
Tribunal hears what was lost when Te Aka Whai Ora was taken
At the end of last month, the Waitangi Tribunal wrapped up its hearing regarding the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, or the Māori Health Authority. An urgent inquiry as part of the wider Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry, the hearings took place over the space of a week and saw dozens of expert witnesses provide their insights into the state of Māori health in Aotearoa.
Established through the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 under the previous Labour government, Te Aka Whai Ora was an independent government agency charged with managing Māori health policies, services and outcomes. It was pitched as a pivotal step towards addressing the long-standing inequities in hauora Māori, grounded in a Tiriti partnership model. Its disestablishment on June 30, 2024, came less than two years into its operation.
'Te Aka Whai Ora was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to not only change Māori health outcomes, but to also change the health system,' said indigenous rights advocate and business leader Chris Tooley in his submission.
But its beginnings were far from simple. Witnesses explained how the authority was required to be built from the ground up: no existing systems, no legacy staff or infrastructure, and no meaningful transfer of Crown power. In contrast to Te Whatu Ora, which inherited the resources and staff of the former DHBs, Te Aka Whai Ora was expected to function as an equal partner with a fraction of the funding, infrastructure or political support.
Its disestablishment was a political decision, witnesses argued, driven not by evidence or performance, but by ideology. 'The fallacy of neutrality that our public health system treats everyone equally and fairly – it's not true,' said public health expert Elana Curtis. 'If you belong to white British colonial culture, then the health system will tend to produce better outcomes for you than someone who doesn't align with those values or that worldview.'
The tribunal itself was not unfamiliar with the issue. A year earlier, it was forced to abandon its urgent inquiry into the government's planned disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora when the coalition government introduced repeal legislation under urgency, stripping the tribunal of jurisdiction. That legislation went through without consultation with Māori, and without input from the authority itself.
Later, the tribunal would find that the process was a breach of te Tiriti.
In the latest round of hearings, witnesses were clear: the authority was beginning to show real promise. A 'new whare' grounded in tikanga and data, commissioning services by Māori, for Māori, at scale.
'We must bring back Te Aka Whai Ora – otherwise we will be continuing to swim in the crap of colonialism,' said submitter Maia Honetana.
Witnesses also argued the disestablishment has weakened existing structures. Iwi Māori Partnership Boards (IMPBs), destined to work in tandem with Te Aka Whai Ora, have been left adrift, they said. Some remain in name only, others have shifted focus to service provision, and several are now competing for the same limited funding. At least one board has said that its current funding is set to expire in June 2026, raising concerns about the long-term viability of the model.
The effects are also being felt in clinical spaces. In renal care, the Māori renal health taskforce has been disbanded, and national forums where inequities were previously discussed have gone quiet. 'Equities seemed to be at the forefront of discussions, and that's now gone,' said Kidney Health New Zealand board member John Kearns.
The Crown's position is that the current settings – including IMPBs, the Hauora Advisory Committee and residual provisions in the Pae Ora Act – uphold its Tiriti responsibilities. But several experts rejected that claim, describing the reforms as cosmetic without genuine devolution of power.
'Until the Crown devolves power and resources to these bodies, they are a toothless tiger who give an illusion that the Crown is honouring te Tiriti,' said claimant representative Maia Te Hira.
Rawiri McKree Jansen, formerly chief medical officer at Te Aka Whai Ora, put it more bluntly: 'We aren't getting anywhere with this approach.'
Throughout the week, witnesses called for a return to Māori-led design – not symbolic oversight, but meaningful authority over strategy, funding and service delivery. Many cited the importance of retaining evidence-based equity tools, including the use of ethnicity as a population-level health marker. Without these, several argued, the system will continue to fail Māori by default, not design.
'The fact that we are dying so prematurely, the fact that we have so much morbidity – when you start to do something like Te Aka Whai Ora and then take it away after 10 months, it's not OK,' said Elana Curtis. 'None of this is just or fair.'
Crown engagement during the hearings was limited. Its only witness, deputy director-general of Māori health John Whaanga, had his written brief withdrawn just days before he was due to appear. Whaanga did appear, however, citing active cabinet deliberations about sector reform, while Crown counsel said officials were not authorised to discuss future reforms. No alternative model was presented.
Claimants argued that the absence of a replacement plan was itself a breach of te Tiriti. In their closing submissions, they noted that the Crown had offered no justification for dismantling Te Aka Whai Ora, and no path forward since.
'This isn't a system failing by accident,' said Māori health leader Lady Tureiti Moxon, one of the lead claimants. 'It is a conscious decision to return to Crown control and institutional racism.'
The tribunal's findings are expected later this year. What remains is a growing record of what Te Aka Whai Ora was, what it represented, and what was lost when it was taken away.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.


Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

1News
12 hours ago
- 1News
District attempts to tackle youth vaping with a smokefree CBD
Gisborne District Council wants the city centre to be vape-free and smoke-free to curb the "epidemic" of young people taking up the habit. Tairāwhiti has the highest smoking rates in the country, and there has been a sharp increase in youth vaping. In 2018, the council adopted its smokefree outdoor areas policy, which is not legally enforceable but encourages residents to refrain from smoking in specific areas. On Thursday at its sustainable Tairāwhiti committee meeting, the council revised its policy to include electronic cigarettes and expand its smoke-free area to include the city centre. Deputy Mayor Josh Wharehinga said the inclusion of vaping "sends the right signal" to the community. ADVERTISEMENT However, some councillors questioned whether it was a matter for the council or a public health issue for the central Government to address. "It's a health problem. I worry we're dipping into things that we shouldn't be," said councillor Debbie Gregory. Councillor Rawinia Parata responded that policies like these only made kids hide their smoking. In contrast, councillor Colin Alder said central government had let them down. As an ex-smoker who battled an addiction for most of his life, Alder said he would love all the money he spent on smoking back "with interest". "The companies that have been peddling this addiction are rubbing their hands together." According to the meeting's report, Tairāwhiti continued to have the highest smoking rates in the country. ADVERTISEMENT However, data showed it was decreasing, with the rate of smoking dropping from 22% to 12% between 2018 and 2023, the report said. Action for Smokefree 2025 surveyed thousands of Year 10 students every year on smoking and vaping behaviour habits. In 2023, the National Public Health Services prepared a report for the Gisborne District Council using Ash NZ data to understand the extent of vaping in the region. At peak, a third of students regularly vaping The percentage of participating Gisborne students who regularly vape soared from 1.6% in 2015 to 36% in 2022 but had decreased to 26.6% in 2023. The number of students who had tried vaping at least once had increased from a quarter in 2015 to just over half (54.7%) in 2023. The Māori rate of regular vaping (37.0%) was significantly higher than the rate for European/other (14.4%), according to the report. ADVERTISEMENT Councillor Nick Tupara agreed it was a government responsibility and a public health issue, particularly for Māori. However, the council could not expect national change if there was no voice locally. "Looking at the data, it is epidemic, and it was during my mother's time and my grandmother's time." Councillor Teddy Thompson said New Zealand was behind the eight ball, noting that in Australia, vape flavours were limited and people could only buy vapes from pharmacies. He and Gregory asked for the cost of updating signage, while councillor Larry Foster wanted to expand the policy area to include the central business district. The policy's designated smoke-free areas are playgrounds, parks, sports grounds, beaches, and outdoor public areas around council buildings and facilities, as well as any events run or funded by the council. Strategic planning manager Charlotte Knight said that as the policy was a position statement rather than an enforceable rule, it did not require consultation. After the majority of councillors voted in favour of Foster's suggestion, Knight said the council would include the CBD, and the area would be the same as the Local Alcohol Policy definition. ADVERTISEMENT A council spokeswoman said the cost to update the policy was minimal. There might be some funding from the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders to help with updating signage, she said. Mayor says community will 'self-police' Mayor Rehette Stoltz recalled how, in 2018, the council questioned how it would enforce its initial smoking policy. "The community self-police. At the end of the day, people slowly stop smoking in places that they used to, and now people just don't." Stoltz said the policy was "more a signal from the council to the community on what we value in our open spaces for our children". "Let's send that message and make it supportive. It is a health issue, there is help available, and not to shame people," she said. ADVERTISEMENT According to the council report, no council in New Zealand had a smoke-free/vape-free bylaw. The Whanganui District Council did adopt a bylaw. However, it revoked it because of enforcement issues and now used a voluntary policy, the report said. The council will update its website by September 1 to communicate the policy changes. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.