Referring to the opposition to signing the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People

Rosemary Banks NZ’s  Representative at the UN explained in a gathering at the UN Assembly that NZ Government was unable to adopt the UN Declaration of the Rights for Indigenous People for the following reasons. Firstly she referred to the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 being NZ’s founding document and NZ’s constitutional arrangement also Government activity. That NZ had already implemented many of the standards of the declaration for many years prior to September 2007

The Māori Party had worked with the UN process to bring about the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But the Labour Govt in 2007 announced they could not support it. Rosemary Banks referred to four provisions in the UN Declarations which caused great concern.

(1)Being fundamentally  incompatible with NZ’s Constitutional and Legal arrangements. The Treaty of Waitangi, and the Principle of governing for ‘The Good Of ALL People in NZ’

(2)Referred to Article 26 of the UN Declaration on ‘Land & Resources’

(3)Referred to Articles 28 and 19 on redress

(4)Article 32 on ‘The Right of Veto’ over the State

(5) Article 26 Indigenous people had the right to own, use, develop or control lands and territories that have been traditionally owned, occupies or used. This meant the ENTIRE country of NZ was potentially caught within this scope, (that appears to require “Recognition to Rights to Lands ‘in NZ). Thus being lands legally owned by other citizens, indigenous and non-indigenous. Did not take into account customs, traditions, land tenures systems.

(6) This implied that Indigenous people had rights that others did not.

(7) The ENTIRE country appeared to fall under Scope of Article 28 (Redress and Compensation) Did not take into account land owned or occupied legitimately by other.-or overlapping indigenous claims.

(8) The UN Declaration implied Indigenous peoples had Right of Veto over a Democratic Legislature

(9) Rights over the Resource Management of NZ.  – NOTE: CENTRAL PANNING COMMITTEE’S -TWO OR MORE IWI/HAPU)- END DECISION MAKING RIGHTS OF VETO. Replacement of Resource Management Act.

(10)The UN Declaration Implied a different class of citizen. Indigenous people had veto rights that other citizens did not have.

(11) NZ was unable to support a text that included provisions that were so fundamentally incompatible with its Democratic process, Legislation and Constitutional arrangements.

(12) The Un Declaration was explained as being an ‘Aspirational’ document, intended to ‘inspire’ rather than have ‘legal affect’

NOTE: Labour Party stance has completely changed from back in 2007 they have done an about turn from the opposing the UNDRIP back then.

2010 Under the National Government John Key secretly sent Pita Sharples -Co Leader of the Māori Party to the UN Assembly in New York. John Key was well aware of the seriousness  of his actions. Why Labour Party were so against the signing of the UN Declaration in 2007.

NZ Herald reported 20th April 2010  ‘Nats give in to Māori over Rights Declaration’. Had bowed to Maori Party wishes, agreed to support the highly contentious UNDRIP despite the previous Labour Govt issuing dire warnings that the document is fundamentally incompatible with NZ’s constitutional and legal systems.. Where Pita Sharples was speaking from New York announced signing the UN Declaration “restored the Mana and Moral Authority of Māori to Speak in International Forums on Justice and Rights. John Key had backed Pita Sharples on signing the UN Declaration with a proviso that would ‘progress Māori rights in NZ’s current Legal and Constitutional frameworks.

The NZ Herald Article of 2010 referred to Rosemary Banks reporting “The UN Declaration appears to require recognition of Rights to Lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both Indigenous and Non Indigenous”. Implying rights that others do not have. She also stated that Indigenous peoples have Rights of Veto over Parliament and the Resource Management of NZ. (Resource Management Act) Even thought the UNDRIP is non-Binding it can be used in court by the judicial as to issues relating to Waitangi Tribunal.

NZ Govt over many years is a party to 1900 UN agreements which are non-binding. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Binding. When NZ Govt agree to UN Agreement, Declarations they then sit in a place called ‘Soft Law’. That oh so convenient advantageous place where the government can quickly, conveniently enter Un International Non-binding  agreements into Domestic Policy making them Legal to act upon.

A prime example of this convenient ‘Soft Law’ is the  NZ Govt’s adopting UN Agenda 2030. It was non-binding, Ardern entered it into Domestic Policy it is now binding, can be acted upon legally. The people of New Zealand would never have known this, as this process is accepted by all MP’s in Parliament. Ardern had been a guest speaker of a gathering of ‘global shapers’, which was hosted by Bill * Melinda Gates. Where she boasted she had entered Agenda 2030 into NZ Domestic Policy and that other country’s should take her lead.

THE ZILCH TRANSPARENCY. ALL MP’S IN PARLIAMENT ON THE SAME PAGE. Since the secret signing of the UNDRIP in 2010 much has happened. The non-binding declaration has processed and progressed somewhat into the planning of a ‘Race Based Constitution’. Namely ‘VISION 2040’

Vision 2040 (UNDRIP). Dr Claire Charters the lead author of He Puapua and member of the steering group produced the plan to realise the ‘UN Declaration of Rights for  Indigenous Peoples’. A conference was held at Auckland University during 21st-23rd November 2022 where overseas ‘Indigenous Rights’ guests gathered to organize, produce the planning of ‘ The Constitutional Korero ‘Transforming NZ’s Constitution’ in  NZ

 NOTE: UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:-

Article 26. Have the rights to the lands, territories, resources which they traditionally owned, occupied otherwise used or acquired.

Art 28: Have the ‘Right to Redress’- includes restitution equitable compensation for lands, territories and resources.

Art 32: States shall consult & cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples concerned with their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free informed consent prior to approval of any project affecting the lands, territories and other resources. In connection with development, utilization, exploitation of mineral water and other resources.

NOTE: The ‘Incompatibility with NZ’s Constitutional and Legal Arrangements

Speaker of the House 22nd April 2022 was Willie Jackson, minister of Maori Development announced he had completed the first stage of a two step engagement process to develop the UNDRIP plan, it was to go to wider consultation. He referred to :- Almost 70 engagement workshops that were mainly held online. The represented diverse groups from Iwi Hapu, Tangata Whakaiha Maori & Rangatahi to groups interested in Health, Education, Environment. Saying the drafting plan will now commence. This will be undertaken in partnership with the National Iwi Chairs Forum and the Human Rights Commission over the next few months (April 22nd 2022) Before being shared for public consultation later at the end of 2022. He said ALL NZrs will get a chance to comment on the UN Declaration draft plan. Jackson said “already a lot of mahi is happening across government that’s consistent with the UN Declaration, the planned roadmap of actions are steadily working towards a measure of progress. There is already a lot of mahi across Government underway that is consistent with UNDRIP, but having a plan sets a roadmap of actions to steadily work towards and measure progress against.

Willie Jackson referred to having already made progress with the UNDRIP plan. He said “its not just about co-governance, its more than that. He referred to the positive strides as to Māori Health, that the Government are focusing on what works, what will fix the issues important to Māori.

The Government is supporting that which aligns with the UNDRIP. Jackson referred to Māori led COVID19 improved, increased  vaccination rates. And the Govt working in a partnership plan as to the implementation of the UN Declaration for Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of NZ.  This includes a broad range of Rights, Freedoms, That commit to improving Maori outcomes, developing a declaration plan to measure the partnership process in addressing Indigenous Rights.. There is much more to share on this beyond Co -Governance Partnership plan  -With Certain Iwi/Hapu, the National Iwi Forum, Human Rights Commission and the Govt.

There is much more to tell, therefore I have produced a follow up video to this one  namely ‘ CO-GOVERNANCE AND BEYOND (UNDRIP) PART 2’. Which also has the links to the two video’s I have shared .

Carol Sakey.

WakeUpNz

.

The Three legislations to replace the Resource Management Act 1992 (RMA).. There has been heaps of concerns, controversary over Three Waters Reform however what is proposed now is even worse. I refer to the CCP as the Government ‘Centralized Control Panel. This is David Parker’s targeting not of just rural communities and farmers but also all land, businesses and home ownership in New Zealand, thus is similar to Nanaia Mahuta’s Three Waters reform but much worse. This refers to town planning consents and the natural environment. This is the worst elements of the Three Waters Reforms that will replace the RMA.

The silence of the MPS in the political cesspit of Wellington is deafening, the mainstream media hide what’s going on with his leftist socialist bias. No-one is really warning the people of New Zealand just how bad this is.  This is about, homes, businesses, land. We should be loudly, adamantly demanding the Government “Get off my dam land” Remember people that ‘Silence is Consent’. And the ‘Silence is deafening..Its very off-putting if you intend to read this proposed legislation as it is 891 pages long, heaps to digest. It was introduced just before the Christmas break and then there was the Christmas holidays submissions were to be in by Waitangi weekend, very  deliberately timed and silenced. This Bill is definitely not being promoted in the public sphere.  The proposed legislation of David Parker, the Environment Minister strips resource content and planning away from local councils, therefore people in local communities are also robbed of their voicers to be heard at a local level.

Co-Governance has been handed to 15 Centralised Regional Planning Committees as to the decision making around resource consents eg the deck that you may want to build at your home, new factories, businesses and the new water tank of rural property or even residential property that you may use for watering the garden. All these decisions made by non-elected bodies. Regional Planning Committees that pose  extremely costly rules, that will be strictly enforced. Owners of property whom pay their rates, having the choice taken away from them what happens on their own private owned piece of land. You own the land, the government decides what you do with it. The Government acting like a communist  style regime. 67 Elected councils will be handed over to a communist style co-governance regime of 15 Regional Planning Committee’s.

The Environment Minister himself is allowed to have a say as to who is appointed on these committees. Will ratepayers be robbed, yes they will and will they be controlled, targeted and restricted as they will. Is this a democratic process, definitely NOT, its dictatorship. There will be no hearing local communities issues, concerns because those that make the decisions will not be part of the community, they will be far away in some city somewhere. The end decision making rights will be ultimately be controlled by central govt, the political toilet bowl of Wellington. Which I call the other CCP. Central Control Panel of the people of New Zealand. They are very insulated by multi-layers of bureaucracy. David Parker has said this is NOT ‘Co-governance’. Personally I believe he is a liar, as non elected Iwi/Hapu and Treaty Of Waitangi Principles weigh very heavy within the new legislation.

1)Each local council will be allowed to have one representative on the new regional committee, therefore can be drown out by many others on that very same committee. Iwi/Hapu have at the minimum two. All Committee members must be obedient and enforce the Waitangi Tribunal demands.

2)An example given by the Tax Payers Union is “Decisions over a geo-thermal plant in Taupo would not be made in Taupo but Hamilton by non accountable, non- elected committee members. The committee will be bound by a ‘National  Planning Framework’ issued by the Environment Minister (Govt) every 9 years.

Hence there will be limits, restricts, targets land, business, house owners, owners of private property. (End Of Private Property Rights)

3) A communist planning regime embedded with the Treaty principles, made up as they go along, or those that have corruptly been endorsed by the government over time. These are strictly enforced into three new layers of co-governance.

4)Un-elected appointee’s include Iwi/Hapu whom sit on Regional Planning Committees, they have full decision making voting rights. But David Parker says this is “NOT Co-Governance”. That’s a blatant lie, and this govt should never be trusted because of their silence on this proposed legislation of ‘Central Planning Committee’s’

5)The exact number of Iwi/Hapu is just documented as minimum of two so therefore this could be much more than two. All members of the committee must be bound by the Waitangi Tribunal (Not the Treaty Of Waitangi pur-say). The Waitangi Tribunal held a meeting this resulted in “where decisions are made (referring to the Regional Planning Committees’) “Nothing less than 50/50 split to satisfy the partnership principles (There was no Partnership in the 1840 Treaty Of Waitangi)

6) A new unelected ‘National Maori Entity’ will put pressure on the new planning committee’s to ensure, enforce the Treaty principles as demanded by the Waitangi Tribunal which will have priority over public consultation on the new Regional Planning Committee’s

7)At anytime Iwi/Hapu can produce a Te Oranga Taiao (environmental wellbeing) statement dictating how the Minister of the Environment (Govt) must uphold the intrinsic relationship between Iwi/Hapu and the environment in the ‘National Planning Frameworks’. There is NO APPEAL PROCESS outlines or proposed in this legislation. BUT David Parker says “THIS IS NOT CO-GOVERNANCE”

8)Costs will significantly increase for ratepayers because of all this bureaucracy bullcrap and consents for your privately owned property will be much more difficult to obtain. This is the Governments 891 page of NZ’s Resource Management Communist Manifesto. The CCP  (Central Control Panel) An extremely radical communist type co-governance of the people of New Zealand

9) The ‘National Planning Framework’ provides direction of Regional Spatial strategies consistently managed, c controlled, an integrated co-governance framework that sets limits, targets privately owned property, includes air, indigenous biodiversity, coastal water, estuaries, fresh water, soil and other aspects of the natural environment. Identifying geographical areas are namely ‘Management Units’ Targets are namely ‘Directives’ that are mandatory environmental limits. Targets  with ‘bottom lines’ that prevent granting  resource consent.

10)The Justice Dept documented ‘Waitangi Tribunal Interim Report on appointments to Regional Planning Committees referring to Maori appoints being Maori representatives relating to the proposed ‘Natural Built Environments Act’ and the ‘Spatial Planning Act’. The proposed legislation is all part of the National Freshwater & Geo-thermal Resources Inquiry claim (The rights and interests of Māori). The Waitangi held a discrete 3 day hearing at the Waitangi Tribunal Unit in Wellington, references were made to an application from the Māori Council as per settlement of governance entities over other Māori groups.

11)Fresh-water Iwi Leaders Group, Urban Māori, representatives, Māori landowners and other participants were involved with the discrete Waitangi Tribunal meeting. They referred to the Crowns proposed new Resource Management regime, the appointment of Māori members to Regional Planning Committees as to the authorities, groups that represent Hapu/Iwi in each region.

The process of selection would be determined by Iwi/Hapu and relevant rights, interest holders eg Maori land owners. The meeting focused on the Governments consistency with the principles of Waitangi that the Waitangi Tribunal has set out. The Waitangi Tribunal concluded that the government had been compliant to Waitangi Tribunal demands as to the Treaty  (Researched By Carol Sakey-Supporting ‘ROCK THE VOTE NZ’

After viewing Carl Bromley’s video today about the stench of chlorine coming from the Avon River in Christchurch I decided to do a bit of digging on this Chlorine problem myself. Christchurch Council  have reported they have high quality drinking water. However they Council report they are using Chlorine whilst update water supply network. The Central Govt’s Water Regulator Taumata Arowai has declined an application by Christchurch Council for an exemption as to introducing chlorine into the water supply.    All public water supply networks must be treated with chlorine unless an exemption is obtained

16^th May 2023 Newsline reported that Christchurch Councillors are very frustrated it appears for some time now there has been a tennis game going on between Taumata Arowai and the Council. When the Christchurch Council  has applied to have exemptions of chlorine in their water supply. Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger  said he is outraged that the government insists the water is chlorinated.  The Water Services Act 2021 makes it mandatory for owner of reticulated water supplies to add residual disinfectant-chlorine- to the water unless they obtain an exemption from Taumata Arowai.. Christchurch’s Mayor Mr Mauger stated “While we’re being forced to chlorinate our water supply we will continue to fight and advocate for the people of Christchurch,”. He felt the council had been led up the garden path by central government Taumata Arowai.

Stuff NZ reported 30^th May 2022 more than a year ago that Christchurch Chlorine Free Water could still be years away- more than 4 years away after the council started temporarily treating the water supply. Go back another year to 9^th July 2021 Stuff NZ reported the Christchurch Councils battle to remove chlorine from its water. As a Christchurch Councillor reports “to remove chlorine from the water is like a tennis game with safety assessors. At that time there were reported to be hopes that Christchurch would be free of chlorine in their water by Christmas 2021

Health Authorities had refused to sign off a plan detailing the city’s water supply. Again Councillors were reported to be left frustrated when trying to completely remove chlorine from Christchurch water supply. 13^th February 2020 Christchurch Councillors back to the drawing board, the tennis match  was going on then with Taumata Arowai. Again the government refers back to 2016 Havelock North’s  campylobacter outbreak

RNZ Reported  22^nd May 2023 that Christchurch Councillor wants local government minister to help reverse water chlorination due to the Water Regulator mandating chlorination of water in Christchurch’s water. . It has now been reported that work is being scoped by the ‘Three Waters’ team and will be bought to the Council in the future for consideration. Councillor Sam MacDonald wants Central Govt to intervene, as he says “they have significant amount of power and then refers to the unelected officials with a significant amount of influence over peoples everyday lives.

His petition in May this year had reached 3,400 signatures in 5 days. He felt that Taumata Arowai were being over the top in its applications for standards. MacDonald said “The only thing that have changed are the rules, not the risk to the people”. MacDonald referred Taumata Arowai is effectively saying the bar is set so high that we’ll never be able to achieve it”. Advisor of safety of water in NZ is the Maori Advisory Group Te Puna . Taumata Arowai is a Crown Entity-Central Govt.

In 2022 the partnership of the Taumata Arowai Board ( Crown Entity-NZ’s Water Regulator) and Te Puna (The Regulator Maori Advisory Board won the Deloitte’s Award. Documenting “The governance arrangement is modelling how a strategic partnership is effectively built”. Taumata Arowai demonstrates its commitment to upholding the Te Tiriti o Waitangi through its partnership with the Maori Advisory Group. The Maori Advisory group manages, determines the safety of water in NZ, they have a strategic partnership with the Crown entity Taumata Arowai. Te Puna Maori Group advisors are non–elected bodies that has control of water supplies in NZ in partnership with the Govt

They would be determining whether Christchurch Council are able to obtain an exemption for chlorine in their water or not. The Te Puna Maori Advisory Group was established under the Taumata Arowai Water Service Regulators Act 2020 by the appointed Minister of Local Government.

The Te Puna Maori Advisory Group is chaired by Nanaia Mahuta’s younger sibling Tip Mahuta, who has an influential role in the Three Waters Reform  and also He Puapua Report on Co Governance. Iwi – Maori partnership. Often named as Crown-Iwi/Hapu Partnership

The word Crown distanced the Govt from being made accountable- it’s the government partnership with Iwi/Hapu/Maori. The Te Puna Maori advisory group partnership to the Govts agency , New Zealands Water Regulator Taumata Arowai is chaired by Nanaia Mahuta younger sibling Tipa Mahuta. She is also the Chair’s for the Waikato River Authority,  and the  Maori Health Authority and Maori Advisory Group

In a nutshell Taumata Arowai – the central government of NZ is in a partnership with Te Puna Maori advisory group that determines the safety of water in NZ, chaired by Tipa Mahuta.  The Maori Advisory Group advises the NZ Water Regulator (Govt) on matters of Māori interests and Maori knowledge that relates to the Government Water  Regulator Taumata Arowai as to objectives, functions, operating principles and the collective duties of the Govets Water Regulator Taumata Arowai

Provides adviced on how to enable  mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, and kaitiakitanga to be exercised. The govt’s regulators board (Taumata Arowai) must have regard for the Maori Advisory Group (Te Puna). The Govts Water Regulators Board must act jointly with the Maori Advisory Group, agree to the terms of reference for the Maori Advisory Group. The partnership has a memorandum of understanding

Researching Chlorine and any side effects I found that. The exposure to low levels of chlorine can result in nose, throat and eye irritation. Long term effects of chlorine can include chronic lung problems, bronchitis and asthma.  Although Chlorine kills pathogenic organisms, chlorine can also weaken the immune system, weaken its ability to fight off pathogens . CDC reported on 7^th February 2023. Most people will smell a noxious odour or feel irritation that indicates exposure to chlorine. Low levels of exposure for a long time may affect their ability to sense the chemical. When chlorine comes into contact with tissues eg eyes, throat lungs an acid is produced that can damage these tissues, Signs and symptoms vary depending on how the person is exposed, the amount of chlorine mass, and the time of exposure., blurred vision * Burning sensation in the nose, throat, lungs, and eyes *Coughing  *Coughing up white to pink-tinged fluid that may be delayed by a few hours  *Chest tightness  * Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (These may appear immediately if high concentrations are inhaled or they may be delayed if low concentrations are inhaled.)

Eye tearing * Nausea * Rapid and shallow breathing * Respiratory failure (depending on situation length of time, strength of chlorine gas etc.,) * Skin pain, redness, blisters             *Vomiting and wheezing

https://rumble.com/v2v2rij-non-elected-bodies-have-the-power-over-chlorination-fluorination-of-nzs-wat.html https://rumble.com/v2v2rij-non-elected-bodies-have-the-power-over-chlorination-fluorination-of-nzs-wat.htmlwakeupnz.org  Carol Sakey

LINKS TO MY RESEARCH BELOW:-

https://ccc.govt.nz/services/water-and-drainage/water-supply/water-chlorination

• https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/128791834/christchurchs-drinking-water-could-be-chlorinated-for-years
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/125687645/councils-battle-to-remove-chlorine-like-a-game-of-tennis-with-safety-assessors?rm=a

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/490434/christchurch-councillor-wants-local-government-minister-to-help-reverse-water-chlorination

https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/role-and-purpose/spirit-of-service/spirit-of-service-awards/spirit-of-service-awards-2022/

https://www.cdc.gov/chemicalemergencies/factsheets/chlorine.html

RUMBLE  https://rumble.com/v2v2rij-non-elected-bodies-have-the-power-over-chlorination-fluorination-of-nzs-wat.html

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources in New Zealand.

1.2 Many New Zealanders are taking action to conserve the environment. Throughout New Zealand, iwi, hapū, and community groups are working to monitor, protect, and enhance the health of their environment.

1.3 Some natural resources are “co-governed” – the work to restore or conserve them is led as a result of negotiated decision-making arrangements between iwi and/or other groups, central government, and/or local government. Many of these arrangements have come about after long negotiations, including Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The arrangements have many legal forms and include statutory bodies, trusts, and other relationships.

1.4We looked at a selection of these arrangements to identify what works well and what does not. We wanted to identify factors that need to be considered when setting up and maintaining effective co-governance arrangements.

What we looked at

1.5 We looked at eight examples of co-governance and how co-governance is being used for environmental projects (see Figure 1). The examples are:- Waikato River Authority;- Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Auckland); – Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement (Lake Ellesmere, Canterbury); – Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group; – Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao (Tauranga); – Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust (Waikato);- Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board; and Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Locations of the co-governance examples we looked at

1.6 All the examples involved iwi and local authorities. Some also included community groups. Some arose out of Treaty of Waitangi claims settlements. Others were voluntary, including one that was later formalised through a Treaty settlement.

1.7 We reviewed participants’ experiences and perceptions and used that information to identify what helps to set up and operate co-governance arrangements successfully.

1.8 Although our main interest was in co-governance, we looked at examples that were sometimes a mixture of co-governance and co-management. We identified principles that apply generally to both co-governance and co-management.

1.9 In resource management work, the terms “co-governance” and “co-management” are both used to describe negotiated arrangements between iwi, central government, local government, and/or local groups to achieve effective management of an environmental or conservation resource.

1.10 These terms are sometimes used interchangeably because their definitions are not well understood. Governance focuses on strategic matters, while management is concerned with day-to-day operational responsibilities. When used correctly, the terms can describe the extent of decision-making powers (see Figure 2).
Comparing co-management and co-governance

CO- MANAGEMENT: The collaborative process of decision-making and problem solving within the administration of conservation policy

CO-GOVERNANCE: Arrangements in which ultimate decision-making authority resides with a collaborative body exercising devolved power, this is where power and responsibility are shared between government and local stakeholders

1.11 Where natural resources are managed as part of or after a Treaty settlement, co-governance often means that there are equal numbers of iwi representatives and council members involved. Usually (an exception is the Waikato River Authority), councils retain final decision-making powers over the management of natural resources. This is in keeping with councils’ responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002.

1.12 In the examples we looked at, some were about governance and others more about management. In some, people’s roles included elements of both governance and management.

1.13 The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 set up the Waikato River Authority as a co-governance entity. The Waikato River Authority sets the direction for managing the Waikato River in its “Vision and Strategy” document. This document is considered to be part of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. It is binding on all national, regional, and district policy and decisions for the management of the river.

1.14 The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority is also a co-governance entity. Auckland Council is responsible for managing the Maunga, under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.

1.15 The Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group is charged with providing leadership in putting into effect its vision and strategy for the Rotorua lakes and their catchments. As the governance group, it provides the direction, vision, and strategic oversight for the lakes programme. The strategy group needs to approve any decisions about funding under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme.

1.16 Local authorities usually control the creation, membership, and disestablishment of joint committees. However, when they are part of Treaty redress, the creation and membership of these committees are agreed between councils and iwi and provided for in Treaty legislation. This is the case for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group. The Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006 provides for the establishment of a permanent joint committee that can be disestablished only with the agreement of all parties. This means that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust is an equal member with the regional and district councils.

1.17 As we have mentioned, some of the examples we looked at contained elements of co-governance and co-management. The parties to the Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement told us that their arrangement was “one step away from true co-governance”. However, the partners were clear that they wanted an arrangement that allowed for some form of co-governance:

Ngāi Tahu own the lake bed via the treaty settlement, which must mean something. It’s at the least a very powerful symbol, but not just symbolic. [You] can’t dismiss their view, even though they have no [Resource Management Act] powers.

1.18 Importantly, in this instance, the parties are clear about their limits but also clear about where they want to get to: “[It’s] not quite co-governance … The arrangement starts at co-management, with the mechanism to move to co-governance.” The parties’ agreement confirmed their commitment to “strive toward appropriate vesting of decision-making powers in the Parties as co-governors over the Te Waihora catchment”.

1.19 The members of Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao are clear that they are co-managers. The Mauao Trust, as the owners of the historic reserve, are the governors.

1.20 In the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust’s case, the Trust has a co-governance structure, where the board is co-chaired by a mana whenua representative and a 3).landowner representative. The Trust members maintain that the co-governance regime ensures that tikanga Māori is incorporated in governance and day-to-day management decisions.

1.21 Responsibility for managing the scenic reserve rests with Waipa District Council. The Council has a working relationship with the Trust to deliver the desired outcomes. For the land within the fenced perimeter but outside the reserve, it is intended that the Trust will manage the land as though part of the scenic reserve. Landowner covenants would cover this management arrangement.

1.24 Because each co-governance arrangement was different, we had lines of questioning to guide our conversations. Basing our questions on our expectations of good governance and leadership, we focused on:-clarity of purpose; roles and responsibilities; capability; accountability and integrity; information and reporting; and financial sustainability.

Structure of this report

1.25- In Part 2, we discuss the importance of effective relationships when setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.26 In Part 3, we discuss how parties need to build and maintain a shared understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

1.27 In Part 4, we discuss how parties need to put in place the processes and understandings about how they will work together to achieve their purpose.

1.28 In Part 5, we discuss how important it is to involve people with the right experience and capacity in setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.29 In Part 6, we discuss how parties need to plan for accountability reporting and financial sustainability.

1.30 Appendices 1-6 provide background information about six of the co-governance examples.

INTERESTING LINKS:-

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf  Summary of our report Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources – Controller-Auditor General  2 pages pdf Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources February 2016  68 page pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/co-governance-amended.pdf (Co-Governance Amended Report)  The Purpose of this Report:–

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/part1.htm (This report)

Reference Source: Dodson, G. (2014), “Co-Governance and Local Empowerment? Conservation Partnership Frameworks and Marine Protection at Mimiwhangata, New Zealand” in Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal (2014) Volume 7, Issue 25, available at www.tandfonline.com.

https://store.thomsonreuters.co.nz/waking-the-taniwha-maori-governance-in-the-21st-century-ebk/productdetail/126608 Thomsonrueters.co.nz

https://www.boardroompractice.co.nz/files/96/file/NZ-govt-owned-companies-pdf 21 pages PDF