The at Waimarama Beach
The at Waimarama Beach

SocietyJuly 20, 2017

How one iwi is finding its own way out of the housing crisis

The at Waimarama Beach
The at Waimarama Beach

‘If you create the community, then great things will come from it.’ In Hawke’s Bay, a papa kāinga – or community housing development – is providing a blueprint for social housing provision in New Zealand.

On a hilltop overlooking the long stretch of Waimarama beach in Hawke’s Bay is a cluster of new houses that seem to have it all. The never-ending horizon view, broken only by the squiggle of Motuokura, or Bare Island. Warm. Affordable. Surrounded by potential – for growing food, for livestock, for play. Schools across the road, not to mention a decent cafe nearby.

Exclusivity has been creeping up on Waimarama since I moved away from my childhood home in nearby Havelock North 12 years ago, cloaking the community in a previously alien, barely-used holiday house hush; the stretching beachfront appears increasingly like a hall of mirrors.

The papa kāinga on the hill is pushing against this tide of change by providing a sense of permanence and accessibility. Conceived by whānau member Eru Smith, it consists of five stand-alone homes: three rentals (at a comparatively affordable $280 per week) and two owner-occupied.

It is a papa kāinga that embodies the fullest meaning of the term. More than just ‘a housing development on Māori land’, it is a return to a place of belonging for those involved. Their tīpuna moved away four generations ago; the papa kāinga is the whānau’s opportunity to return home, support their marae and reconnect with each other.

On opening day, it is brought into official being by an eclectic bunch: the politicians in suits, getting slowly roasted by the unforgiving Hawke’s Bay summer sun; members from other whānau listening attentively, noting the key players, already with projects of their own in vision; kids racing up and down the driveway on their bikes and scooters, pitching up to join in the waiata and haka; tradies and contractors clearly pleased with the outcome of their work. All with a stake in the community’s success. The kōrero is not without challenge – a humorous reminder of a televised clash with lines company Unison is among the anecdotes – but it is largely constructive and full of congratulations.

Waimarama Beach. (Photo: Hawke’s Bay Tourism)

The drawn out howl

The opening of the papa kāinga plays out like a dreamy interlude in the drawn out media and political howl that is New Zealand’s housing crisis. A howl that often seems to just be echoing around chambers, both parliamentary and social. A howl that doesn’t really seem to be getting us anywhere very fast. What the howl does make clear is that the place where housing development and people collide has become a place fraught with tension. Even more so in areas considered ‘exclusive’.

My adopted home of Arrowtown is a saddening, maddening example of this mentality. Arrowtowners in their numbers came out of the quaint stonework last year to complain about affordable housing being built in the town. Their primary complaint? That the housing would compromise the ‘character’ of the town. It took reading just a few letters to the local rag to figure out the real meaning of those words: we don’t want ‘poor people’ as neighbours (in a town where the median house price is over $1m, ‘poor’ is a very relative term). Of course, we do want builders and hospitality and tourism workers here to prop up our economy, we just don’t want them to be so obvious about, you know, living. Can they not just all stay put in the ready-made suburbs, out of town and out of mind?

The atrocity that was the fire at Grenfell Tower in London represents the awful extreme of this attitude – so much money spent on keeping up appearances, so little spent on the essentials. It is a manifestation of the fact that social housing, once a fundamental state service, has become a pejorative term. Our misdirected faith in the ability of the market to “sort it out” every time has allowed it to become so.

The Waimarama papa kāinga presents an example of how things could be different.

A philosophy of values

The homes at Waimarama are part of a wider papa kāinga movement in Hawke’s Bay that’s gaining momentum. At the helm is project manager Paul Sheeran (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Pāhauwera), who works under the auspices of the Aorangi Māori Trust Board. While the National government scrambles to adjust social housing policy settings and negotiate infrastructure demands with local government, and the spectre of immigration looms over Labour’s Kiwibuild programme – and election year politics more broadly – Sheeran and his team are quietly and concertedly getting on with making a difference. A big one.

Paul Sheeran at Aorangi Papa Kāinga. (Photo: Bay Buzz)

Born in Auckland and raised in Central Hawke’s Bay, Sheeran’s route to social housing developer reads like one of the very best grassroots stories. After leaving school at 16 to work in the local meat works, he spent the best part of the next decade as a shearer here in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom. Stints as a courier and transport business owner followed. Later in life came a Bachelor of Business Studies with a major in finance (“I also managed to get my golf handicap down during this time, haha!”), and a focus on learning te reo Māori. Five kids ranging from university to primary school-aged complete a picture of a busy man, up for a challenge.

It was a nine year stint at the Māori Land Court following his studies that led Sheeran to the question – and potential answer – of whānau-based housing.

“My last role when I was working at the Māori Land Court was to try to assist land owners of Māori freehold land to utilise their land. A large amount of whānau had aspirations to build on their ancestral lands and improve their housing situation, including entering into home ownership. Working through the process…made me aware of the numerous barriers that were prohibiting whānau [from achieving] their papa kāinga aspirations.”

Sheeran lists a lack of council funding, a lack of administration structure within whānau, and a lack of knowledge of the process among the obstacles to getting community housing off the ground. Accessing funding at the national level has also been an issue, as finance products for building on Māori freehold land are currently limited to one – Kiwibank’s Kāinga Whenua. Even then criteria is strict and money isn’t exactly raining down. Surmounting these barriers has been no mean feat, and has required all of Sheeran’s eclectic skills – and that of a core team of service providers and whānau leaders – to wade through the regulations, translate the criteria for funding, and build ground-up capacity to take the papa kāinga from aspiration to realisation.

With all of this in the road, it is an achievement that one project has got off the ground. In fact, there are three and counting – the project at Waimarama is just the latest to be opened.

The first success, Aorangi Papa Kāinga, opened in 2015 and built on a 3.4ha block bought by the Aorangi Māori Trust Board in the 1970s, has pioneered the balance of community and privacy that has become a hallmark of the projects. A community garden and an internal courtyard bring the inhabitants of the eight homes together naturally, while landscaping and house orientation have ensured that privacy is still maintained. The land has the capacity for a further 32 homes.

The hard graft and wrangling is, in Sheeran’s view, all worth it. He believes that the papa kāinga model is fundamentally about something we all need, and many of us are struggling to maintain: community.

“The papa kāinga must be built on a philosophy of values – manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga, wairuatanga, whānaungatanga. All the values of a community. If you create the community, then great things will come from it.”

He cites the way of life at Aorangi as proof: “Everyone thinks it is a fantastic way to live, [for example]  two sisters live side by side and can support each other. The elderly are supported by the community. Great ideas like an Aorangi market day [have started] to spring up. Very affordable and healthy homes make life a lot less stressful.”

The model combines government grants with traditional loans to remain financially viable. The rental properties service the development’s debt, which has been subsidised by a Te Puni Kōkiri grant. The expectation is that the rents will be set around 80% of the market rate because, as Sheeran continually emphasises, “the kaupapa is healthy, affordable homes.”

The commercial viability of the projects is helped by building partnerships with service providers. By working on multiple projects, economies of scale have been created and contractors come together to work as a team on the projects, all bringing what Sheeran describes as “a level of good will”.

The papa kāinga at Waimarama Beach. Photo: supplied

The ground to be reclaimed

The model, like all models, is not perfect. Sticky points remain. Balancing sovereignty and independent decision-making with government grants is one. “It flies in the face of Tino Rangatiratanga,” says Sheeran, “as it results in an ongoing relationship with the Government and the obligations that go hand in hand [with that]”. However, he points out that this shouldn’t limit the pool of funding available, just that relationships need to be negotiated carefully and with eyes wide open to the complexity.

Credit where it is due, the government’s backing and resourcing of iwi to deliver social services to their members is certainly further along the spectrum of decolonisation than the shoddy attempts by private developers in the early 80s to build affordable housing in predominantly Māori communities in Hawke’s Bay, such as Flaxmere. The homes were poor quality, on tiny cross-lease sections, and all crammed in together with little care or design. The opposite of the vision and execution at Aorangi and Waimarama.

Here then is proof that there is ground to be reclaimed by the state when it comes to social housing.

The Hawke’s Bay papa kāinga are examples of the social housing solution that can be created when governments and councils are constructive partners. A solution that isn’t just about patching up the rips in the national social fabric that unchecked neo-liberalism has left behind (hastily arranged hotels for the homeless spring to mind). A solution that’s about positive, collaborative action. A solution that’s about community in the fullest, most embracing sense of the word. And, yes, a solution that is about profitability – but profitability as outcome, not philosophy.

The economic growth and surplus that we keep hearing about mean little unless they create maximum benefit for a maximum number of people. That’s why the papa kāinga are such important examples of what can be achieved – they are about maximising advantage for all involved, with the community members at the centre. The model may not be perfect, but it is moving us in the direction we need to be going if we want a society that allows us all to thrive.

So, perhaps this election year it’s time to quieten down in our echo chambers for a bit and listen more carefully to the people just getting on with getting it done.


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.

Keep going!
Jack Russell jumping.
Jack Russell jumping.

SocietyJuly 19, 2017

The long dark road to banning tail docking in New Zealand

Jack Russell jumping.
Jack Russell jumping.

The New Zealand Veterinary Association’s companion animal spokesperson Rochelle Ferguson is one of thousands of veterinarians celebrating today’s ban on tail docking. She explains why this cause is so close to her heart and the long dark road taken to get here.

In 1995, when I entered my first practice as a new veterinary graduate, there was a bright yellow “Every Dog Has a Tail to Tell” poster on the consultation room wall.

It was put out by the British Veterinary Association and showed Rottweilers and fox terriers in all their tailed glory. Heartened by the campaign poster, I and the other associates at the practice dutifully abstained from non-therapeutic tail docking on moral grounds.

However, the practice owner still performed tail docking. His reasoning was that if we didn’t offer the service then breeders would take matters into their own hands.

Nobody enjoyed these visits – and cleaning up a row of cute puppy tails that had been severed from their canine owners was always particularly sad.

Despite the shiny poster on the wall telling us every dog had a tail to tell, it turned out that for New Zealand dogs, this tale was not going to be a short story. It would be a novel with many chapters that would play out for another 22 years.

A poster on the wall of the NZVA Wellington office.

In certain breeds, like the fox terrier and Rottweiler, breeders dock tails so that they conform to a desired look, continuing a tradition from the Middle Ages, a time when a tax was applied to every dog with a tail.

Docking is carried out in young puppies without any anaesthetic or pain relief.

Apart from the obvious pain and discomfort this causes, docking puppies’ tails can give rise to ongoing pain from changes to the nerves caused by severing them.

Tails help dogs with balance and communication, and while they do sometimes get injured, studies show that around 500 dogs need to be docked to avoid one tail injury.

Given the benefits of having a tail, the risks associated with docking, the lack of serious injury to tails and that dogs never check themselves out in the mirror to admire their short tails, the benefits of tail docking for non-therapeutic purposes just don’t stack up.

A proposal to ban non-therapeutic tail docking was contained in the original draft of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Opposition to this proposal was the basis on which the New Zealand Council of Docked Breeds (NZCDB) was formed in 1997. This group of tail docking supporters spearheaded campaigns to oppose the bans that veterinarians were fighting for. With links to similar groups in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States of America, South Africa and Canada, they regurgitated arguments that were being used around the world to support tail docking.

Their campaigning was successful. The non-therapeutic tail docking ban was removed from the Animal Welfare Act before it passed into legislation in 1999.

In 2004, Diane Yates introduced a Private Members Bill to Parliament to restrict the docking of dogs’ tails. The NZCDB reformed again to oppose this move. In their submissions, they argued that lamb tail docking and circumcision were evidence that the practice was not cruel and emphasised the importance of maintaining traditions that had been around since the Middle Ages.

Interestingly, when it came to the select committee submissions they found support from a small group of around 30 veterinarians, who gave their evidence secretly. The majority of the veterinary profession however, was firmly against the practice.

Public opinion was also in support of the ban, with a Colmar Brunton poll showing 68% in favour of outlawing tail docking. Some breeders of traditionally docked dogs also broke ranks to support the ban, although again this was largely done anonymously for fear of reprisals from their peers.

Despite the public sentiment in favour of the ban, strong submissions from both the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RNZSPCA) and the New Zealand Veterinary Association in support of the bill, and increasing support from dog breeders, in 2007 the bill was dropped due to a lack of support from both the Labour and National parties.

Sadly, New Zealand now lagged internationally accepted standards of animal welfare. Tail docking for reasons other than for health had been banned in the UK, Australia, and at least nine other European countries.

Australian bitches were being flown to New Zealand to whelp by breeders who supported tail docking. They would then have their puppies’ tails legally docked before going back to Australia to sell their puppies for a premium price.

Some New Zealand breeders also did a roaring trade (currently estimated to be worth around $750,000 a year) providing docked puppies to overseas markets in which the practice is banned.

A still from a video on Youtube of a puppy having his tail docked.

Another opportunity to outlaw non-therapeutic tail docking arose when the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) issued a proposed code of welfare for dogs to accompany the Animal Welfare Act. It included a section on tail docking.

If adopted, this welfare code would have banned the docking of dogs’ tails except for therapeutic purposes. Submissions were made during 2009 in favour of the ban from the New Zealand Veterinary Association, Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), and the RNZSPCA.

To clearly convey the veterinary profession’s position on tail docking, the NZVA adopted a policy that banned tail docking unless it was to treat injury or disease. The VCNZ further strengthened this position through a 2011 revision of the code of professional conduct that prohibited veterinarians from removing dogs’ tails, unless for justifiable medical reasons.

The subsequent code, included a recommendation that tail docking should not be performed unless for therapeutic purposes. Unfortunately, it got around the voluntary ban taken by veterinarians, by allowing the practice to continue under a quality assurance scheme.

This scheme, would allow an accredited person to legally dock tails in puppies up to four days of age by using a tail band.

New Zealand animal welfare law was now at serious odds with veterinary practice.

In 2012 the quality assurance scheme, the NZCDB Accredited Banders Panel, was established and administered by Dogs New Zealand (formally the New Zealand Kennel Club). This allowed the practice of tail docking (which is a significant surgical procedure) to be conducted by lay persons with no veterinary oversight.

But 2012 was also the year that the Government called from submissions on amendments to the Animal Welfare Act and proposed a New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy. While tail docking wasn’t on the amendment agenda, the NZVA, VCNZ and RNZSPCA took the opportunity to lobby the Government for an end to this practice.

Recent New Zealand research from Massey University was supportive of banning the procedure. Knowledge on pain perception in neonates had also advanced and lent further support to the argument against the practice. Despite this continued pressure, there were no changes.

During 2014 and 2015, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) put together a committee to begin the process of developing regulations under the Animal Welfare Act and its amendments, with the aim of making enforcement of the legislation easier. Chaired by John Hellström, membership included other NAWAC members, the VCNZ and the RNZSPCA, as well as MPI staff. Regulatory proposals were tested before public consultation.

In 2016, MPI, called for submissions on proposed regulations that would make tail docking, unless for therapeutic purposes, an illegal activity. It was also proposed that only veterinarians could dock tails. Following these submissions, MPI again conducted a number of additional workshops.

Drawing on the previous work that had been done by the profession and including national and international scientific evidence, the New Zealand Veterinary Association put forward both written and oral submissions.

The pro-tail docking supporters, NZCDB, predictably brought their best game to the table, including legal counsel for the oral submissions.

This time however, things were different.

A 2014 Dogs New Zealand survey had shown that the majority of their members opposed tail docking. Dogs New Zealand, having previously been a stalwart of the pro tail docking brigade, now had an official position on tail docking that was neutral.

There was also mounting scientific evidence against the practice and the argument had moved away from determining if the practice was painful to determining if the practice was necessary. This time the profession was firmly united against the practice.

The New Zealand Veterinary Association combined forces with VCNZ, RNZSPCA, and Massey University to put forward a supplemental submission on tail docking when further consultation was requested from MPI on the proposed tail docking regulation. This was followed up with a submission on the financial impacts of a ban on tail docking to the profession.

Given the polarised views on this proposal, and pressure from the NZCDB regarding the process of consultation, MPI engaged an independent expert to conduct a review of all written submissions and relevant science. The expert, Dr Emily Patterson-Kane (the Animal Welfare Scientist for the American Veterinary Medical Association), agreed with the arguments put forward in the submissions by the NZVA, VCNA and RNZSPCA. She found that tail docking is a significant surgical procedure with the potential to cause considerable pain and distress to the animal and that it is not justified by any animal welfare benefit to the dog.

A further final comment was made by the New Zealand Veterinary Association on this independent review, as there were concerns that the NZCDB would look to argue for exemptions to a ban for certain categories of dogs, as had happened in Scotland.

It is with great relief and joy that we received the news today that Minister Guy, in consideration of international practice, the submissions, the findings from the independent expert, and New Zealand’s strong reputation for high animal welfare standards, holds the view that it is time to prohibit non-therapeutic docking of dog tails.

Credit: Pixabay

This has been a long journey, containing plenty of setbacks. The baton has passed along to successive veterinarians for over two decades as we collectively worked to speak up for animals that did not have a voice.

NZVA records show the amount of work and dedication veterinarians such as Catherine Smith, Virginia Williams, Jodi Salinsky, Raewyn Frater, Rachel Griffiths, Helen Beban, Kate Hill, Kevin Stafford, Amber Wells, Sue Blaikie, Pieter Verhoek and Cath Watson have done to keep the pressure on the government for this change. These veterinarians have remained steadfastly resolute to this cause and we are all grateful for their dedication and commitment.

It is a privilege for me, New Zealand Veterinary Council Professional Advisor Wayne Ricketts, New Zealand Veterinary Association Head of Veterinary Services Callum Irvine, and New Zealand Veterinary Association Chief Veterinary Officer Helen Beattie to be the last veterinarians in this chain as we cross this finish line.

Rochelle Ferguson is a veterinarian and companion animal veterinarians operations manager at the New Zealand Veterinary Association. She loves dogs, from the tip of their noses to the end of their tails.


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.