spinofflive
“They save, we pay”: the scene in Dunedin’s Octagon on Saturday (Photo: Tara Ward)
“They save, we pay”: the scene in Dunedin’s Octagon on Saturday (Photo: Tara Ward)

PoliticsSeptember 30, 2024

‘National hates the south’: On the ground at the Ōtepoti hospital protest

“They save, we pay”: the scene in Dunedin’s Octagon on Saturday (Photo: Tara Ward)
“They save, we pay”: the scene in Dunedin’s Octagon on Saturday (Photo: Tara Ward)

On Saturday, Tara Ward was one of 35,000 southerners who marched against the government’s proposed cuts to the new hospital.

My bus from the Ōtepoti Dunedin hill suburbs into the city usually only has a few people on it, but on Saturday morning, it stopped for passengers at every single stop. The Otago Regional Council had made buses free between 10am and 3pm, and as we drove along Highgate and wound down through Dunedin’s hills, more and more people got on. Most were retirees who wore warm hats and carried homemade protest signs under their arms. “I know where you’re going,” one grey-haired woman said to a stranger who sat next to her, their knitted heads quickly bowing together in conversation. 

Saturday was a blue sky day, a true Dunner stunner, clear and warm in the sun. By the time we left the full bus in the central city, George Street was packed with people – students, families with young kids, weary middle-aged people like my husband and me – all walking in one direction. Everyone was headed north towards the dental school, many wearing white “you save, we pay” campaign T-shirts, and everyone was talking about one thing: the government’s U-turn on the new Dunedin hospital. 

In July 2023, National campaigned in Dunedin on restoring funding to build the new hospital if it was elected. “Trust us,” Christopher Luxon promised, more than once, to the people of the south. Last week, minister of infrastructure Chris Bishop and minister of health Shane Reti arrived in town to announce that due to budget blowouts, the planned hospital redevelopment would either need to be reduced or done in stages. They are proposing two scaled-back options, but those critical of the decision say the proposed $3 billion cost is “a smokescreen” and that any reduction in services will result in lives being lost.

George Street, Ōtepoti Dunedin on Saturday (Photo: Dunedin City Council Facebook)

Southerners are generally stoic, non-demonstrative folk, but this news pissed a lot of people off.  So many, in fact, that when we turned right into Frederick Street just before 12pm, we were met by a sea of people. They filled the end of Great King Street next to the dental school and spilled across the road next to the current hospital, which for many years experts have said cannot be retrofitted. We stood under a row of kōwhai trees, their yellow blossoms offering shade from the sun, as a young boy in a blue sweatshirt quietly held a “You lied again” sign. 

“Don’t be sick, National,” read another sign, while “National puts the ‘N’ into cuts” was written neatly on a white bed sheet. Nearby, a protester held a beautiful orange cat wearing a white knitted top. “I knew someone would bring their cat,” someone said. 

At 12pm, members from the nurses’ union and city councillors weaved through the crowd to begin the march to the Octagon. As we began the slow walk along George Street, past Yaks n Yetis and Slick Willy’s, even people who weren’t marching were protesting. Retailers stood outside their shops and others sat on benches, all holding up those “they save, we pay” posters. I saw a nurse friend with her elderly mother outside the Meridian Mall, waving and cheering the marchers on. Outside Farmers, someone’s grandparents stood together in the sun and clapped. Unusually for a protest march, nobody on the street looked away. 

George Street, featuring protesting cat (Photo: Tara Ward)

“Build it once, build it right,” we chanted, over and over again. Next to me, a woman’s phone rang, but she couldn’t talk long – she was on the march. After several peaceful minutes, we saw the front of the march make the small rise up the hill to the Octagon, the nurses’ union’s purple flags snapping in the breeze. “First the ferries, now our health, National hates the south,” two impassioned marchers yelled. An elderly woman on crutches kept her own pace. “I’m going to need new hips when I get there,” she joked. 

At the Octagon, someone wearing a giant hoiho costume stood next to the Robbie Burns statue and a voice over the loudhailer announced that there were still protesters waiting to start the march at the dental school, 850 metres away. The wind blew the sound of their chants towards us as a team of doctors in scrubs wheeled a hospital bed onto the lawn and performed CPR on a dummy. I felt sad and angry and proud, all at the same time.  

“This is the biggest crowd we’ve seen in the Octagon since Danyan Loader came through in 92,” the protest MC told the crowd. The speeches began with Dunedin mayor Jules Radich, and in every one that followed, the message was clear: this isn’t just Dunedin’s hospital. This hospital serves the largest geographical region of any New Zealand health board, covering Rakiura Stewart Island, Invercargill, Gore, Queenstown, Central Otago, Maniototo and the Waitaki. It’s also a teaching hospital connected to the medical school at the University of Otago, a vital tool in training and research for clinicians and medical professionals. 

The view from the Octagon (Photo: Tara Ward)

Those who spoke were impassioned and angry. Registered nurse Linda Smillie argued that the government’s decision was a deliberate choice; there is money to build new hospitals, but the coalition chooses to spend it on things like roads and tax relief for landlords. Others spoke about meticulously planning this hospital since 2007, where even the smallest cut in services means the hospital will no longer meet the needs of the south. Piri Tohu-Hapati from the Māori Medical Students Association called it “dire myopic short-sightedness” and said “to stall or cut corners is to be complicit in preventable deaths and long-term suffering”.

Former chair of the hospital advisory group (and ex-Labour minister of health) Pete Hodgson pointed out that the last pile for the new hospital was capped on Wednesday, one day before the government announcement. “The government wants the rest of New Zealand to think you’re being selfish by wanting a proper hospital,” former city councillor Richard Thomson told the crowd, while former ED doctor John Chambers put it simply: “This is about privatisation. This is exhausting.” Clutha district mayor Bryan Cadogan was particularly irate. “If you keep the original tower block, it won’t be long before it’s covered under the Historic Places covenant. What could go wrong?”

Near the end of the speeches, the Otago rescue helicopter flew low across the Octagon, and 35,000 heads – one quarter of Dunedin’s population – lifted skywards together. It was an unexpected, powerful reminder of everything that’s at stake, and the crowd burst into spontaneous applause. “Inadequate clinical facilities will result in patient deaths,” Smillie said moments earlier. “When that happens, I want it today to be very clear on whose shoulders the responsibility for those deaths rest on.” The clapping ended, and the crowd, now determined and united, sang an adapted version of the classic 90s Highlanders rugby banger

“Build our hospital,” we sang. “Your pre-election claim should not be a house of pain.”

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor
Keep going!
a faint copy of the Treaty of Waitangi overlaid with a water pipe, railway track, forest, coins, and david seymour
Image: The Spinoff

OPINIONPoliticsSeptember 30, 2024

The real reason behind Act’s push to redefine the Treaty principles

a faint copy of the Treaty of Waitangi overlaid with a water pipe, railway track, forest, coins, and david seymour
Image: The Spinoff

Some say the Treaty Principles Bill is rooted in ignorance, but Rupert O’Brien argues the Act Party is making a calculated move to remove a significant barrier to its privatisation and deregulation agenda.

While others have done a good job of introducing the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the debate around them, as well as explaining their complex history, to understand the push to redefine them, we need to kōrero about their impact on New Zealand’s political landscape.

Many political commentators think the Act Party doesn’t fully grasp the importance of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or lacks understanding of their real purpose. But this belief gives far too little credit to the party’s forward planning. Act, and their benefactors, do understand Te Tiriti, they remember the effects that it has had in the past, and they know that it stands as a major obstacle in their goal of deregulation and promoting laissez-faire economics.

They aim to achieve deregulation by, in part, turning government departments into state-owned enterprises (corporatising) and subsequently selling these as a going concern on the private market (privatising). Two of the Act Party’s largest donors at the last election, Graeme Hart and the Gibbs family, profited enormously after purchasing state assets in 1990 (the Government Printing Office and Telecom respectively).

The Treaty principles have proved a significant roadblock to both corporatisation and privatisation in the past and present a clear threat to any plans of future development of public assets to the private sector. This effect is likely one of the key, although unstated, reasons for the push to return Te Tiriti to its erstwhile status as a simple nullity.

Image: Tina Tiller

The Treaty principles have been increasingly deeply woven into New Zealand’s legal and economic landscape since their introduction to law in the 70s. They are an implicit part of the law of the land, they underpin every Treaty settlement and inform all future settlements and claims. The principles are (or at least ought to be) a guiding feature of all government decisions.

The idea of the principles was first introduced into law in the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975, which established the Waitangi Tribunal, whose remit is to investigate the meaning and effect of Te Tiriti and whether actions or omissions of the Crown are inconsistent with it. However, the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings and recommendations are not generally binding, and many governments have chosen to disregard or disagree with them.

In the 80s, Treaty principles clauses began to be written into important laws such as the State Owned Enterprises, Public Finance, Conservation, Resource Management and Environment Acts. When written into an act, the principles do have the ability to bind the Crown and allow the court, when applying the legislation, to prevent the government from acting contrary to these principles.

The principles’ first big moment in court, outside of the Waitangi Tribunal, was in 1987 in New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General, commonly known as the Lands case. In the Lands case the Māori Council challenged the decision of the fourth Labour government to corporatise “52% of the land area of the country, other assets worth some $11.8 billion at that time, and 54,000 staff members”, into state-owned enterprises.

The challenge was raised on the basis that the decision had been made without consideration of Te Tiriti or its principles and the transfer would remove, from Crown control, lands that might later be subject to Waitangi Tribunal claims. The Court of Appeal ruled that the government’s actions would be unlawful and directed that it cease and collaborate with the Māori Council to establish how this transfer could go ahead while staying in accordance with the principles.

The Lands case is historic and hugely important for a multitude of reasons. As legal precedent it articulated the meaning of the principles of Te Tiriti, in the context of its inclusion in legislation, and it led to a revitalisation of Te Tiriti in New Zealand’s constitutional framework. Materially, the process of collaboration with the Māori Council took two years, imposing a substantial postponement on the government’s deregulation plans.

After agreed changes to the legislation, a number of Crown assets were then transferred to state-owned enterprises as planned, and a number of these were later sold (or part-sold) to private interests. However, the sale of the assets remained subject to Treaty principles, which had significant effects. For example, the land owned by the New Zealand Railways Corporation was not sold, to ensure that the Treaty obligations could be met.

Other state privatisation and corporatisation operations were similarly challenged. The sale of Crown forestry land was delayed and then cancelled with the Crown instead selling forestry rights and retaining the land as a result of the Forests case in 1989. Later the same year the sale of Crown land and mining rights was delayed and then protections put in place after the Coal case. In 1990 the claim to the tribunal that the Crown must make provision for “Maori to have available to them a fair share of the FM frequency to ensure a secure place for their language and culture in broadcasting in New Zealand” forced a delay in the sale of the frequencies and the tribunal found there was an obligation on the Crown to protect the taonga of language and culture. Because the tribunal’s recommendations are not binding, the Crown officially disagreed with this outcome, but did make some provision for the allocation of frequency to Māori.

In 2011 the National government faced a similar challenge when it proposed to sell 49% of its shares in state-owned asset Mighty River Power. The challenge was unsuccessful, mainly because the court decided that by retaining 51% of its shares, the Crown remained able to meet its obligations for partnership and redress according to the principles. This bore a clear implication that to sell a greater proportion of such shares would likely breach the principles.

It’s worth remembering that the Three Waters Bill included a binding Treaty principles clause which would likely have proved a significant barrier to any plan to privatise New Zealand’s water supply. Perhaps that’s a key reason why it faced such a withering political attack.

The Act Party’s push to redefine the Treaty principles is not rooted in ignorance, but rather a calculated move to remove a significant barrier to their privatisation and deregulation agenda. The Waitangi Tribunal’s recently released report on the bill describes the legal effect as “remov[ing] Crown obligations under the existing Treaty principles, and remov[ing] Treaty/te Tiriti guarantees, rights, and protections for Māori at law”. including those rights and guarantees that restrict the privatisation of state assets. This is not an unintended side-effect.

The Treaty principles, while imperfect, have played a crucial role in safeguarding Māori interests and preventing the unchecked transfer of Crown assets, which benefits everyone in New Zealand. As such, they remain a critical tool for upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ensuring a just and equitable New Zealand.

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder