Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand
Kia tau te rangimarie ki a taatou katoa
Visit us at
Email:
We need your support through:
- Volunteers:
Call or email if you can give some time to contribute to our work for peace for all everywhere
- Donations:
We rely on donations...any contribution is greatly received.
Account Name:
Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand
Account Number:
03-0173-0353-867-00
Account Name:
Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand
Account Number:
03-0173-0353-867-00
Stewards of Reconciliation
Bridget Crisp explains that patience, engagement and persistence are needed for us to be reconcilers of trust in the world.
We are called to be “stewards of reconciliation” yet the phrase itself is intriguing. It can sound like a sound bite, a management role, or something requiring responsibility. As a way to unpack the phrase, I am beginning with an analogy of a rose bush. Picture a rose bush that has been neglected for years. It’s almost smothered in weeds. It’s completely overlooked in a corner of the garden. Then, for some reason, I suddenly become aware of the plant and realise that it needs help, or it will die. So, I begin pulling the weeds away to reveal the stunted bush and in doing so, provide it with space and light that it needs to flourish. I will return to the care of the rose later.
Change in Attitudes to Conflict & PeaceAt this time in our world, violence and conflict dominate the global news. Even at home the levels of violence in our local areas, schools and institutions is alarming. This emphasises the precarious nature of the current climate of relationships in our world. We live in a time of brutality, in a climate of misinformation, sectarianism and racism. Conflict has become a commodity, and peace is being treated as an economic game. The 28 June 2025 issue of The Economist was titled “How to Win Peace.” The cover image was a white dove in the shape of a missile. This adversarial outlook – that violence is necessary for peace - treats conflict resolution as a game, taking the human equation out. We do not see the cost to humanity; the faces of babies, children, women and men in the middle of the conflict blur and become indistinct; steps to resolve a conflict become a linear tick-box exercise with a “carrot or stick” mentality. The scary aspect of this game is that we are beginning to normalise it as reality. The processes of peacemaking — listening to, engaging with, understanding, respecting another’s viewpoint and beliefs, and being willing to find space to explore mutual beliefs or common ground — can seem more like a utopian dream than essential for the art of living together in everyday life.
Network of Relationships at the Heart of PeaceOur relationships are shaped by the art and experience of living together. Relationships can be messy and at times painful, but if we persist with them, they can become resilient and enduring. A resilient, enduring relationship is generally balanced because the parties in relationship are respectful and appreciative of one another. When conflict or tension arises and skews the balance, it won’t last long. The balance will return to equilibrium because all parties have in place and engage in peace processes consistently through dialogue and listening. Over time this active engagement has helped to build trust and make the relationship robust. In other words, all parties have practised and are practising reconciliation. But balance needs to be worked on. The longer relationships remain asymmetric or unbalanced without correction or effort to restore the equilibrium, the more complex or tangled they become, because trust begins to fracture and diminish. That one party dominates in a relationship can become the norm. Narratives that helped explain the original relationship are at a risk of disappearing or being deliberately repressed by one party building an environment of control and power over other parties. The reconciliatory aspect of the relationship collapses. We see this happening in our world now, and in some instances, distrust has been festering for a long time. We can no longer deny the breaking down of relationships in global, national and local politics, as well as in institutions. We are not immune to relationship breakdowns in New Zealand. I can see that our relationship with tangata whenua throughout Aotearoa is neither reconciliatory, appreciative nor balanced. Trust was first broken not long after the signing of Te Tiriti, when war and conflict broke out, and as we know, lives were lost and land was seized from iwi. The effort to repair trust and tend to the relationship has, at times, been inconsistent due to the asymmetric power of one party (i.e., the Crown) throughout the process. For trust and relationships to grow among all parties again, we need to foster dignity, respect and a willingness to work together as equals for the good of all (not just one party's perception of good).
How do we Restore Relationship?What should we focus on to build a relationship? The well-known prayer attributed to St Francis of Assisi but probably not written by him, provides a starting point:Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.Where there is hatred, let me sow love.Where there is injury, pardon.Where there is error, truth.Where there is doubt, faith.Where there is despair, hope.Where there is darkness, light.And where there is sadness, joy.O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console.To be understood, as to understand.To be loved, as to love.For it is in giving that we receive.It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Every intent in this prayer is a framework for building and restoring relationships. Each is an action we can practise daily. Imagine how relationships would reconcile if everyone around the world pledged to practise these intentions! However, it is critical we acknowledge that the change we hope for will take time. There will be times when we think reconciliation is going backwards and if we look at a relationship from a macro level, this may be the reality. But if we view reconciliatory relationships as small, incremental steps in which we persist, then trust and togetherness will over time, take root and grow. Patience, perseverance and hope, are the ingredients for reconciling relationships so that we move together into our future.
Stewarding relationships
Coming back to my rose plant. Clearing away the smothering weeds is hard work. It's painful at times, and the thorns and prickles can scratch me until I bleed — but I persevere. I want to see the whole plant and to provide not only space for the rose but care because it has been stunted for so long. I need to wait, to continue with weed management and water and fertiliser every now and again. Importantly, I need patience, and with care, hopefully the rose will reveal its full potential. To be stewards of reconciliation, is the invitation and responsibility to persevere in the work of reconciliation, regardless of the cost to ourselves because of the good of the whole world. At a prayer vigil for peace in April, Pope Leo said “We must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the pace of the world that does not know what it is chasing. Rather, we must return to serving the rhythm of life, the harmony of creation and healing its wounds.”
Bridget Crisp RSM, living in Tāmaki Makaurau, was awarded a Master of Peace and Conflict Studies from Otago University in 2024. She is on the trust board for Pax Christi International.
Article was published in Tui Motu InterIslands Magazine May 2026.
Upholding the Moral Limits to War
by Bishop Emeritus Peter Cullinane
Co-Patron, Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand.
We are daily being exposed to the use of extreme violence as a mechanism for bringing about political change: making ‘deals’ as a substitute for the rule of international law; targeted assassinations of political leaders; bombing of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and the homes of non-combatant civilians; using sanctions to punish judges of the ICC for doing their job; closing humanitarian corridors; depriving civilians of food and medical supplies; and the cruel displacement of people from their homelands. These are just some examples of extreme violence, much of it motivated by economic agendas.
As noted by an advisor to Qatar’s prime minister: “we are living in an age of disgusting importunity that is taking us back hundreds of years. We are reduced to giving concession after concession, not to stop aggression but to ask those responsible to kill fewer people, destroy fewer neighbourhoods.”
Many of us are revulsed.
Barbarity goes back to the dawn of human history, as do questions regarding the use of violence to counter violence. Over time, theologians, philosophers, lawyers and politicians have clarified the conditions which undergird the right, and sometimes the duty, to oppose violence and injustice with military force: the threat of violent aggression has to be actual and imminent; all other means of countering it must have been exhausted; there has to be a credible hope of success; it is never permissible to directly target non-combatants; and the use of arms must not produce evil consequences greater than the evil needing to be overcome.
These conditions, usefully gathered together under the doctrine of ‘Just War’, are not obsolete even while they continue to be refined. After all, it is the last-mentioned condition that out-laws nuclear weapons and, therefore, any war that could lead to their use.
For Christians, the just use of force needs to be integrated with Jesus’ teaching on non-violence. That means commitment to non-violence must be the first principle. Therefore, any use of force has to be by way of exception and only when there are absolutely no other options.
The importunity with which violence is currently promoted is indicative of deeply ingrained cultural currents. Challenging these currents suggests the need for a significant cultural shift. Such a shift calls for a deeper respect for human dignity and human rights, as well as the well-being of the common home we share with all life. For people of religious persuasion, these ethical norms have their origin in God’s vision for human beings and creation – a vision of peace and life in abundance.
To permeate society and its culture with a deeper sense of respect is to en-culturate our faith-based understanding of what it means to be authentically human. Since this is God’s agenda, it needs to be ours.
Failure to permeate society with that sense of deeper respect is to ex-culturate our faith – separate it from ordinary life, leaving societies and their cultures to be formed by political ideologies that fail to respect human life, human dignity and the human environment – including some that claim religious warrant for what they are doing as a way of justifying actions that, in fact, go against key religious principles.
In this regard, a special responsibility lies with religious leaders – neither to pronounce on matters where there is room for legitimate differences nor to take partisan political stances, but to oppose real injustices and to defend human life and human rights. Their responsibility is to help ensure that public policies are ethically informed. While Jesus did indeed call on us to pray to be “delivered from evil,” it is not enough to call for prayer. Jesus never resiled from calling out evil conduct or those responsible for it.
Pope Leo has taken a courageous stance in opposing the distorted use of religion to justify the violence being unleashed in the current conflicts between Iran, Israel and the United States. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that his critique of the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of violence in this war equates to a denial of the real concerns related to the Iran regime. The Gospel message Pope Leo has reiterated is that the use of violence should never take priority over less violent ways of working for justice and peace.
Globally, there are limits to what the UN Security Council can do to prevent wars. It is the responsibility of member states to step up and, in coordinated ways, take counter measures, giving priority to interventions which are best able to create trust and dialogue, including, if necessary, non-violent means such as disinvestment, sanctions and boycotts.
And, in cases where individual governments that are prone to self-interested ‘neutrality’ remain silent and inactive, it is for their citizens to prompt their governments by all the means consistent with democracy. Whether by action or by default, we are all responsible for what happens. We are all participants in history. As Pádraig Ó Tuama has written: “... war thrives on the nonchalance of those who have the luxury of not feeling personally implicated.”
Moving to ways of living that are more authentically human takes us beyond a narrow focus on defence to the deeper requirements of peace-making. This calls for the far-reaching qualities of charity identified, for example, by Pope Benedict XVI:
... charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples. It strives to build the earthly city according to law and justice [and] ... to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and communion…” (Caritas in Veritate, 6.)
Pre-empting, in that way, the kind of situations that lead to conflict and violence is the ultimate form of defence.
Bishop Emeritus Peter Cullinane, B.Theol (Angelicum), M Theol (Otago), was the Bishop of Palmerston North Catholic Diocese, New Zealand, from 1980 – 2012. He is a respected pastoral leader, speaker, writer and commentator on issues of social justice.
As noted by an advisor to Qatar’s prime minister: “we are living in an age of disgusting importunity that is taking us back hundreds of years. We are reduced to giving concession after concession, not to stop aggression but to ask those responsible to kill fewer people, destroy fewer neighbourhoods.”
Many of us are revulsed.
Barbarity goes back to the dawn of human history, as do questions regarding the use of violence to counter violence. Over time, theologians, philosophers, lawyers and politicians have clarified the conditions which undergird the right, and sometimes the duty, to oppose violence and injustice with military force: the threat of violent aggression has to be actual and imminent; all other means of countering it must have been exhausted; there has to be a credible hope of success; it is never permissible to directly target non-combatants; and the use of arms must not produce evil consequences greater than the evil needing to be overcome.
These conditions, usefully gathered together under the doctrine of ‘Just War’, are not obsolete even while they continue to be refined. After all, it is the last-mentioned condition that out-laws nuclear weapons and, therefore, any war that could lead to their use.
For Christians, the just use of force needs to be integrated with Jesus’ teaching on non-violence. That means commitment to non-violence must be the first principle. Therefore, any use of force has to be by way of exception and only when there are absolutely no other options.
The importunity with which violence is currently promoted is indicative of deeply ingrained cultural currents. Challenging these currents suggests the need for a significant cultural shift. Such a shift calls for a deeper respect for human dignity and human rights, as well as the well-being of the common home we share with all life. For people of religious persuasion, these ethical norms have their origin in God’s vision for human beings and creation – a vision of peace and life in abundance.
To permeate society and its culture with a deeper sense of respect is to en-culturate our faith-based understanding of what it means to be authentically human. Since this is God’s agenda, it needs to be ours.
Failure to permeate society with that sense of deeper respect is to ex-culturate our faith – separate it from ordinary life, leaving societies and their cultures to be formed by political ideologies that fail to respect human life, human dignity and the human environment – including some that claim religious warrant for what they are doing as a way of justifying actions that, in fact, go against key religious principles.
In this regard, a special responsibility lies with religious leaders – neither to pronounce on matters where there is room for legitimate differences nor to take partisan political stances, but to oppose real injustices and to defend human life and human rights. Their responsibility is to help ensure that public policies are ethically informed. While Jesus did indeed call on us to pray to be “delivered from evil,” it is not enough to call for prayer. Jesus never resiled from calling out evil conduct or those responsible for it.
Pope Leo has taken a courageous stance in opposing the distorted use of religion to justify the violence being unleashed in the current conflicts between Iran, Israel and the United States. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that his critique of the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of violence in this war equates to a denial of the real concerns related to the Iran regime. The Gospel message Pope Leo has reiterated is that the use of violence should never take priority over less violent ways of working for justice and peace.
Globally, there are limits to what the UN Security Council can do to prevent wars. It is the responsibility of member states to step up and, in coordinated ways, take counter measures, giving priority to interventions which are best able to create trust and dialogue, including, if necessary, non-violent means such as disinvestment, sanctions and boycotts.
And, in cases where individual governments that are prone to self-interested ‘neutrality’ remain silent and inactive, it is for their citizens to prompt their governments by all the means consistent with democracy. Whether by action or by default, we are all responsible for what happens. We are all participants in history. As Pádraig Ó Tuama has written: “... war thrives on the nonchalance of those who have the luxury of not feeling personally implicated.”
Moving to ways of living that are more authentically human takes us beyond a narrow focus on defence to the deeper requirements of peace-making. This calls for the far-reaching qualities of charity identified, for example, by Pope Benedict XVI:
... charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples. It strives to build the earthly city according to law and justice [and] ... to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and communion…” (Caritas in Veritate, 6.)
Pre-empting, in that way, the kind of situations that lead to conflict and violence is the ultimate form of defence.
Bishop Emeritus Peter Cullinane, B.Theol (Angelicum), M Theol (Otago), was the Bishop of Palmerston North Catholic Diocese, New Zealand, from 1980 – 2012. He is a respected pastoral leader, speaker, writer and commentator on issues of social justice.
Reflecting on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
from the perspective of New Zealand.
by Bridget Crisp RSM (May 2026)
The New Zealand public has long protested nuclear weapons, and many flotillas of boats left New Zealand to sail up into the Pacific to disrupt and oppose nuclear testing by France, the United Kingdom and the United States in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. This conviction against nuclear weapon testing became more entrenched following the bombing of Greenpeace’s flagship ‘The Rainbow Warrior’, berthed in Auckland on the 10th of July 1985, by the covert actions of the French government. By their actions, the French government had murdered Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, who was asleep on board at the time.
New Zealand political parties are aware that shifting away from a nuclear-free stance or from supporting initiatives for nuclear weapons will cost them votes. The actions of the French in 1985 in New Zealand territory galvanised the New Zealand government to pass the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 into law. This act includes New Zealand’s binding agreement to the United Nations Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968, which the government signed shortly after it was introduced at the United Nations.
It has been nearly 60 years since the Non-Proliferation Treaty was introduced. New Zealand ministers, on behalf of the government, have consistently spoken at the United Nations in support of nuclear non-proliferation and have endorsed the peaceful use of nuclear technology (i.e., for energy purposes) when it is coupled with transparency and robust safety measures.
Recently, in April 2026, New Zealand's permanent representative to the United Nations, H.E. Ms Carolyn Schwalger, made the following observation within her statement at the review conference for Nuclear Non-Proliferation. '…Progress on nuclear disarmament consistent with the NPT's Article VI obligation is being eroded and, in some cases, reversed. We see some nuclear-armed States building up their nuclear arsenals. Others are giving nuclear weapons more prominence in their security policies and increasing nuclear and related war readiness. They justify these actions on the basis that increasing strategic mistrust makes these changes necessary. But such steps also contribute to further mistrust and strategic competition. And they increase the risks that nuclear weapons could be used. There are also troubling indications that, in the face of nuclear threats or coercion, at least a few non-nuclear weapon States are starting to ask whether nuclear weapons might be their only guarantee against aggression.
Meanwhile, the demise of nuclear arms control-related agreements has removed important guardrails against falling into the nuclear abyss, and there are gaps emerging in strategic dialogue among the States with the largest nuclear arsenals….' ( Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: 2026 Review Conference General Debate Statement | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ).
Since the introduction of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, technology related to nuclear fusion and military hardware has developed exponentially. Major nuclear States may state that the number of nuclear weapons they hold has diminished. The capabilities of the weapons they now hold are more deadly and devastating than those they had over a decade ago.
Of concern is the focus by major nuclear powers on potentially weaponising space. Unfortunately, new companies focused on rocket technology could be contributing to this future development. New Zealand-founded Rocket Lab operates in New Zealand and the United States and works closely with the US Department of War. Our laws in New Zealand prevent them from launching rockets with nuclear weapons. However, their US rocket site would not be subject to such restrictions. Currently, Rocket Lab denies assisting the US War Department in deploying weapons into space and says its work for the US War Department is primarily for intelligence gathering.
Weaponising space will be the new frontier as superpowers again look to the stars to conquer and control the narrative of power dominance. There is a United Nations Outer Space Treaty that prohibits placing nuclear weapons in space. If nation-states continue to recognise and abide by this treaty, nuclear weapons won’t be placed in the atmosphere; however, the sophistication in weapons technology may also allow nation-states to circumvent this treaty.
(Image: Alexander Turnball Library).
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Waitangi Tribunal Report (Te Paparahi o te Raki Stage 1 - Wai 1040) creates a challenge to our national identity.
by Kevin McBride.
There has been much space given in our media of late to commemorations relating to World War I. From time to time, there have been references to the importance of this war in establishing the identity of our nation. However, the findings and conclusions of the Waitangi Tribunal in releasing Stage 1 of Wai 1040 are much more significant in that they focus on an alternative and more authentic viewpoint of the beginnings of the nation.
In the first place, the Tribunal has heard in a comprehensive fashion the historical perspective of the Tangata Whenua, the indigenous people who preceded colonisation. More importantly, it has acknowledged the credibility of that viewpoint. This founds the identity of the nation in the recalled experience of those people and their relationship with the physical, spiritual and environmental values which made them unique.
The Tribunal has also recorded the intentions of Ngapuhi signatories in making a declaration of independence or sovereignty, He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (1835), in line with other nations of the time (cf US Declaration of Independence 1776) and it links that document to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by them and many others in 1840. Clearly, they and other Maori signatories at the time and later intended to invite Queen Victoria to join the nation proclaimed in 1835 by exercising Kawanatanga (governance) over her own people, thus bringing her into the component Hapu of the 1835 nation.
In short, this means that the identity of this nation extends far beyond 1915, when our troops were part of the ill-fated attack on Gallipoli and back even beyond the celebrated signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. It is built on the mana and all its associated values and history which the signatories of He Wakaputanga brought to Waitangi on 28 October 1835.
There is no doubt in my mind that, unlike the Minister of Treaty Relations, we have to take this report seriously and re-examine the commonly-accepted history on which we have built our identity. I am also convinced that, in doing this, we will become enriched as a nation and more ready to face other challenges like climate change and growing inequalities among our now-diversified people, for the values of the people on whom the nation was really founded were very firmly based on the common good and the sustainability of the resources needed to maintain and enhance it.
There has been much space given in our media of late to commemorations relating to World War I. From time to time, there have been references to the importance of this war in establishing the identity of our nation. However, the findings and conclusions of the Waitangi Tribunal in releasing Stage 1 of Wai 1040 are much more significant in that they focus on an alternative and more authentic viewpoint of the beginnings of the nation.
In the first place, the Tribunal has heard in a comprehensive fashion the historical perspective of the Tangata Whenua, the indigenous people who preceded colonisation. More importantly, it has acknowledged the credibility of that viewpoint. This founds the identity of the nation in the recalled experience of those people and their relationship with the physical, spiritual and environmental values which made them unique.
The Tribunal has also recorded the intentions of Ngapuhi signatories in making a declaration of independence or sovereignty, He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (1835), in line with other nations of the time (cf US Declaration of Independence 1776) and it links that document to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by them and many others in 1840. Clearly, they and other Maori signatories at the time and later intended to invite Queen Victoria to join the nation proclaimed in 1835 by exercising Kawanatanga (governance) over her own people, thus bringing her into the component Hapu of the 1835 nation.
In short, this means that the identity of this nation extends far beyond 1915, when our troops were part of the ill-fated attack on Gallipoli and back even beyond the celebrated signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. It is built on the mana and all its associated values and history which the signatories of He Wakaputanga brought to Waitangi on 28 October 1835.
There is no doubt in my mind that, unlike the Minister of Treaty Relations, we have to take this report seriously and re-examine the commonly-accepted history on which we have built our identity. I am also convinced that, in doing this, we will become enriched as a nation and more ready to face other challenges like climate change and growing inequalities among our now-diversified people, for the values of the people on whom the nation was really founded were very firmly based on the common good and the sustainability of the resources needed to maintain and enhance it.
Right of First Refusal: Calling the Crown to Act with Honour.
by Dr Susan Healy
In 1840, Ngāti Whātua invited Governor Hobson to establish his seat of government on their land adjacent to the Waitemata Harbour. Their intention was a flourishing centre, bringing advantage to Ngāti Whātua and new settlers. Sadly, the Governors and the Government soon lost sight of working in partnership with Ngāti Whatua. Decisions were made and legislation passed that caused Ngāti Whātua huge losses of land. The injustice of what happened is well recorded in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Orakei Report. Similar processes by the Crown meant that Waikato-Tainui wrongfully lost land in South Auckland. As part of the Crown’s recompense to these iwi, they were granted right of first refusal on Crown properties in their respective territories.
What is the “right of first refusal” and what lies behind it? Put simply, a group with right of first refusal on a property has the first option to buy the property when it becomes available for sale. If they turn down that option, then the property can go on the open market. The Crown’s Settlements with any iwi are acknowledged to be very small in relation to the value of the lands originally taken. Legislation in 1992 had established that private land could not be used in the settlement of treaty claims, and often the amount of Crown land immediately available is limited. That is why a number of the Settlements include a clause stating that an iwi will have right of first refusal over Crown property before it is put on the open market.
In this year’s Budget the Government announced that it would be making Crown land available to private developers for the purpose of housing. In doing this they overlooked the iwi with right of first refusal. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing have since claimed that the Government has the legal right to go ahead with their proposal. This is obviously going to be tested in the Courts. However, their emphasis on being legally in the right completely ignores the issue of whether what they propose is morally right. The Courts have made it very clear that the Crown, that is the Government, is obliged to act as a Treaty partner. On this the Crown’s honour depends.
Partnership means entering into conversations with your partner about future developments long before they are presented as settled policy; it means working together on common concerns. Ngāti Whātua have made it very clear they are interested in being part of housing development that will benefit a wide range of people. They are committed to the welfare of Auckland city. Those of us who are not Māori might well find that solutions proposed by Ngāti Whātua are much more in line with our sense of common good than those put forward by a government situated in Wellington. Certainly, if the Government had taken seriously its Treaty partnership with Ngāti Whātua and Waikato-Tainui, some of Auckland’s housing issues would not be facing the present delays.
Please stop by again. Thank you for your interest!
In 1840, Ngāti Whātua invited Governor Hobson to establish his seat of government on their land adjacent to the Waitemata Harbour. Their intention was a flourishing centre, bringing advantage to Ngāti Whātua and new settlers. Sadly, the Governors and the Government soon lost sight of working in partnership with Ngāti Whatua. Decisions were made and legislation passed that caused Ngāti Whātua huge losses of land. The injustice of what happened is well recorded in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Orakei Report. Similar processes by the Crown meant that Waikato-Tainui wrongfully lost land in South Auckland. As part of the Crown’s recompense to these iwi, they were granted right of first refusal on Crown properties in their respective territories.
What is the “right of first refusal” and what lies behind it? Put simply, a group with right of first refusal on a property has the first option to buy the property when it becomes available for sale. If they turn down that option, then the property can go on the open market. The Crown’s Settlements with any iwi are acknowledged to be very small in relation to the value of the lands originally taken. Legislation in 1992 had established that private land could not be used in the settlement of treaty claims, and often the amount of Crown land immediately available is limited. That is why a number of the Settlements include a clause stating that an iwi will have right of first refusal over Crown property before it is put on the open market.
In this year’s Budget the Government announced that it would be making Crown land available to private developers for the purpose of housing. In doing this they overlooked the iwi with right of first refusal. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing have since claimed that the Government has the legal right to go ahead with their proposal. This is obviously going to be tested in the Courts. However, their emphasis on being legally in the right completely ignores the issue of whether what they propose is morally right. The Courts have made it very clear that the Crown, that is the Government, is obliged to act as a Treaty partner. On this the Crown’s honour depends.
Partnership means entering into conversations with your partner about future developments long before they are presented as settled policy; it means working together on common concerns. Ngāti Whātua have made it very clear they are interested in being part of housing development that will benefit a wide range of people. They are committed to the welfare of Auckland city. Those of us who are not Māori might well find that solutions proposed by Ngāti Whātua are much more in line with our sense of common good than those put forward by a government situated in Wellington. Certainly, if the Government had taken seriously its Treaty partnership with Ngāti Whātua and Waikato-Tainui, some of Auckland’s housing issues would not be facing the present delays.
Please stop by again. Thank you for your interest!