The proposal now before councillors stems
from recommendations arising from a “Te Tiriti o Waitangi health check.” As
reported in LETTERBOX #30, the audit was commissioned by the council’s Māori
Outcomes Department without the knowledge or prior approval from councillors, for
$77,293 funded from “spare” money.
The stated purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi “health check” was to help councillors better understand their “obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga,” assess the state of relations between the council and Māori, and provide recommendations for improvement.
Te Ao Māori News reported that Mayor Couper
described the initiative as being about “creating a win-win outcome for
Māori and the wider community,” adding: “Improving outcomes for Māori will be
positive for the whole community… The work involved in this implementation plan
is important.”
That position is consistent with comments he
made to the Bream Bay News in October last year, when he said that while he
would respect the referendum result removing Māori wards, he would also be “looking
for other ways to strengthen the relationship with these groups.” (Mayor
Couper had supported retaining the Māori ward.)
Is this what he meant by “other ways”? And is
it merely a coincidence that the proposed two-year timetable for fully
implementing the audit’s recommendations aligns with the requirement to remove
the council’s Māori wards ahead of the 2028 local body elections?
We believe Mayor Couper should not only
respect the referendum result and its implied message but also recognise that
changing the culture and direction of the council is a significant matter that
warrants full public consultation. Or will the matter not be put to the
community because the result may not align with the mayor’s preferred outcome?
We also believe the mayor and councillors
should take into account the High Court ruling in Hart v Marlborough
District Council [2025] NZHC 47, which “confirmed the long-standing (but
perhaps little-understood) legal position: councils are not directly subject to
the Treaty and its principles because local authorities are not part of the
Crown, and thus not party to the Treaty.”
More