An older man stands with an intense expression, surrounded by headlines about media criticism, data misuse, political donations, and organizational scrutiny. Red lines radiate from his head, indicating tension or stress.

John Tamihere. (Image: Supplied, additional design: The Spinoff)

OPINIONĀteaMarch 6, 2025

Dear John, we can’t always blame racism

Ātea editor

John Tamihere. (Image: Supplied, additional design: The Spinoff)

John Tamihere, Waipareira Trust and Te Pāti Māori have faced scrutiny over financial dealings and political entanglements – but dismissing all criticism as racism risks damaging the credibility of kaupapa Māori governance.

Tamihere appears to be a staunch believer in the sporting adage that the best defence is a good offence. The Pāti Māori president and Te Whānau o Waipareira chief executive has been on a crusade in recent months, calling out pretty much anybody even slightly critical of him or organisations he is involved with as “racist”.

“Anyone that has got a gripe in their ugly little lives – their marriages aren’t going good, finances aren’t going good – [they] blame the horis,” Tamihere said on a radio interview earlier this week. “It’s a cathartic event for non-Māori in terms of taking it out on us to blame us for all their woes in the world.”

Being criticised for receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest-free loans from a charitable trust to sponsor your own political aspirations? Racist. An inquiry being launched into Manurewa Marae and the potential misuse of census data by Te Pāti Māori? Racist. Giving other potential Whānau Ora commissioning agencies a chance to pitch for funding? Racist. Te Pāti Māori being told to file a financial statement, as required under law and already done by every other political party? Racist.

Like many Māori, I have had my fair share of racist experiences in Aotearoa. I’m sure John Tamihere has too. I have no doubt that racism remains deeply entrenched, both systemically and in specific instances, throughout Aotearoa. I know Manurewa Marae, Te Pāti Māori and Te Whānau o Waipareira do incredible work in the communities they serve. I am sure these organisations and the people involved with them have been subjected to racist attacks on several occasions – you don’t need to look far to see examples of it. However, what I do reject is the idea that every single time a Māori person in a position of power, or a Māori organisation open to public scrutiny has its integrity questioned, those questions are motivated by racism.

I’m involved in governance, chairing my whānau trust and an incorporated society for my hapū. We might not have tens of millions in assets and cash reserves like Waipareira Trust, but we do still have legal obligations and requirements. I know this, our trustees and committee members know this, and John Tamihere knows this. I’ve received reminders and warnings about filing financial statements – it’s nothing novel, nor is it anything to do with my race.

At the core of this issue is accountability. In any democratic system, public institutions and charities – especially those entrusted with millions in funding – must be transparent and open to scrutiny. This isn’t about singling out Waipareira or Te Pāti Māori unfairly. Many Māori-led organisations navigate complex funding landscapes, often facing systemic barriers that mainstream charities do not. However, that does not exempt them from upholding high standards of governance.

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’

Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor

Tamihere’s approach risks undermining the very cause he claims to serve. When every critique is framed as an attack on Māori, it can weaken the ability to call out real and harmful racism when it occurs. Even worse, it can erode public trust in kaupapa Māori institutions and provide an easy excuse for those who already doubt their legitimacy.

The case of Waipareira Trust’s pending deregistration underscores why accountability matters. After a four-year battle with Charities Services, the trust was reportedly facing deregistration late last year amid allegations of mismanagement, conflicts of interest and political activity inconsistent with its charitable status. Its financial dealings – including over $385,000 in interest-free loans to Tamihere for his political campaigns – highlight blurred lines between governance and personal ambition. The recent near-doubling of executive salaries – making Waipareira’s leadership the highest-paid charity executives in Aotearoa – raises further questions about financial stewardship.

Adding to this, an inquiry into data protection further pointed out the risks of inadequate oversight. The Public Service Commission found that government agencies, including Stats NZ and the Ministry of Health, failed to implement necessary safeguards in their agreements with Te Pou Matakana, Waipareira Trust and Manurewa Marae. The lack of proper data security controls and conflict of interest protections created an environment where personal information collected for the census and Covid-19 vaccinations could potentially be misused. These matters have been referred by the public service commissioner to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, but the agency failures identified in the report, especially when set against the background of Tamihere’s crusade to have access to information, reinforce the case for stronger accountability measures. New government contracts with these entities have been temporarily suspended until proper safeguards are established.

This is not just about Waipareira, though. Charities must be politically neutral, ensuring public funds and taxpayer benefits serve the public good, not partisan ambitions. However, Waipareira’s financial support for Te Pāti Māori – including hosting campaign events and providing logistical support – has repeatedly raised red flags. These actions blur the necessary boundary between charitable work and political engagement, which is a risk not just for Waipareira but for the integrity of kaupapa Māori governance as a whole.

At the same time, it is easy to see why Tamihere is critical of the system in which he operates. There are a raft of broader systemic challenges Māori organisations face. Many kaupapa Māori charities and service providers work in a system that has historically excluded them from equitable access to funding. There is an ongoing struggle for Māori-led organisations to receive the same level of support as their mainstream counterparts. However, the solution cannot be to sidestep accountability. In fact, strengthening financial transparency and governance would only reinforce the case for greater funding and self-determination for Māori-led organisations.

Where do we go from here? The future of kaupapa Māori governance depends on robust accountability structures that reflect Māori values while also ensuring transparency. Strong independent governance, clear financial policies and a commitment to political neutrality will protect organisations like Waipareira from accusations of misconduct and safeguard their ability to serve our communities effectively. At a time when Māori sovereignty and equity remain under threat, we cannot afford to let internal mismanagement erode the very foundations of tino rangatiratanga.

Tamihere has built his career on being a fighter, a man unafraid to speak his mind, a political maestro who takes no prisoners. This combative energy has served him well in many instances. But not every battle requires a patu. Sometimes, leadership means listening instead of lashing out. While we should never remain bystanders in the face of racism, it takes strength, too, to accept the need for accountability and scrutiny.

Keep going!

Two men in suits smiling. A sign with "SELL" in bold letters is held between them. The background features stylized, abstract plant shapes on a gradient green backdrop.

OPINIONĀteaFebruary 24, 2025

No penance in privatisation

Tayla Forward

Guest writer

Selling state-owned assets to Māori isn’t the way to create economic wealth for Māori, argues Tayla Forward.

When Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick first pursued a line of questioning on whether the government would sell publicly owned assets into private ownership, the prime minister called her approach “conspiratorial”. David Seymour has more recently appeared intent to turn “conspiracy theories” into reality, urging New Zealanders to “get past their squeamishness” about privatisation, and put large-scale public asset sales back on the table.

The prime minister is also squeamish. Pressure from Seymour collides with deputy prime minister Winston Peters reasserting his career-long record of keeping assets “in our possession”. Luxon has made sounds of a shifting stance, telling reporters his party is open to longer-term discussions about asset sales, possibly campaigning on specific proposals next year. The pro-privatisation side of the coalition seems to be gaining traction.

Some see a unique opportunity. Caught between coalition partners and “strapped for cash” at a time of a crossroads in Crown-Māori relations, it was recently suggested that “in a serious conversation about privatisation of state-owned assets that are retained onshore, there is no better partner for the Crown than the partner it already has – iwi/hapū Māori”.

We’ve seen similar arguments play out recently at the local government level. One argument advanced by proponents of the controversial – and ultimately doomed – proposal to sell Wellington City Council’s stake in Wellington Airport was that the shares might be sold to iwi.

For those committed to honouring te Tiriti, the idea has an intuitive appeal. There is indeed a serious and overdue conversation to be had about how to resource Māori sovereignty, and what this could look like. Could expanding the Māori asset base through the sale of Crown assets avoid the historic pitfalls of privatisation, while offering penance for the advancing Treaty principles bill?

This idea might appeal at first glance, but it is ultimately misguided.

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’

Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer

Those supporting progressive change and an empowered sphere of tino rangatiratanga in Aotearoa should hold the line against asset sales. We should not soften to privatisation as penance for Treaty degradation. Real penance would mean withdrawing the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill, not entertaining a fraught bargain that undermines public services. We can advance Māori aspirations and prosperity without fuelling the fires of privatisation.

New Zealand’s privatisation track record speaks for itself. Previous waves under both the Key government and in the 1980s wrenched vital assets from public hands, leading to job losses, reduced services and concentrated wealth. The promised benefits – efficiency, reduced debt, increased investment – never materialised. Yet, the same arguments are being recycled, despite the evidence and experience of their limitations.

Moreover, the choice between privatisation and austerity is a false one. Current fiscal constraints are political choices, not immutable facts. The government claims to be “cash-strapped” while refusing to tax wealth and high incomes progressively. Through privatisation, Luxon’s desire to balance budgets without tax increases dovetails perfectly with Seymour’s fervent belief in market solutions. Their shared commitment to shrinking the state threatens any meaningful expansion of rangatiratanga.

Of course, selling public assets to iwi isn’t the same as selling to a multinational company. Māori can, and do, use wealth to deliver public goods with high standards of public accountability. This differs hugely from private capital, which is disciplined by market forces to pursue profit.

However, establishing the conditions for iwi ownership and Māori-led public service delivery is the opposite of the government’s recent thrust on the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill, which prioritise market liberalisation over the empowerment of local communities. Empowering iwi/hapū Māori to deliver public goods while weakening Te Tiriti is a contradiction.

It is no coincidence that the Treaty principles bill has been progressed in advance of a resurrected discussion of privatisation. As has been noted, Act, and their benefactors, do understand te Tiriti and they know that it stands as a major obstacle in their goal of deregulation and promoting laissez-faire economics. The Treaty has been an impediment to the privatisation agenda and redefinition of its principles serves in part to lay the groundwork for asset sales.

Put simply, when iwi are empowered as sovereign constitutional partners, Māori wealth is able to remain accountable to tangata Māori and deliver public goods, protected from the whims and wills of private interests. However, the more iwi are forced to operate as corporate entities within market constraints, the more Māori wealth resembles private wealth – it appears Act has the latter in mind. As long as tino rangatiratanga is subordinated to market forces, we have reason for caution.

Still, are assets gained by Māori through privatisation better than nothing? It seems unlikely. Certainly not while the Treaty principles bill proceeds, and the public services delivered by the government are intentionally starved and crumbling around us.

We should have our sights set on empowering local communities so that public services can be designed and delivered “by Māori, for Māori, of Māori”, as the late Moana Jackson put it. However, under-resourced devolution in the context of a weakened Treaty is unlikely to lead to empowered Māori solutions. Instead, with devolution through privatisation rather than genuine constitutional reform and enduring resourcing, the more likely outcome is that the Crown will abdicate responsibility for the delivery of public services, shifting that burden on to Māori while undermining Māori capacity to pick up the government’s slack. It is likely that public services will be curtailed significantly, to the detriment of all communities.

After all, it is not just the Crown’s asset base that Māori suffering helped build, but the private asset base too. Māori were dispossessed of almost all of their land. Why then, should a discussion of penance be limited only to those assets which survived previous waves of privatisation to remain in Crown hands? We should expand the Māori asset base at the expense of private capital, not at the expense of public goods and services.

Expansion of the iwi asset base, while valuable, cannot stand in for te Tiriti, or for constitutional transformation. There is no reason to lend support to an argument to privatise at all. The economic strength and independence of Māori can be supported by other means: first, by halting progress on the Treaty principles bill, then by questioning the austere fiscal backdrop upon which privatisation is being advanced, before opening a discussion of genuine and enduring resources for iwi/hapū Māori.