We let you know about Whanganui District Council's sneaky co-governance (they vote on it on Thursday) and sadly we have to advise you of another sneaky scheme...

Rotorua Lakes Council's Co-Governance Plans

Rotorua Lakes Council are attempting to bring in co-governance via the Te Arawa Partnership Plan.

The Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers (RDRR) Association have written to the Minister of Local Government to urge ministerial intervention. They shared this letter with us and here are some important excerpts:

In September 2024, the Te Arawa Partnership Working Party Facilitator’s Report called for embedding Te Arawa 2050 principles into governance and proposed the establishment of a Te Arawa Vision Committee to formalise extended co-governance arrangements. Council subsequently endorsed this direction without authentic public consultation.

Rotorua’s Long-Term Plan 2024-2034: Implications for Governance

Under Mayor Tania Tapsell, after the thwarted Local Bill, expectations for inclusive democratic processes were high. However, the Long-Term Plan (LTP) adopted on November 1, 2024, entrenched the Te Arawa Partnership Plan as the primary governance framework, sidelining other interest groups. This contradicts the Coalition Government’s 2023 mandate to democratise local governance and focus on core services...

...The LTP explicitly privileges Te Arawa over other stakeholder groups, undermining equal representation.

The Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee: A Structural Power Shift

A significant governance shift occurred in late 2024 with the establishment of the Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee, a policy advisory subcommittee of Council. It comprises the mayor, all 10 councillors, and five TTOTAB members. Since nine of its 15 members whakapapa to Te Arawa,the committee effectively institutionalises co-governance , prioritising tribal interests over democratic decision-making.

The RDRR raised some important concerns with the minister and we share these concerns:

1. Overreach of the Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee:
   • The committee wields disproportionate influence, overriding rights of the 72 percent non-Māori electorate.
   • It subverts the LGA’s (Local Government Act) democratic principles of equal suffrage and pluralistic majoritarianism.
2. Lack of Public Consultation:
   • The committee was established without broad community engagement, violating the LGA’s (Local Government Act) requirements for transparent decision-making.
   • Te Arawa 2050 is being positioned to replace Vision 2030 without a public mandate.
3. Bias Towards Co-Governance:
   • The mayor and three Māori ward councillors appear to prioritise tribal interests over their duty to represent all constituents.
   • The Te Arawa Vision 2050 Committee’s structure and council’s executive influence signal a shift towards governance that favours a single minority group and minoritarianism.

We look forward to hearing what Minister Simon Watts has to say about this and will be pursuing answers of our own. Watch this space.

Our councils are clearly still dead set on smuggling anti-democratic co-governance into local government and apparently our universities are just as hellbent on establishing racial segregation in higher education.

University Pushing Racial Segregation in Higher Education

We’ve seen an internal email from a student at Canterbury University who was dismayed to learn that they were excluded from particular tutorials simply because of their race. The email outlined that "tutorials will prioritise first filling Māori and Pasifika students …with the goal to build whanaungatanga and manaakitanga."

This is being done in the name of whanaungatanga (kinship/connection) andmanaakitanga (kindness/respect/care). The irony of claiming such a motivation when they are excluding some students based on race! 

Invoking such principles does not magically absolve the university from its responsibilities to all students as stipulated in New Zealand law. We remind the university of its legal obligations under New Zealand’s Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act, and the Education and Training Act.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter how the university chooses to dress it up.

All students have the right to education and access to the relevant lectures, tutorials, and materials related to their courses.

I am writing to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Canterbury about this matter and I will be asking what the position of the university is concerning the access of all students, regardless of their race, to university courses, tutorials, and materials.

I'll also be requesting reassurance that if such discriminatory practices are occurring these will cease and staff will be instructed to comply with the aforementioned New Zealand laws.

We are keeping an eye on councils, universities, the public service, and on everyone who wants to divide us by race. We will keep you updated and call on your support to hold the powerful to account.

This is not the update I wanted to bring you. We are all so disappointed.

Janet Dickson's Judicial Review was not successful.

Janet Dickson is, of course, the real estate agent who was threatened by the Real Estate Authority with having her practising licence cancelled because she did not wish to take part in an online course on te reo Māori, tikanga, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hobson's Pledge and our supporters have backed Janet from the very beginning. We understand that compulsory Treaty courses are at best only peripherally connected to most professional employment. Additionally, these courses are inevitably highly subjective, politicised, and often factually dubious. And, it can hardly be denied that the heavy hand of cancelling practising licences for those who don’t comply, is coercive and abusive.

The court has said that real estate agents can be forced, under the current rules, to take part in mandatory courses or activities that have little or nothing to do with their professional work. And although cancelling a licence and imposing a five year ban from reapplying is a “harsh consequence”, the court 'shrugged,' saying it is a consequence allowed under the Real Estate Agents Act. 

This judgement will be worrying to many New Zealanders. It is not the place of real estate authorities, or any professional body, to force members to take part in ‘struggle sessions’ or courses that are effectively indoctrination.

I told the media in the press release we just sent out:

“It is not the place of real estate authorities, or any professional body, to foist political, religious, or cultural views onto its members."

This outrageous case highlights the need for the Government to update legislation on the powers of regulatory bodies as a matter of urgency. 

We call on Minister Nicole McKee and the Coalition Government to ensure that professional bodies do not get too big for their boots by forcing particular political and cultural views onto their memberships in ways that have nothing to do with the professional work being undertaken.

Janet's lawyers are working with our team to go through the judgment with a fine-toothed comb and we will provide you with a more comprehensive summary of what it says in the coming days.

Outrageous. That's the word of the day. Just outrageous.

Yesterday afternoon we received an apology from the Justice Select Committee for the incorrect public statements the Chair James Meager made about Hobson's Pledge. James Meager also made an apology on the livestream later in the day.

We appreciate the acknowledgement from the committee and understand that miscommunications happen. Unfortunately, however, despite being eager to report when we were being called political opportunists and liars, the media are unlikely to run stories on the apology.

That's life in New Zealand in 2025 when the media don't agree with you!

Anyway, this was just a quick update so that at least you know that we got an apology.

The Justice Select Committee haven't given Hobson's Pledge a slot to speak at the oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill.

Yes, you read that right – the largest, most vocal, and organised organisation advocating for ‘one law for all’ – and with more than 140,000 supporters – has not been given a speaking slot, while the likes of John Tamihere and Lady Moxon have been.

We are very grateful therefore to the team at Democracy Action who gave us their speaking slot today. We had anticipated that if not given a formal slot on Monday, then it was a given that we would be given a slot on Thursday. We therefore agreed to swap with Democracy Action. Just this morning though, the Democracy Action team got an email from the Committee Clerks saying no slot has been given to Hobson’s Pledge and so no swap is currently possible.

We view this is as totally outrageous. As I noted above, Hobson’s Pledge is a leading voice in this debate and supported by thousands upon thousands of kiwis. It is incomprehensible how our leading organisation could be ignored by this committee and it does beg serious questions about this whole process.

Again, our thanks to Democracy Action for giving us their slot and we will be advocating that they be given a time to also speak. The committee seems very happy to allow voices in opposition, but it appears less helpful when it comes to those in support of this Bill.

Tune in via the Parliament website or RNZ's livestream from around 2.20pm to hear our presentation and get in touch – be it via email or on our social media – to let us know what you thought. Only ten minutes have been allocated, so it will have to be direct and to the point.