Out west there have erupted claims that Auckland Council is giving away rights to the Waitākere Ranges to local iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki. The dreaded phrase “co governance” is being used.
There is one distinct problem with what is being said. It is absolutely not true.
It is of no surprise that NZ First’s Shane Jones is involved. And he is promising something that he cannot achieve.
From the Herald:
MP Shane Jones says New Zealand First will step in to stop management of the Waitākere Ranges morphing into co-governance.
Jones said NZ First’s coalition agreement with National calls for no more co-governance of public services, saying managing a reserve for the benefit of the public is a public service.
He is opposed to a proposal by Auckland councillors for the council, the Crown and tangata whenua to manage the Waitākere Ranges under a deed of acknowledgement.
Under the proposal, a decision-making committee would comprise 50% representation from tangata whenua, specifically West Auckland iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki, and 50% representation from Auckland Council and the Crown.
The council says the deed of acknowledgement is in line with the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Act 2008, and denies the proposal would amount to co-governance.
Jones said the act’s wording clearly states that tangata whenua should be consulted, “but there it stops”.
“A deed of acknowledgement doesn’t need a committee structure. It can just tick a few boxes, saying, ‘Yes, there are some historical associations, there are some midden heaps, some hangi pits’.
“But the native flora and fauna are a thing of beauty and were originally purchased for the entirety of Auckland.
“We will not agree with any deed of acknowledgement that represents an ideological mustard seed that will morph into a template for co-governance,” he said.
Jones has said that he will talk to the Minister of Conservation Tama Potaka and will also seek to draft a Private Member’s Bill to change the legislation. Which will be a first as the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 is a Local Act and requires a local approach to amend it.
And hopefully Potaka will tell Jones that under the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Act 2015 the Crown apologised for breaching Te Kawerau’s treaty rights and also promised to consult Te Kawerau’s before changing any conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan relating to their land. Te Kawerau ā Maki’s involvement in discussions concerning Crown land out west would appear to be completely rational and fair.
And not to be outdone in the dog whistle stakes Act leader David Seymour has claimed that Council plans would see “unelected decision-makers closing tracks and dictating land use in the surrounding rural areas”.
Which is patently not true. The Act states that the deed does not apply to privately held land. It also states that the deed “does not affect the exercise of any power or the carrying out of any function or duty by any person under any enactment”. Local Government and Reserve Management powers will continue.
Jones has shown by his comments how flexible he is over time when it comes to expressing his views.
He actually voted for and spoke in favour of the legislation when it was passed in 2008. On one occasion he chided then National MP Tau Henare and asked “why he will not support the tangata whenua of that area in ensuring that the wāhi tapu of the tangata whenua are looked after”. One could ask that question of Jones himself now.
The Act requires Auckland Council and the Crown to enter into a deed with the purpose of identifying “opportunities for contribution by tangata whenua to the management of the land concerned by the Crown or the Council”. You would think that a joint committee would be a logical means to achieve this. Council had considered and ruled out other options.
Claims that the committee will reduce public oversight are hard to understand. Instead of many decisions being made at officer level without publicity there will now be publicly available agendas and public meetings. Transparency will actually be improved.
And the claims are an insult to Te Kawerau ā Maki. This iwi has had to experience having its land sold without consultation, reserves set aside for it being sold without compensation and a settlement of cents in the dollar of what it has lost. And now it has to put up with these smears.
And it has responded in a robust manner. From Lillian Hanly at Radio New Zealand:
CEO of Te Kawerau ā Maki Edward Ashby suggested the MPs “learn to read” because “that’s not what the information out there says”.
Ashby pointed out it had taken 17 years to act on what the legislation had promised, “which is a deed to be progressed”. That was all the iwi was doing, he said.
He explained the deed would do two things, “acknowledges our association” and “identifies opportunities for us to contribute to the management of the public land”.
“And so one of the ways we wanted to do that was basically set up a forum or a table for us and the Crown and Council to talk.”
He said that would be a “non-statutory” body, and would be used to coordinate a plan for the area.
Ashby maintained the proposal was not co-governance and said the MPs were up to “mischief”.
“I think it’s scaremongering. I think it’s misinformation.
“It’s obviously on trend for some members of this government, and politics in general, at the moment, to beat up on iwi.”
The funny thing is that if Council’s Parks Committee assumed responsibility for the work then Te Kawerau ā Maki would have a committee member as of right. Issues concerning the Waitākere Ranges would be dealt with on an ad hoc basis and the current inadequate respect for the Heritage Area would continue.
Instead this gentle attempt at letting Iwi have a say in the management of land it has a direct interest in is vilified for political purposes.
Ashby is right, there has to be a better way to do politics. I hope that the demise of Trumpism in the United States causes people throughout the world to resile from transparent examples of dog whistle populism.
Seymour got in on it too, the neo-liberal capitalist investor shill and carbon-centric economic nationalist one compete for Don Brash's One New Zealand audience.
The Kiwi, not iwi, is the strong force with those 2.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/shane-jones-david-seymour-reject-waitakere-ranges-co-governance-plan/CTFBDTZ4OFGHREOUYU2BH4LWUQ/
Their lack of regard for the environment presumably means they have no concern for the continuance of competent conservation management.
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28-04-2025/#comment-2032407
RNZ coverage here.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/559316/auckland-iwi-boss-accuses-nz-first-act-mps-of-scaremongering-with-waitakere-ranges-claims
Did you mean to link to the John Walsh column Nov 2023 on re-opening the Waitakere Ranges?
Well said Greg. And you're right : the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Act of 2008 was a Local Bill, not a government bill and was sponsored by the local MP, Lynne Pillay. I don't think a members' bill as he is promising can overturn a Local Bill. Shane Jones should know that, but who knows what his thought processes are other than to spout off for political gain?.
Shoutout to Lynn, Sir Bob Harvey, Te Warena Taua and all who honoured this remaining chunk of Kauri forest in that local Act so long ago.
Thanks Mickey for reminding us who voted for that Act. A hard won local effort.
While I'm at it thanks also to Ark in the Park and multiple other groups; you can now see Stitchbird and Kokako flying (badly :_) in pairs there after over 100 years.
We take the success and no one can deny its honour.
Yes Kokako and Stitchbird. Never thought I would see them in my lifetime. Kokako nearly disappeared altogether in NZ.
I keep asking the question as to whether this Committee will be empowered to make decisions or is advisory only. Some have said the latter with governance decisions still falling to the elected Council, but your article suggests the committee will be making decisions instead of "individual officers". So I'm more confused than ever about what is going on.
In my view, this proposal has been very poorly communicated by those on Council advocating for it. They are trying to say "nothing to see here" but nobody believes it. This has freed up space for the usual suspects to come through the middle and muddy the waters.
The mess this has created is another salutory lesson to talk to voters frankly like adults rather than trying to baffle them with word salad bullshit. I would have thought that this would have been learned after Three Waters – McAnulty did a great job of explaining it in a way that made sense, but by the time he got involved the horse had already bolted and there was no salvaging it.
That’s what they were consulting on.
Educate yourself and go to the source material.
The credibility of your view is low.
You’re smoking your own dope here.
Flawed comparison – this is local politics that aims to formalise something that’s already been in existence and operating for many years. Three Waters was an entirely different beast anyway.
https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/waitakere-ranges-heritage-area-deed-acknowledgement
https://hdp-au-prod-app-ak-haveyoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/7617/4277/2447/WRHA_Deed_Consultation_Document.pdf
Smart arse replies like this are completely counterproductive. If this is how ratepayers are spoken to it is little wonder that there are problems, and we on the left should be preparing for a long period in opposition.
Your answer to honest questions is "Educate yourself". It may surprise you to learn that most people don't have endless time to "educate themselves" on niche and complex political issues about committees and advisory boards – they're trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They need their elected representatives to explain their proposals to them in a clear concise and transparent way – what is proposed, why, and how it will affect their lives. If the people don't understand those things, they are likely to oppose it
I live in the Ranges and can tell you for a fact that this hasn't happened on this proposal. The material you linked (which I had seen before) to is largely waffle which would be meaningless to the average punter. I am relatively highly educated and have struggled to understand it myself, and am still not confident that I actually do properly. It's a recipe for the same sort of electoral disaster that the last government suffered over Three Waters (which I supported, and still do). It is surprising that the lesson hasn't been learned.
Pointing out that you’re demonstrating your ignorant bias is productive from a TS perspective, so not ‘completely’ counterproductive. Of course, you failed to take the points and doubled down instead.
Straw man. My reply was from one commenter to another commenter here on TS.
Another hyperbole; nobody has ‘endless’ time for anything. I was replying to you specifically, not to ‘most people’ in general. If you have no time to educate yourself then don’t make a submission and don’t start whining here on TS about it.
As you aptly demonstrated here.
I wasn’t talking to the ‘average punter’ but to you. I think the information was clear enough and anybody who has a genuine interest in the topic of management and protection of the Waitakere Ranges would have been able to take it in to form an opinion for submission, if they were so inclined. Furthermore, this is not a new issue as such.
Anyway, for somebody with sufficient interest and about 10 min of spare time there are other useful sources of information that most people should be able to read and understand without too much intellectual effort, e.g.: https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/14-04-2025/a-new-agreement-to-protect-the-waitakere-ranges-is-on-the-table-heres-what-it-means; it contains a couple of helpful links to accessible articles in MSM too!
Given that [some] things still have be decided, which is why there’s a consultation in the first place, we cannot pre-empt the final outcome completely. Often, seeking clarification is a function and outcome of proper consultation.
Repeating the same bigoted straw men again. For the record, I supported Three Waters in principle.
On this subject Mickysavage was personally named by Jones on 1ZB this morning along with Richard Hills as Labour Party operatives.
Good to see you're really getting under their skin. Double your efforts and go hard, because they are very, very weak people.
Chur will do so.
Just had a listen. I am not sure which dimension he is occupying.
I must have pissed him off when I pointed out his lack of understanding of how to change a local Act –
https://x.com/GregPresland/status/1916673527668740128
And when I pointed out what he said in 2008 when supporting the Heritage Area Act –
https://x.com/GregPresland/status/1916695937109660068
Yep, it was quite specific and appeared rehearsed in terms of the naming of individuals.
It's intimidatory as is the NZF way.
I’m struggling to think of a member of this hydra-headed government with mana. NZ First looking to persecute a minority that commits suicide in horrifically high numbers. Even if you are an absolutist on gender, look at the various things we tolerate people holding as their views in the name of religion. And the scale of the ‘problem’, which is very very small, while the associated harm is high.
Then the party of failing to develop NZ transport, infrastructure (outside of ridiculous roads), public housing, housing, water infrastructure…while funneling money to landlords, tobacco companies and trying to privatise health and education with US cheerleaders, while completely ignoring climate change or worse, subsidizing polluters at the same time as trying to prevent banks including climate change in their private business considerations. They are the party of the ferry debacle, and this foresighted approach makes them the party of business. With a leader polling the worst personal figures…perhaps ever in these kinds of polls?
Then the least sincere party-ACT. They’ve been trying a bloodless civil war of one kind or another. Seizing control of power and shutting others out of it by the swipe of a pen to the degree they’ve tried justifies this description and they’re still trying. And again riddled with bad US ideas and more than likely untraceable US cash supporting its astroturfers.
Given all that it’s heartening to see that New Zealand and New Zealand history still exist for some. And that there are some leaders with mana, and as they say names worth 10,000, even if there are few to none in our parliamentary system.
I know it was rather unpopular to have a Mahuta representing us internationally, but I felt represented and proud.
Anyway, I’m getting the popcorn for this:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/04/29/paramount-chief-seeks-govt-retreat-from-ruapehu-management/
Great article, thanks. Don't know if you are aware but, before NZ First jumped on this, a couple of weeks ago we (in Titirangi) were leafletted with the same claims by "Democracy Action" (https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/co_governance_sought_over_the_waitakere_ranges) which seems to be "Susan and Lee Short". Binned the leaflet after looking at it and their website – hope we don't see any more of them.
Thanks, Newsense, I agree completely, and also to Mike for making that link between 'Democracy Action' and NZ First. .
And big thanks, Micky for spelling this out. It is comforting.
From a local perspective, its importance of course has to do with meaningful mana whenua input, which has been blocked all the way, continually dismissed, and the 17-year stalemate on granting the Deed. But it’s also because the four points of the proposal feel like the culmination of maybe 40 years work by crowds of good people to protect the Ranges, and arise from Council’s ongoing neglect of its responsibilities under the Act, and the ongoing degradation that has resulted.
Some of us have campaigned our butts off this past few weeks to support this by canvassing submissions, and I’m sorry that some folks didn’t see this. We don’t have money or staff, only our emails, environmental group lists, and social media. This is a small iwi too, no advertising agencies are employed to further their aims, and frankly their noble spokesperson now looks like he needs a $1000 clothing grant and a good meal. The hate mail has apparently been vicious.
Jones and Seymour are bullies. The nastiness and put-downs are appalling. And this is straight out of the manual, the classic language of neoliberalism dragged out and 'big guns' toted to oppose this little iwi's perceived threat to its agenda of devouring the planet without the incovenient influence of kaitiaki.
What concerns me most is this relentless two-party attack on tangata whenua: to stop them having a bar of it, beyond the odd midden heap or hangi pit.
But also the whole astroturfing script – so deviously designed to suck in support through doublespeak. Fairness, democracy, equality, protect your property. This is a Māori takeover by stealth; they’ll lock you out of the Ranges, steal your sheep – – eat your pets if you don’t fight back.
Yesterday too, I looked back at Jeremy Walker’s writings about the Voice campaign in 2023, tracking it back to the Atlas Network. The language there was scripted so similarly:
“Advance claims that constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australia is ‘unfair’ and ‘divisive’: Giving mineral rights to Aboriginals and not other landholders is divisive. CRA believes Aboriginal title to land should be held on the same basis as that of any other Australian. The Voice will Divide us on the basis of race’ .
“. . . the Voice (with no decision-making powers) will veto laws and court decisions, require new land taxes, reparations payments, closure of national parks and the surrender of farms . . .”
And also how the No campaign created an atmosphere of license for hate speech and overtly racist attacks on Indigenous people, which we see here too.
And bless Richard Hills for his simple clarity on it. But I feel the extent of the threat here. In some ways, these coalition members’ deviously worded campaigns of disinformation are more dangerous than anything that the most crazed QAnon adherents ever put out.
And again, thanks Micky for the clear analysis.
Thanks you Susie for widening the context, and Greg (and others) for putting right the misinformation. Sad to say this is all part of a concerted attack on both tangata whenua and the environment. I have lived in the Waitakere Ranges for nearly 40 years and am so grateful for so many who have long battled to protect the area, including mana whenua who have rarely been acknowledged for their kaitiakitanga. Good to see some passionate korero.
+100
I sure miss my Kauri trees and French Bay.
Jones will just unite all the good Waitakere groups in common cause.