Written By:
- Date published:
12:10 pm, February 7th, 2026 - 47 comments
Categories: Environment, greens, Teanau Tuiono -
Tags: environmental personhood, whales
Southern Right Whales, image via NZ Geographic
Green MP Teanau Tuinono is putting forward a Members Bill, the Tohorā Oranga Bill, designed to give whale species inherent rights in law.
Predictably, there’s a bunch of righties using it as an opportunity to take pot shots at the Greens, but there’s a more important demonstration of general lack of ecological literacy. Given how much criticism there is of the Greens having social and economic policy, it’s a strange pivot to criticise the Greens for focussing on the environment.
There’s no copy of the Bill available yet, but I look forward to seeing how it is constructed. Establishing personhood here means that the animals legally move from being property with some, usually inadequate, protections, to beings with inherent legal rights. It doesn’t mean that whales are humans, but it does make it easier to protect nature in real terms.
Tuiono explains the Bill on his Facebook,
Tere tohorā, tere tangata.
Where whales journey, people follow.
This Bill represents a transformation in how we protect our marine species and the wider moana, to create a law that would protect whales by legally recognising their mana.
…
The Tohorā Oranga Bill will recognise the inherent mana of tohorā and require decision-makers under a range of environmental law to recognise and provide for the rights of tohorā.
By recognising the mana of tohorā, this Bill represents a transformation in how we protect our marine species and the wider moana.
Toitu te marae a Tane, Toitu te marae a tangaroa, Toitu te iwi
If the realms of Tane and Tangaroa are sustained, then so too will the people
In an ecological literacy frame, this seems quite straightforward. But let’s break it down.
Many kinds of whales are keystone species, which means they play a central role in the health of the ecosystems they live in. If the species decline or go extinct, this can impact the whole ecosystem and the species within it. I’ve put George Monbiot’s exquisite four minute explanation video of How Wolves Change Rivers at the bottom of this post, as an introduction to keystone species and trophic cascades.
Whales also factor into carbon cycles and thus our thinking about climate mitigation. Obviously whales cannot be expected to use technology to adapt like humans seem to think we can (but we can’t without mitigation).
Tuiono’s Bill lays out protection via five principles,
We can see that if all those things were in place, the whole ecosystem would benefit, directly as well as indirectly from whale wellbeing as a keystone species.
So why are the Greens focussing on this? This is core green politics. It’s not simply species protection, it’s interweaving saving the whales, with climate mitigation, ecosystem preservation, and promotion of ecological literacy which is exactly the thing we need if we are to survive the climate and ecological crises we are in. That last one cannot be overstated. The shift from consumerist mindset (nature is a resources for us to own and use as we will) to a holistic one (nature is the set of complex, self regulating systems all humans exist within and are utterly dependent on), opens the door to how to solve the metacrisis.
The Greens excel at this. They bring forth ideas and concepts, place in them in mainstream politics, and shift the Overton Window. Even without being in government they’ve been able to do this on issues like climate, water, poverty, housing, welfare. This Bill is beautiful, in how it brings together ecological literacy embedded within Te Ao Māori, addresses pragmatic (albeit long term) issues around climate, centres the environment in policy, and opens up a conversation where we get to change how we think about the world and our place in it.
At last, central policy planks relevant to every New Zealander struggling with the cost of living.
You sound like the righties looking for an excuse to take a pop at the Greens for no good reason other than you don't like them.
Bet you didn't even read the post. I said,
We're in election year, and you think it's appropriate to do RW slop on a labour movement political blog. Don't be so lazy and put up an actual argument for whatever you are arguing (or go away if you are just here to slag off the Greens).
Good.
This may be useful background (history): https://theconversation.com/what-if-whales-took-us-to-court-a-move-to-grant-them-legal-personhood-would-include-the-right-to-sue-227335.
Talking of ecological literacy and keystone species, this initiative is about to be launched to protect [our] kauri, to encourage collective learning about the cultural, ecological and historical significance of kauri, and to promote conservation and stewardship of our shared habitat.
https://waateanews.com/2026/02/07/waitangi2026-new-kauri-protection-trailer-to-launch-at-waitangi-a-mobile-classroom-for-kauri-knowledge/
that first link was a good read, rich with wonderful links to follow, cheers.
No, whales are not people, any more than corporates are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
If whales were aware of this bill, would they appreciate being lumped in with humankind I wonder? Still, I support the bill – it's Green after all. Now for the social media backlash 🙁
https://www.facebook.com/bob.mccoskrie/posts/the-greens-support-abortion-killing-the-child-in-the-womb-up-to-birth-but-believ/10241993801480294/
The typical Social Media backlash:
No [other] arguments are provided, ever.
This ‘style’ has infected our politics like a pandemic.
Your support is noted, but it sounds ‘tribal’ without substance.
What absolute BS! What next? Whales are people too so have a right to $3m being spent on Kauri leaf music to heal the whales. I hope Tania Waikato does really well in the Waiariki seat election. I'm sooo sick of Rawiri, if Tania doesn't win then next best thing would be to split the vote so Labour win and Rawiri can take what Eru calls his 'dictatorship style' elsewhere.
wow.
1. the post title was a rhetorical device. If you want to comment on TS there is an expectation that you will read the post. I wrote,
The post was an invitation to explore these things:
It wasn't an invitation to express one's overreactions without thought or care for the debate. Why not tell us why you think it's bullshit with reference to the post.
2. please don't derail my post into an anti-TPM rant, you can do that on Open Mike.
Acknowledging personhood to whales is less bullshit than personhood for corporations.
Since about 1886 in the US.
Although the 14th Amendment was originally intended to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people, it has been used to grant corporations legal rights, a concept often debated in the context of political influence and corporate regulation.
I was in WA a couple of years ago and sat on the beaches watching for whales with my binocs. I saw roughly 90-it was wonderful.
This bill has wonderful aims as listed above. But talking about whales as people will lose the Greens votes. I say this as someone who will definitely vote Green in November.
who is talking about whales as people apart from the righties?
a rare experience! Even watching some vids for this post was inspiring.
I think it's a great idea. It should help to further protect them.
What if this was extended to fish we eat for food (and farmed animals and birds)?
we'd stop overharvesting the oceans and treating farm animals like slaves?
@ SPC
Mass starvation and malnutrition?
why? Granting legal personhood doesn't mean they become human, nor does it mean humans can no longer interact with them.
Legal personhood means that the animals stop becoming property, and have rights under law (via representatives).
For instance, the Whanganui River has such legal status, but humans are still allowed to boat on the river and take fish and drink from the river as well as run hydro and irrigation.
This is a big shift for the western mind set that sees nature as property or protected by property rights. This is how we structure conservation in NZ, we grant some land some protection from exploitation but still within a property ownership frame.
If we look at farming, if farm animals, or farms (the land not the business), had legal personhood, then you wouldn't be able to keep hens in cages, because they're not property objects, they're beings who have their own needs for movement, freedom from stress, living their lives.
If you want to produce eggs, then you have to do so with regard for the needs of the hens and not treat them like heinously. Under the property ownership model, we try and limit what the owners can do, but we still allow them to treat animals badly, because they're stock units in a business, not animals with their own rights to wellbeing and freedom from oppression or cruelty.
There would of course be onflow to the economy from that, but in a sane world, the economy wouldn't be based on exploitation and extraction but instead regenerative circular models.
Yes, there would be onflow to the economy from that.
Which is what puts many off going green. Especially in a cost of living crisis.
Now, if Government was offering to subsidise those costs (for low income consumers that required it) less would be turned off.
In short, are you saying giving farm animals legal personhood means they have no right to live a full life and can still be used for consumption?
I'm very much in favour of farms being subsidised to shift to regenag, but they need to be bonded or some other equitable arrangement.
Low income people need assistance for sure. We should treat them way better than we do. It costs a lot to produce food, if we go regenag, we should raise people’s incomes.
The hen in question would have no life at all if it wasn't for raising eggs, it would never have been born. Likewise meat chickens.
Which leaves us with what one means by a full life. Farm hens aren't pets, so what does a full life look like? Are we measuring that in years, because humans value longevity highly? If the hen was in the wild how long would it live without human tending and with predators? I know in humans terms I would trade some years at the end of my life to have avoided unnecessary suffering in earlier years, so for me personally, longevity isn't the only thing to consider.
There are good questions to be asking, and I don't think the answers are always self-evident, because most of us are socialised into thinking in terms of property, and then anthropomorphising personhood. What happens when we stop doing that is a process.
Humans are part of nature. What would we eat if we didn't take part in nature? If people couldn't eat meat because of personhood, they would have to eat plants, but veganism at scale negative affects plants and whole ecosystems, so how would that work? That's speciesism (or kingdomism if we're being biologically correct).
Or you could view legal personage for whales as part of a package of measures for the environment, for people, for cost of living. Other Green measures include free early childcare for workers, free dental, free doctors visits, domestic solar power installation assistance, …
You say that "Legal personhood means that the animals stop becoming property, and have rights under law (via representatives)."
Who is going to decide who these representatives are going to be? Could it be the Fishing Industry for example, who could probably make a credible claim that they actually understand whales habits better than anyone else?
out of curiosity why would you think the fishing industry would know more about whales than DOC, marine experts, scientists and local Māori?
more seriously, will have to wait and see the legislation but as with much of our democracy and as we're seeing unfold in real time, it's hard to tory-proof laws. Imagine Shane Jones in charge of appointments /shudder.
I expect the Greens will have thought of this and planned accordingly, fingers crossed.
Those that would diss the idea of whales having personhood status are likely to be quiet on the controversial element of corporations having similar rights when it comes to political interference.
The likes of Talleys or Philip Morris donating to a political party and then having their wishes acted upon is way more damaging than whales getting their mana recognised and acknowledged.
This initiative fits in with our collective trajectory at the nature/human interface: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=rights+of+nature+nz
Since the gizmo recognises our established legal precedents, looks like we have anchored the legality in global context successfully. Establishment whingers will need to draw the public's attention to red herrings (such as the rights of bacteria)…
If it is not Green Party policy, it is not Green Party legislation.
Private Members bills are just that.
The Green Party will probably debate the concept of personhood in law – as per corporations (given the C of C attempt to enshrine private property rights in and over the nation state) and raise valid environmental concerns about this. That is to promote its environment (and economic and regulatory) policy.
In my second stint as a member, we did, but that was in the `rights of nature' working group around 2015/6. The group was a fertile forum that covered most of the key dimensions and made much progress in developing consensual policy, but eventually hit some kind of official process hiatus before it did so. I didn't enquire (too cynical)…
It is Green Party policy.
https://www.greens.org.nz/biodiversity_environmental_regeneration_policy
So rather than establish a de-facto hierarchy of nature this bill should expand to include all of Papatūanuku, And then we have the real debate about our relationship with the natural world.
Probably best to do this from Government but it'll still expose some right wing attitudes to nature from opposition.
not sure about that. At some point it needs to happen from within government, but I think there is a lead up to this, where the Greens use their parliamentary power to start the discussion, and it spreads out into the wild so to speak (public/community/extra-parliamentary)
Good. An admirably succinct pragmatic basis upon which to proceed! For the legal background see Prof. Chris Stone's advocacy. He hammered his stake into the conceptual terrain back in '72:
It would be a suitable follow-up to get Tane Mahuta that status, huh? Maybe the Greens will do so if they return to govt later this year. It has a legal partner in Japan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%81ne_Mahuta
heh for a minute there I thought you mean the god himself. That might be a step too far at this point 😆
Great to know about Stone, thanks, will have a read later.
I would distinguish between the legal rights of nature and the Earth with personhood for whales.
how come?
For one it is framed within governance policy and human rights policy.
And neither references personhood rights for other mammals, let alone before any other non human mammal.
My reading is that Tuiono's Bill sits under the general GP policy above. Hence it's GP policy. I can't imagine it hasn't been approved by caucus.
Look, this was bound to get a reaction from the righties. And be misrepresented. It is important for those of us who want to see a change of government to have all the facts at hand so we can push back. Thanks for posting.
really good point. At what point in the process does the actual Bill usually get made public? Getting our heads around it now rather than later in the year would be useful.
It would sound less crackpot if it was for all living beings , rather than just the ones we like.
“”Many kinds of whales are keystone species, which means they play a central role in the health of the ecosystems they live in.
Not sure I agree with that, more a large canary. Keystone spiecies would be the plankton
if you remove enough whales you destabilise the food web, and that includes plankton. But I suspect it's more complex than that, as climate change is putting pressure on the ocean, plankton, and whales.
That's politics. Imo, the start of the conversation is whales, because they're very relatable and have a high degree of public affection already, which makes the politics easier. There's a short conversation above about GP policy that does indeed set a goal of personhood for nature.
Whales are already heavily protected in most parts of the ocean
yes, but the Bill protects via this,
See this difference? It's the whole ecosystem, which flows onto other species.
I reckon mr Tuiono would be better to be campaigning to stop councils spilling waste water into our harbours and water ways rather than trying to protect the already protected
they're not protected though, that's the point.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/10/new-zealand-is-failing-to-protect-its-vast-ocean-resources-we-owe-it-to-the-world-to-act
The Greens have been leading the parliamentary fight to protect waterways. They're not responsible for Wellington City Council's woes/
Shit happens!
The Greens should pray to all they hold holy this doesn't get on the order paper until after the election
Many whale species are recovering.
The extra humane dignity I want to see afforded to whales is that when they wash up, there is no longer a presumption that local Maori can get in there to chainsaw their jaws out. Seen it plenty of times, and don't tell me it's "customary". It's disgusting.
Wash your mouth out Ad , culture is the new religion of nz this proposed policy is dripping in it, in the past it wouldn't have been a chainsaw ,but I bet it was the dinner bell.