councillors should be elected by Auckland residents on the rolls of the Maori parliamentary electorates that cover the Super City. This would eliminate the need to open up the issue of which iwi might have favoured status. It would also sit logically with an overall system of council ward boundaries based on parliamentary electorates.

The Government’s problem, following its thumbs-down for the seats, is how to orchestrate this sort of arrangement without appearing to capitulate. It is evident that wheels have begun to turn. Iwi have put a proposal to the Cabinet for Maori representation that they say sidesteps Mr Key’s aversions. The Maori Affairs Minister, while declining to go into details, says it is “a means by which mana whenua can select in a democratic fashion their representatives”.

Predictably enough, Pita Sharples takes a different view of the hikoi than the Prime Minister. It has, he suggests, promoted “the whole urgency” of the representation issue. That is a reasonable conclusion. Well-attended and peaceful marches such as this make a point more effectively than any number of petitions or submissions to a parliamentary select committee. This one has focused attention on a part of the Super City process that was certainly handled in a rushed and rudimentary manner.

The Government’s rush of blood ran contrary to the inclusive urge that has underpinned its approach to Maori issues. After due consideration, it must surely find a way to include Maori representation on the Auckland Council.