Category: News

Government’s alcohol reforms will reduce local decision making and result in more alcohol harm

Submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Regulation) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koutou

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Regulation) Amendment Bill. 

I would like to speak to my submission.

Introduction

I work part-time with Communities Against Alcohol Harm to strengthen enforcement, improve data, and support residents and businesses to act collectively on reducing alcohol harm in Auckland’s City Centre.   

Alcohol is a leading cause of preventable harm in Aotearoa, linked to violence, injury, and long-term health conditions.  The level of harm has an impact on all New Zealanders.  

Regulating the availability of alcohol is one of the most cost-effective ways to lower harm related to alcohol consumption and hazardous drinking, and is promoted globally by the World Health Organization.

I am concerned that the proposed reforms raise significant issues for communities and risks shifting the balance of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 further away from its key objective of harm minimisation. Instead of “striking a balance” by reducing constraints on legitimate businesses the reforms de-prioritise community well-being, reduce local decision-making and will result in increased levels of alcohol related harm.  

I am concerned that the intention behind the reforms, supported by the alcohol industry, are for the purpose of making it harder for the general community to object to alcohol licences.

I oppose the proposed reforms that, if enacted, will significantly shift the balance of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 away from its key objective of harm minimisation.

I recommend that the Committee only support progressing with reforms that are based on an evidence-based, health approach that reduces harm and gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 

I wish to focus my submission on a number of key issues: 

  1. Restrictions on objections to applications

I oppose restricting objections to those within the same council area or within one kilometre of premises as the proposed reform is based on the false premise that objectors are vexatious and/or don’t have a good reason for objecting.

This restriction is unnecessary, inefficient and counter-productive to the aims of the Act.

It will impact quality decision- making by restricting objectors who have a genuine interest and knowledge of relevant risks in their local area.

It has the potential to exclude schools, treatment providers, iwi / Māori, community organisations, national organisations, Māori Wardens and residents affected by impacts beyond an arbitrary boundary. 

Requiring certification will further deter public participation, and impose considerable administrative and cost burdens on the licensing inspectorate. 

2. Formal right of reply

I oppose giving applicants a formal right of reply as this risks creating a more adversarial process that discourages objectors and increases delay and cost. I am concerned that the reform is intended to curtail the hearing process by striking out all objections in an unknown number of cases.

In any case, the amendment is not required as it is currently common practice for applicants to make contact with objectors through the licensing inspector, rather than directly.  Applicants get a chance to then reply at hearings through opening submissions and evidence.

3. Local Alcohol Policies and renewal of licences

I oppose the change to remove the ability for licensing committees to make licensing decisions on renewals that reflect the relevant local alcohol policy (LAP).  LAP’s are representative of community views on the provision of alcohol and have been developed to reduce the risk associated with the over proliferation of alcohol outlets in a community.

Preventing renewals from being declined because a LAP has changed will lock communities into outdated licensing settings despite evolving evidence of harm or changing neighbourhood conditions. 

4. Amendments to club licences and allowing certain restaurants to hold off-licence 

I oppose allowing clubs to operate as taverns because of the wider public risks from expanding alcohol availability for the public (and pokie gambling). Clubs are able to offer lower prices due to low overheads (e.g. due to the use of volunteer staff and often pepper corn rent where located on public land) and may decide to apply for later trading hours under a new on-licence. The evidence is clear that lower prices and later hours of sale increase alcohol related harm.

Likewise, I oppose permitting certain restaurants to hold off-licence as retail sales will blur distinctions between licence types and create ‘backdoor’ bottle-store style sales. 

This provision is likely to expand off-licence sales and the proliferation of off-licence availability – particularly in light of the very limited criteria proposed in the Bill.

5.  Amendments relating to hairdressers and barbers

I strongly oppose permitting supply of alcohol by hairdressers and barbers.  

The official industry position is that this is just “sensible”  and that the serving of a small drink is “harmless”.   However, the Act is completely silent on the number of drinks to be served, size of container, strength of the alcohol and other factors.

Exempting hairdressers and barbers from licensing requirements may appear minor but it incrementally broadens alcohol availability into everyday spaces and normalises drinking in non-traditional settings where children and young people are likely to be present. 

This is particularly concerning when considering the research studies that demonstrate the importance of hairdressers and barbers as trusted community figures with key roles to play in providing safe spaces for clients to share issues such as domestic violence, sex trafficking,  and alcohol addiction. (refer the submission from Alcohol Healthwatch)

The proposal creates a different standard for specific businesses which will undermine the regulatory regime if other service businesses such as nail bars, beauticians,  gyms, and businesses with waiting rooms, lobby for the privilege of serving alcohol further without a licence. This will also lead the way to greater alcohol harm. 

Any venue or business that wants to include alcohol service as part of their client experience already hold licences and are subject to host responsibility.

6. Rapid delivery of alcohol

I support proposed changes to require identification and intoxication checks however I am concerned that no consideration has been given to whether rapid delivery operations should exist or can meet the aims of the Act.

Alcohol is not an ordinary convenience product, and speed-based delivery models encourage impulse purchasing, binge drinking, and reduced scrutiny at the point of supply. 

In the meantime any third party delivery must impose clear, enforceable duties on both sellers and drivers, including age verification, intoxication checks, delivery records, and meaningful penalties.

Summary

In summary, I ask the Committee to take an evidence-based, health approach to the regulation of alcohol.  

The current reforms are not warranted and will significantly shift the balance of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 away from its key objective of harm minimisation.

Thank you for reading my submission.

Make a submission here on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill.

Closing date 11.59pm Thursday 14 May 2026

Further reading 

Unpicking alcohol protections: New Bill set to increase harm and reduce public voice, Public Health Communications Centre

Revitalisation of Auckland’s City Centre

The revitalisation of Auckland’s City Centre will be hindered if Queen Street is once again flooded with private vehicles.
As reported by Greater Auckland, at the end of last year, Auckland Transport (AT) let slip a plan for a two-year “trial” of bringing back overnight traffic along Queen Street.
AT hasn’t followed  a transparent process in reaching a decision to go ahead with a trial and doesn’t appear to have considered the negative impacts.  As an advocate for Auckland here is what I wrote to the Mayor on 20 February (cc Local Board members, Councillors, City Centre Residents Group and AT Executives) asking him to stop the trial.
Dear Mayor Wayne,
Thank you for standing up for Auckland and for supporting the revitalisation of the City Centre.
Have you noticed that it is now possible to be on Queen Street and hear birds chirping, the laughter of people and enjoy fresh air?  There are so many well-designed spaces and the street environment is greatly improved, making it an enjoyable experience to spend time (and money) in the City Centre.
This has happened as a result of the many projects and initiatives that are making the City Centre a more attractive place for people combined with the growing range of options to access the City Centre without a car.  Overwhelmingly, residents don’t own a car and the majority of visitors don’t arrive by private car.
If you dive into the stats you will find that there is less air pollution, less noise, public transport is more reliable, there are fewer crashes and more people are returning every day to discover that the City Centre is very different from the scare-mongering headlines.
Queen Street is a much nicer place for people to visit than it was before – with added greenery, more public art and much improved seating.  I have to admit that I was skeptical about the design of Waihorotiu shared path when it was first proposed but it is working really effectively for getting people around on wheels (especially young people who increasingly rely on e-scooters) and it means the footpath is safer for pedestrians.  This revitalisation and progress benefits all Aucklanders.
For the 40,000 residents who live in the City Centre the many improvements have literally been life changing.  There are now apartment buildings with approximately 1500 – 2000 residents on Queen Street and this continues to grow. We can even start to imagine a City Centre where families increasingly want to live and bring up children.
We can aspire to meet the Council’s target of growing the residential population to over 100,000 residents.   But this will only happen if you continue to back planning for the future (not the status quo) and hold firm to the core strategies like the City Centre Masterplan and Access4Everyone that are now reaping the rewards after many years of disruption.
Of course there is still more to do to improve accessibility, improve the perception of safety and provide care for the most vulnerable people who are on the streets as a last resort.  There is no doubt that the ongoing works around the CRL and Midtown have been really hard for businesses.  Fixes are needed around loading zones, and places for drop offs and pickups for Ubers and taxis. Improvements for mobility access to Midtown venues like the Civic are also needed.
However it makes absolutely no sense for AT executives to unilaterally address these issues with solutions that belong in the 20th century. 
This is not the time to backtrack on PT improvements (the planned 24/7 bus lanes on Wellesley Street) or to flood Queen Street with cars once again, especially just before the CRL’s new stations deliver a “people fountain” to Midtown.   AT’s proposed 2 year “trial” will result in more air pollution, more car noise, more traffic congestion and will make Queen Street (and access to Queen Street) less safe.  It will make the City Centre less attractive for people to visit other than in a car and will negatively impact residents.  It will also encourage drivers who just want to cruise Queen St  – the car engine noise that dominated Queen Street for many decades will return too.
Please demand that AT stop any plans to increase access for general vehicles at the expense of public transport and people. Please also insist on transparency and a process that involves all stakeholders including the Local Board and the City Centre Residents Group before there is any back-down by AT on planned improvements.
Let’s keep going with the revitalisation of the City Centre including working towards further pedestrianising Queen Street in time for the CRL opening.

Guess what. Communities want safe streets and cycling improvements

The local government election 2025 delivered majorities for City Vision on the Albert-Eden and Waitematā Local Boards.  This was sweet vindication after the nasty culture war  election 3 years ago that drummed up angry opposition to everything from road cones to pedestrian crossings.

It turns out communities do want safe streets, cyclelanes and climate action. City Vision stood on a positive, policy-forward vision for a thriving, inclusive and liveable Auckland, in contrast to the fear-mongering campaign from the National Party-aligned C&R dictated by the coalition government’s agenda to slash local government services.

As Greater Auckland put it about the result “In other words, despite a barrage of headlines over recent years, and relentless attempts at derailment (including by the re-elected councillor for Waitematā & Gulf), it seems that multi-modal street upgrades like Pt Chev, Meola Road, Great North Road, the Inner West links, Project K, and Victoria St, not to mention the so-called ‘destruction’ of the city centre via CRL works and Quay St, Queen St, Te Ha Noa, and Te Komititanga… are not all that “controversial” after all… and in fact may be popular?”

It wasn’t the complete result we wanted but I’m really delighted to have been part of a campaign built on positive progressive policies supporting a great group of candidates.

City Vision’s wrap up of the result

Photos of some of the City Vision and community wins from the last 3 years.

How to vote for a liveable, thriving and inclusive Auckland

It is super easy to vote in the local government election on now.

If you are enrolled you will have received an orange envelope with your voting papers inside.  All it takes to have your say.

GET TICKING:  choose the candidates to represent you and your community  (I am backing City Vision as the only team with policies for a liveable, thriving and inclusive Auckland) 

STUFF IT: seal your vote inside the orange envelope 

DROP OFF:  take your vote to the library or a Woolworths supermarket right up until midday Saturday 11 October. 

If your voting paper hasn’t arrived, or you need more info, visit voteauckland.co.nz  

I am part of the campaign team for City Vision backing a great team of candidates who are really clear about what they stand for and their principles. City Vision has progressive policies for a liveable, thriving and inclusive region . City Vision brings together Labour, Greens & community independents committed to a  progressive vision for Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland

Make your own assessment:  Candidate surveys are a good way of comparing policies and positions

Mike Lee had his comeback – now it’s time for positive progressive leadership

Save our Safe Streets

Auckland Transport is in a lonely race to raise speeds on over 1400 residential streets mainly around school communities under the government’s Speed Rule. This is a deliberate decision while other cities like Hamilton and Dunedin are taking a more considered and rational approach.

I am part of growing alliance of leading road safety experts and transport advocates who are calling on Auckland’s Mayor to urgently intervene and halt any further speed limit reversals. This will prevent Auckland Transport wasting millions of dollars on making Auckland’s streets less safe, less healthy, and less efficient.

In addition over 400 people have signed an open letter to the Minister and Auckland Transport to let Aucklanders keep safe speeds.

Our latest media release here

Te Rimutahi a community-led development success story

Te Rimutahi at dusk May 2025

Te Rimutahi Ponsonby’s new civic space opened last month.    It is a wonderful thing to witness the successful completion of a project that has been over 25 years in the making especially as there were many moments when it didn’t look like it would get there.

The project goes back to a Boffa Miskell Ponsonby Open Space Study in 2000 that led to the  purchase of 254 Ponsonby Road in 2006 with funding from the Western Bays Community Board.  There are many parents who nurtured Te Rimutahi along the way.  

My part was initiating the community-led development process a decade ago.   This came about after the Waitematā Local Board consulted on the Ponsonby Road Plan including three options for the site.   When the feedback was reported to the local board council staff refused to provide an recommendation on the way forward because it wasn’t a funded project.  This left us a bit stuck especially as a petition was presented to the local board with over  1200 signatures calling for a ‘whole of site option’ rather than the sale of the rear portion to fund the project as envisaged when the site was purposed.

I pitched to Chair Shale Chambers the idea to using a community- led development process to achieve community support for the best outcome for the site. Fortunately Shale took a leap of faith and in May 2015 the City Vision-led Local Board committed funding to a community partnership approach. 

At the time I wrote: 

At Auckland Council we have been talking a lot about community-led development and empowered communities over the last 4 years . We’ve been introduced to the concepts through excellent visiting speakers such as Milenko Matanovic  and Jim Diers. We have a community-led development champions group convened by Roger Blakely, Chief Planner of which I am a member.  We have many community groups participating in shaping local services and placemaking but we don’t have many positive examples of Council putting community-led development into practice.

I am therefore really thrilled about the approach the Board has decided to take in response to the feedback on the development of 254 Ponsonby Road.

With community-led design group members Boopsie Moran and Jennifer Ward

What followed once a community-led design group was established is covered here in the history of Te Rimutahi. I was really relieved when the group’s design brief led to the LandLAB Park+ concept for the civic open space being chosen by the community and endorsed by the Local Board in 2017. It then took sustained advocacy to secure the funding and see the project through to completion 8 years later. 

The opening of Te Rimutahi, a name gifted by  Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei,  on 18 May 2025 was a fantastic community celebration of probably Aotearoa’s biggest project delivered through a community-led design process.

 

As cities across the world adopt safer speeds, Auckland is alone in abandoning them

Media release 

28 May 2025

As cities across the world adopt safer speeds, Auckland is alone in abandoning them

An international road safety expert based in Auckland condemns the city’s move to raise speed limits across over a thousand residential streets, town centres, and major public transport hubs.

“No other city in the world is ignoring the evidence and changing speed limits like this, let alone spending millions of dollars to make streets deliberately more dangerous and less efficient,” says Lennart Nout, director of Mobycon Pacific and international expert on street design. “Auckland Transport’s rush to reverse safe speeds at this scale is unprecedented in a global setting. It goes against not only many of Auckland’s own plans and policies, but against international trends and the huge body of evidence confirming the benefits of reduced speed limits on residential streets.”

  Mr Nout joins a growing alliance of leading road safety experts and transport advocates who are calling on Auckland’s Mayor to urgently intervene and halt any further speed limit reversals. This will prevent Auckland Transport wasting millions of dollars on making Auckland’s streets less safe, less healthy, and less efficient. In addition over 400 people have signed an open letter to the Minister and Auckland Transport to let Aucklanders keep safe speeds.

Speaking on behalf of the group, Pippa Coom, All Aboard Aotearoa adviser and former Auckland Councillor, says “Auckland’s leaders have a responsibility to urgently call a halt on the speed raises. This will allow time for a full assessment of the safety implications and impact on communities, and will give Auckland Transport the opportunity to apply the safer NZTA-approved approach used by other cities to keep their people safe.”

Upside down variable speed sign and a 50kmh sign on the approach to a school crossing in the Pt Chevalier

“For months, we have been alerting AT’s Board and CEO to multiple red flags that show their approach to the Speed Rule makes no sense. With incoherent and incomprehensible signage now appearing on our streets, everyone can see an urgent halt is needed before it is too late. Only today a sign has been installed upside down amid a mix of contradictory speed limits around a school in the suburb of Pt Chevalier.”

“There is no doubt that AT’s actions will lead to increased road trauma, as the safer speeds currently being removed were forecast to avoid 564 Deaths and Serious Injuries (DSI) over 10 years. Other cities have found a pragmatic and sensible approach to the Speed Rule – what’s Auckland Transport’s excuse?” says Ms Coom.

“By rushing through reversions to higher speeds in our neighbourhoods, around our schools, transport hubs and town centres, AT’s leadership and their traffic engineers are directly contravening their statutory responsibilities and ethical duty to maintain a safe transport network and to reduce risks,” says Greater Auckland’s Connor Sharp. “Instead, AT is creating a Kafkaesque road safety nightmare.”

“Moreover, this is very publicly sabotaging major new investment in City Rail Link, public transport and cycling infrastructure, by raising speeds in large swathes of Meadowbank, Maungawhau, Pt Chevalier, Avondale, Homai, Te Atatū South and elsewhere [as covered in detail here by Greater Auckland]. This will produce worse urban environments with deadly consequences,” says Mr Sharp.

Mr Nout notes that Auckland is completely alone in its policy of raising speed limits. “No other city in the world is actively working on making vehicle traffic go faster, specifically targeting residential streets. Quite the opposite: cities around the world, like Paris, London and Toronto are choosing to calm traffic, not just to reduce injuries and deaths, but to create healthier, more pleasant neighbourhoods. These cities are finding that there are no downsides to reducing the speed limit. Traffic flows just as well, quality of life improves and more people choose to walk and ride. In London for example, on the streets in areas where the speed limit was reduced, the number of deaths and serious injuries dropped by a staggering 34%. That makes these measures extremely cost-effective.”

“The current trajectory is not just dangerous, it’s internationally embarrassing. A swift and sensible solution is needed before our city becomes a global laughing stock,” says Ms Coom.  “Those who are responsible for Auckland’s roads must step away from this sorry path, which will harm people who live here and people who visit here. We call on the Mayor, AT and the Minister to take immediate restorative action to keep our streets safe and welcoming for all.”

ENDS

Contacts

Lennart Nout – Director of Mobycon Pacific – 028 8514 8050
Pippa Coom, All Aboard Aotearoa Adviser and former Auckland Councillor – 022 3938763
Connor Sharp, Greater Auckland spokesperson  – 021 179 5729

Incoherent variable speed sign, Avondale
Incorrect variable speed sign, Onehunga

 

 

The Great North Road upgrade project is underway after a 10 year saga

 

First published in The Spinoff   (NOTE: this is the Spinoff’s heading and the image used by the Spinoff is of the community-led vision commissioned by the Grey Lynn Residents Association and not the final design which is available on the AT website.)

The Great North Road upgrade is a triumph for AT – whether the mayor likes it or not

A small stretch of road has come to define the struggle for control between Wayne Brown and Auckland Transport. With work on the upgrade project finally under way, former councillor Pippa Coom looks back at the contentious 10-year saga.

A roadside karakia blessing last Monday marked the official start of the long-delayed Great North Road improvement project . For many of us assembled at dawn, the overwhelming emotion was relief that the wrangling was finally over. After years of delay, Aucklanders are getting an exemplary design that delivers multiple upgrades for the price of one. Even better, it tackles head-on the various grumbles floating around regarding transport in Auckland, by leveraging existing budgets to get bang for AT’s buck while delivering a project which is what the community actually wants.

And yet, the mayor wasn’t there at the photo op to wish Great North Road well. Why not? To explain that, we need to zoom out. The mayor ended 2024 on a high note by delivering on his campaign promise of  “Auckland taking back control”. Transport minister Simeon Brown confirmed legislative support for ending the statutory independence of AT, and councillors have unanimously backed the mayor to start the structural changes needed to regain control of this council-controlled organisation.

The Great North Road upgrade has long been one of the mayor’s favourite punching bags, Last year he said it was an example of AT’s stubborn refusal to listen to reason on the vexed issue of raised crossings; in 2023, he called the road’s cycleway “the worst waste of money I have ever seen”.

He got it wrong. In fact, the Great North Road upgrade shows AT at its best, responding to community needs and interests while cleverly leveraging a tight budget and planning for a more resilient future – exactly as directed by council. At the same time, the project has been beset by shameful delays due to political meddling and the undue influence of a handful of vocal opponents.

It’s taken 10 years for this project to even make it to the starting line. In 2015, prime minister John Key’s Urban Cycleway Programme funded a redesign of Great North Road as part of a package of Inner West improvements. Work was finally set to commence in late 2022, when the mayor and councillor Mike Lee (backed by Communities & Residents, aka C&R) attempted to bypass lawful council processes. Against the wishes of the community, they directed AT to halt the projects.

Their last-ditch opposition ran roughshod over a decade of planning and repeated supportive public consultations. The mayor appears to have formed his position based on the feedback of cycleway “saboteurs”, along with his preference for riding on the footpath when he doesn’t feel safe on the road.

He’s not wrong to worry about safety. In early 2023, shortly after the mayor was photographed cycling on the footpath past St Joseph’s School on Great North Road, an errant driver crashed into the bus shelter, taking out a section of school fence and two nearby trees.

Everyone who travels this stretch of road deserves to arrive in one piece. So, while it was a relief to attend the dawn karakia marking the start of the improvements at last, it was a shame the mayor didn’t make it, nor the local ward councillor and C&R reps.

AT CEO Dean Kimpton speaks after the karakia blessing led by Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei’s CeeJ Gilbert and Mervyn Kerehoma (Photo: Pippa Coom)

Had the mayor been there, he might finally have been convinced to stop beating AT up about this long-awaited project and others like it. The Great North Road upgrade represents great value for money, using a “dig once” approach to leverage the regular maintenance budget. Century-old water pipes have already been replaced as part of the enabling work. Next comes the repair of the crumbling road surface (sections of which are old enough to vote), during which AT’s contractor will take the opportunity to install dynamic bus lanes and add 200 trees.

In an ideal world, transport planning and street design help guide how the surrounding land is developed, who lives there, and how they get around. Unfortunately, this project is playing very belated catch-up – finally creating a smart and efficient boulevard fit for the thousands of people who live on the ridge, and the many more set to join them.

Once the project is completed, the transporter trucks that serve Great North Road’s remaining car yards will finally be able to operate legally, taking advantage of new loading zones rather than parking across bus stops or on the flush median. Children at local schools will gain safer crossings, and dedicated bike lanes will enable more to bike-commute from the Inner West. Everyone, including drivers, will benefit from better street design, with raised tables across side streets boosting visibility and accessibility for all.

It shouldn’t have been so hard to get to this point, given the strong community support. Over 50 organisations, including the Grey Lynn Residents’ Association, three local business associations, seven local schools, and other groups, have begged AT to get on with it – with delegations from the schools pleading the case again and again.

Having made their needs and interests crystal clear, all these Aucklanders deserved enthusiastic political backing that directed AT towards fuss-free delivery. Instead, the Grey Lynn community faced years of exhausting campaigning to keep the project alive – through deliberations by the local board, council, the AT board, and repeated attempts by the mayor to defund the project right up to the 11th hour.

In this context, AT’s board and its CEO Dean Kimpton deserve congratulations for delivering the promised project, and for not allowing political interference to override expert design and community will. They should be applauded for their tenacity. The mayor and the ward councillor should have been at the dawn blessing, with smiles and handshakes all round.

As the AT reforms roll out and Auckland gears up for the local government election this year, let’s keep the saga of Great North Road in mind. More direct political accountability and more local decision-making sounds great. But being “back in local control” of transport must lead to confident, timely delivery of real wins for all Aucklanders – not a hollowed-out organisation that succumbs to the ideological whims and dictates of the mayor and minister of the day

Submission in opposition to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill 2024

UPDATED AND SENT 4 JANUARY 2025

Submissions can be made on the Bill until 11.59pm on 7 January 2025.

My submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill 2024

Introduction

I have read the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill 2024 (the Bill).  I oppose the Bill.

The Bill has been promoted as an opportunity to have a “national conversation” on the place of the principles in our constitutional arrangements.  I agree that public debate is needed and a shared understanding of why The Treaty of Waitangi/ Te Tiriti is a significant foundational document of Aotearoa New Zealand. That debate must start with and be informed by Te Tiriti.  It needs to be a debate based on good faith, with accurate information and undertaken with the full involvement of Māori.  

The Bill’s principles as drafted bear no resemblance to Te Tiriti and is an attempt to rewrite the Treaty articles. The promoters of the Bill have deliberately skewered the debate. Te Tiriti is not a threat to the basic rights enjoyed by all New Zealanders. Equality is already safeguarded in New Zealand law, including through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  The Bill of Rights makes clear in s 19(2) that sometimes people need to be treated differently in order to achieve equality.

All New Zealanders benefit from Te Tiriti as it provides a place for everyone to belong, allows for respectful relationships to flourish and ensures a strong and just foundation for lasting decision making.

My Background

I am making this submission in my personal capacity. I immigrated to Aotearoa from the UK with my family at the age of 14.  I consider myself to be Tangata Tiriti. I’m fortunate to have had the opportunity to study The Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi first at Auckland Girls’ Grammar School in history classes and then as part of my law degree from the University of Otago.  As a solicitor at the Ministry of Fisheries (now part of MPI) I was responsible for delivering staff “Treaty Training” led by the late Sir Wira Gardiner.  I attended Waitangi Day celebrations at Waitangi in 2018 for the first time.  I would recommend this amazing experience of kotahitanga to all New Zealanders.

I have found that non-Māori often lack basic knowledge about Aotearoa New Zealand’s history and are not familiar with the articles or principles of the Treaty or how it came to be signed. Promoters of the Bill are exploiting this information gap to stir up baseless anxiety and fear about the status of Te Tiriti and a distorted view of the benefits and rights provided by Te Tiriti. 

There is also a lack of understanding regarding the harm caused since 1840 as a result of the Crown breaching Te Tiriti and the huge loss that has been suffered by Māori, including land confiscation, disruption of their social structures, and erosion of their culture. 

I took part in the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in Tāmaki Makarau because I am deeply concerned with the lasting damage the Bill will cause and the escalating attacks on Te Tiriti and the undermining of indigenous rights.  I saw this in action first hand as co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum (2020-2022) when individuals associated with Hobson Pledge and Democracy Now mounted a misinformation campaign via an astro-turf group (Gulf Users Group) set up by Franks Oglivie. This group made baseless and harmful claims that the Forum’s co-governance advocacy would result in a loss of rights to access the Gulf.   Supporters and funders of the Treaty Principles Bill are using many of the same tactics to create fear and division in the name of “equality”.

As I have experienced as a former Auckland Councillor, Te Tiriti relationships are in fact a source of strength and lasting decision making that requires the parties to keep working together with respect and in good faith. 

Reasons to oppose the Bill 

There are many reasons to condemn and reject the Bill.  It has followed a fundamentally flawed process and seeks to negatively undermine in the most damaging way our constitutional document. It is being promoted as providing “equality” when in fact Te Tiriti is not a threat to the basic rights enjoyed by all New Zealanders. The Bill will create uncertainty, result in unnecessary cost and undermine social cohesion.  The Bill has multiple substantive problems that have been well canvassed by a wide range of experts. 

In summary I strongly oppose the Bill for the following reasons:

  • The Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a binding agreement between the Crown and Māori which is fundamental to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. 
  • It is undermining to NZ’s democracy for a government to unilaterally alter a binding  agreement especially without the agreement of Māori as the Treaty partner. The approach that has been taken to the Bill offends against justice, and is deliberately inflammatory. As Dame Jenny Shipley has said this is irresponsible politics, and extremely divisive.
  • The existing “Treaty Principles” have been developed and applied by the Courts over the past 50 years in particular the principle of partnership.  
  • By progressing the Bill the Crown is breaching the Treaty Principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the Article 2 guarantee of rangatiratanga. 
  • The Bill has come about through an incredibly poor process. It has been drafted without any consultation with the original parties to the agreement. That’s fundamentally unjust, as 42 King’s Counsel have warned. 
  • The Bill does not reflect any credible interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or the principles based on either text. 
  • The new Treaty Principles are purported to reflect the three Articles of Te Tiriti but do not do that at all. By imposing a contested definition of the three articles, the Bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself.
  • The Bill’s undermining of Article 2, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga is particularly concerning. An interpretation of Article 2 that does not recognise the collective rights held by iwi and hapū, or the distinct status of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.
  • The Bill is divisive and harmful. It will reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/Te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Māori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Māori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion in Aotearoa, New Zealand. 
  • The Bill will remove controls on privatisation and environmental degradation.
  • In addition, rather than providing certainty and clarity as claimed the Bill will result in protracted litigation and cost. 

I agree with the Treaty Principles Regulatory Impact Statement recommendation to stay with the status quo – the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal should continue to articulate the meaning of the Treaty principles in line with existing practice.

In drafting my submission I referred to many resources in particular the letter from 42 Kings Counsel expressing grave concerns about the Bill and outlining why it should be abandoned.

Conclusion

There is no place for the Bill in our constitutional arrangements and it should be firmly opposed. The Government should instead take steps to urgently repair Māori–Crown relationship and strengthen Te Tiriti for the benefit of all. 

To safeguard Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the select committee must condemn and reject this indefensible Bill.

I wish to speak to my submission.

Further resources I have found useful in making my submission

The Treaty Principles Bill 

Together for Te Tiriti

Amnesty International submission guide

Dame Anne Salmond writing for Newsroom

Honor the Treaty website 

Submission of Barrister Max Harris 

The real reason behind Act’s push to redefine the Treaty principles, Rupert O’Brien in The Spinoff

Greg Presland submission guide

Ngā mihi nui Thank you

A huge thank you to everyone who stood up in all the various ways to support the More for You, Better for Auckland campaign. Unfortunately we were not successful.

Our positive and energising volunteer-led campaign came together in an super short timeframe. We went into it knowing this is an incredibly difficult election to contest as the incumbents control the election rules. However, we felt the energy threats and opportunities are too great not to have contested the election for NZ’s largest energy consumer trust after 3 decades of C&R control.

The result is not unexpected but still a shock that voter turnout fell to just 9.36% (down from 9.64% in 2021). Unfortunately the hurdles to democracy are just too great in NZ’s most undemocratic election. (our final campaign media release)

With more future-focused strategic leadership of Vector, Aucklanders could continue to enjoy the annual dividend plus solar-powered resilient community hubs, cheaper power, and reduced levels of energy poverty. Above all, Aucklanders deserve an Entrust that runs transparent and fair elections, and that is accountable to the community. We are now considering the options for next steps.

Thank you everyone who gave us their support and took the time to vote – we know it is not easy!

We are really heartened to have gathered so much support across a wide network and to have shone a light on what’s possible for Tāmaki Makaurau.

It’s now in C&R’s hands to run an election that makes this a fair and honest contest of ideas.

Why new leadership is needed on Entrust.

Hurdles to democracy too great in NZ’s most undemocratic election

More for you, Better for Auckland Media release: 30 October 2024

Following a record low turnout of 9.39% of eligible voters, the leadership of Entrust, New Zealand’s largest community energy trust, will once again remain unchanged. This confirms the incumbents repeatedly choose to run the elections to benefit themselves, not Aucklanders, say challengers from the independent More for You, Better for Auckland ticket.

This was, once again, a short postal election, minimally advertised, and characterised by multiple barriers to voting and a lack of coverage of the critical election issues.

“We knew challenging National party backed C&R for the Entrust leadership would be difficult, given the low turnout and the timing of the Entrust dividend payout just before the election started. However, the hurdles to democracy were just too great – and the extent to which C&R control the election process to their advantage was even more shocking than we’d imagined,” says Patrick Reynolds, spokesperson for the independent progressive group who came together to challenge C&R’s three-decade grip on Entrust.

The result is not unexpected but should alarm everyone who cares about democracy, the cost of power, and the energy independence and resilience of our largest city.  We will, therefore, be considering what legal and legislative options are available to modernise the election” said Mr Reynolds

Voter turnout this year fell to just 9.39%, even lower than the previous record low turnout of 9.64% in 2021. C&R has known for many decades that the voting system they run is not fit for purpose. And yet, they have taken no steps to update the 1993 Entrust Trust Deed, ensuring they continue to “win” New Zealand’s least democratic election.

Entrust is the only community energy trust using a postal vote for its triennial election of trustees. It’s also the only one that pays a dividend just before voting gets underway. Moreover:

  • C&R allocates zero budget to promote or advertise the Entrust Election.

  • C&R provides no visible information about the Election on the Entrust website – only a link that is hidden behind a screen-sized advertisement for the Entrust dividend.

  • C&R allocates over $1.3m to distributing and advertising this dividend, just before voting starts – and only advertise their candidacy in the context of the dividend.

  • C&R has maintained a 16-day postal voting period, despite shrinking postal services –  resulting in voting papers not arriving until up to 6 days after voting started.

  • C&R held the 2024 Entrust AGM 2 hours after the cut-off for posting votes, ensuring the electorate was not fully informed about a number of serious issues that were raised at Entrust’s only public meeting.

The one “innovation” C&R introduced this year was “rubbish bin” ballot boxes, made available at 10 Woolworth supermarkets for the entire Entrust District. As candidate Paul Young said as voting got underway “When I was first sent a photo of the ballot box in a Woolworth supermarket, I thought it must be a joke to use an orange rubbish bin. The Aucklanders I am speaking to are very surprised that Entrust would be so disrespectful to democracy. This is yet another disincentive to vote, if the ballot box doesn’t look like an official drop-off point for important voting documents.

“They are also hard to find, as there are only 10 ballot boxes for the whole of the Entrust district – and no Entrust map of the locations.”

Despite the many hurdles to participating in the Entrust election, including the cost of campaigning across such a large area with 323,000 voters, More for You, Better for Auckland was determined to offer Aucklanders a positive alternative with fresh leadership.

“I’m really proud of More for You, Better for Auckland’s campaign,” says Patrick Reynolds. “Within a very short timeframe, we brought together a strong line-up of candidates. We presented voters with future-focused and expert-backed policies that respond to all the energy threats and opportunities of our age. The response to our volunteer-led campaign was positive and energising.”

“You have to ask: how pathetic would the turnout have been, had we not publicised the election and the issues?

“With more future-focused strategic leadership of Vector, as envisioned by More for You, Better for Auckland, Aucklanders could continue to enjoy the annual dividend plus solar-powered resilient community hubs, cheaper power, and reduced levels of energy poverty. Above all, Aucklanders deserve an Entrust that runs transparent and fair elections, and that is accountable to the community.”

A huge thank you to everyone who stood up in all the various ways to support the More for You, Better for Auckland campaign. We are really heartened to have gathered so much support across a wide network and to have shone a light on what’s possible for Tāmaki Makaurau.  It’s now in C&R’s hands to run an election that makes this a fair and honest contest of ideas.