How a debate about asset sales became a fascinating real-time case study in co-governance and what it means to uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Windbag is The Spinoff’s Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. It’s made possible thanks to the support of The Spinoff Members.
Last week, Wellington City Council voted not to sell its 34% share in the airport, finally ending a completely overblown debate. Wellington Airport is not a publicly owned and controlled asset – the council is a minority shareholder with no real power. It’s really just a question of investment philosophy. However, because “asset sales” is a toxic phrase for many in this country, it quickly became a melodrama starring the ghost of a still-alive Roger Douglas.
The scenes that played out on Thursday in front of a packed public gallery in the council chambers were some of the most compelling moments of political intrigue I’ve ever witnessed, scripted or unscripted. It was the stuff Aaron Sorkin would dream up in a cocaine-fuelled frenzy. But the most interesting part wasn’t anything to do with public ownership of assets; it was a fight about New Zealand’s founding document, our core constitutional principles, and what it means to uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi in the modern day.
The central character was Nikau Wī Neera, the 25-year-old councillor representing the city’s Māori ward. He’s green by experience and Green by party affiliation. He is strongly opposed to selling public assets and voted against the sale when it first came up in the council’s Long Term Plan committee.
Now, let’s do a Sorkin-esque walk-and-talk while we discuss an excessive amount of exposition. In 2021, Wellington City Council added two iwi representatives (pouiwi) to all council committees, one each from Ngāti Toa and Taranaki Whānui, the recognised mana whenua of Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Despite misconceptions, the iwi representatives do not have voting rights on council, just on committees. All committee decisions have to be approved by a council vote before they are official. The version of the Long Term Plan that included selling the airport passed in committee by a narrow margin with the support of both pouiwi reps.
However, without the two pouiwi votes, there was a 9-7 majority of councillors against the airport sale. Wī Neera, along with Ben McNulty and Nureddin Abdurahman (the “Airport Three”), introduced a council vote to stop the sale. That put Wī Neera in a difficult position. In order to get the outcome he wanted, he had to do it in a forum that would exclude the votes of the pouiwi. In her attempts to save the sale, mayor Tory Whanau leaned heavily on the argument that it would be wrong to override mana whenua voices.
Kara Puketapu-Dentice, chief executive of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o Te Ika, addressed the council ahead of Thursday’s meeting. He was hurt and frustrated that his iwi had been used as a political football. “Whether you sell or keep the airport, Taranaki Whānui does not care,” he said. “But if the decision is made in a manner that attempts to silence our mana whenua voice, we can only see it as a breach of our relationship and partnership with each other… Long after the votes are cast, we will remember.”
It was notable that the two people he was most directly addressing, Wī Neera and Whanau, are both Māori. It was a reminder that te Tiriti is not an agreement between Māori and Pākehā; it is an agreement between iwi and the Crown – between institutions, whoever their leaders happen to be. Wellington City Council, which gets its authority through the Crown, holds the authority of kāwanatanga, granted by Article 1. The two iwi hold the powers of rangatiratanga, acknowledged and protected by Article 2. Everyone else in the room, the individual citizens (including the former councillor who kept signing and muttering at any mention of the Treaty), was granted their rights by Article 3.
Are two votes on the council committee the most appropriate way to recognise the authority of rangatiratanga? No, but it’s a step in the right direction. Wellington City Council is a leader when it comes to acknowledging the responsibilities of kāwanatanga. Given the current makeup of the central government, it is arguably the leader.
For the Airport Three, their deeply held beliefs about public ownership of assets conflicted with deeply held beliefs about te Tiriti. It’s these moments that matter the most – not the times when it is easy, but the times when it is hard. Then, something incredible happened: a politician admitted they were wrong. “A chief of Taranaki has addressed us here today,” Wī Neera began his speech. “As Māori ward councillor, I represent the bridge between the institution and mana whenua. The responsibility ought to have been mine, and I have failed.”
In a surprise move, Wī Neera amended his motion so that instead of the council stopping the sale, it would send the decision back to the committee with the clear message that the council did not want to sell the shares. It was a risky strategy. If no one changed their votes, the committee could have sent it straight back to the council and started the fight all over again. “There is a right way to win and a wrong way to win,” Wī Neera said. “If we are to win, it becomes us to win on values.” After the meeting, the mayor’s office confirmed it wouldn’t pursue the sale in committee again. The council will keep its 34% stake in the airport.
It was an impressive piece of manoeuvring from Wī Neera, who managed to wriggle out of the conflict with the iwi while still getting the result he wanted on the airport sale. For Whanau, it’s a difficult loss, but it may have silver linings – she can start to rebuild her relationship with the activist left who came out so strongly against the sale. For the council, it means the Long Term Plan will need to be rewritten by December with further cuts. That will be an ugly and unpopular process. The council’s relationship with mana whenua is damaged, but not irreparably. It will take a lot of work, but there is an opportunity to move forward in partnership.