Wellington’s controversial and embattled Mayor Tory Whanau deserves some political credit for the content of the $400 million savings package she steered through her fractious Council this week.

With one or two exceptions - most notably the Botanic Gardens' iconic Begonia House which is threatened with demolition - many of the pet projects that have divided councillors for so long have been saved, at least for now. The Mayor has even managed to protect her beloved plan to pedestrianise the city’s famous Golden Mile from Courtenay Place to Lambton Quay, thus preserving at least some of her Green credentials. Earlier, she had declared her Golden Mile project sacrosanct, at the same time as she was calling on every other councillor to set aside their own personal wish lists as they grappled with the city’s mounting financial problems.

However, while the Mayor can claim some credit for this week’s decisions, the Council still has a long way to go on its journey towards fiscal rectitude. The $360 to $400 million of savings projected in this week's decisions are still well short of the $530 million of potential savings identified by Council officers. Whether they will be enough to satisfy both the government's recently appointed Crown Observer and ultimately the Minister of Local Government remains to be seen. And those decisions still need to be confirmed by the full Council which has a remarkable track record of overturning committee recommendations on important financial decisions. It should be remembered it was the full Council that overturned the original decision to sell the Council's shareholding in Wellington International Airport which precipitated the current financial crisis over funding the city’s Long-term Plan. 

In many senses the Council’s task has only just begun, and much ground remains to be recovered before it is likely to be seen by both Crown Observer and the Minister as operating in a responsible and fiscally sustainable way. While the Mayor can feel some satisfaction at the limited progress to date, her fist-pumping "we've got this" comment at the end of the meeting was both gauche and foolishly premature, giving the chronic erratic unpredictability of her supporters on the Council.

The endangered Begonia House and the slavish determination to proceed with the Golden Mile project in their own way highlight why Mayor Whanau’s Council is so ridiculed. The Begonia House was gifted to the city in 1961 by the family of the industrialist Sir Walter Norwood. It has been a popular site for visitors and local people since then. However, the removal of carparking on nearby streets because of the Council’s obsession with installing cycleways had made the Begonia House more inaccessible, and the cafeteria business associated with it less viable. The Council’s solution, therefore, is that the Begonia House has had its day and should be demolished, arousing the ire of many Wellingtonians. In the view of the councillors supporting the Mayor, it is a symbol of Wellington’s past, out of step with the cycle and pedestrian friendly future they see for the city. The idea that the Begonia House should be handed over to private enterprise to run efficiently, and that more carparking should be provided to improve access to it, is complete anathema to their intentions.

The Mayor’s determination to proceed with her Golden Mile project, come hell or high water, is in a similar vein. At first glance the proposal to pedestrianise the Golden Mile, save for buses and cycles is an attractive one. But it has stirred up a hornet's nest amongst inner city businesses. Many are already struggling to regain customers after Covid19 and the long period of people working from home. On top of this there has been the general economic slowdown and the impact of public sector redundancies. Many businesses have already closed, while others are teetering on the brink. They fear the Golden Mile proposals will be the final straw. 

For its part, the Council has appeared singularly uninterested in their plight, sticking doggedly to its determination to rid the central city of cars to make it more pedestrian and cycle friendly, in line with its overall vision. The fact that the city’s existing character will likely be changed irreparably, at the cost of many long-standing businesses seems to matter little to Mayor Whanau and the tight,  out of their depth,  clique of councillors around her. All that matters to them is that the city will appear a little greener, even if it ends up a shell of its former self.

Still, for a Mayor for whom nearly everything has gone wrong in the last two years, this week’s Council decisions are a rare and welcome win, even if they are perpetuating the wrong direction the city has been heading in. But if they are confirmed when the Council finalises its long-term plan, they still offer little prospect of immediate relief to beleaguered ratepayers reeling from substantial rates hikes this year and the prospect of more to come. For them, two options remain: in the short-term there is the wishful hope that the Crown Observer will be able to install some sense of wise spending and financial discipline into the Council. However, the longer-term and far more likely option remains that voters, tired of the incompetent shenanigans, will resolve the issue for themselves when they vote in next year’s Mayoral and Council elections.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 gave legal status to the Treaty, a mere 135 years after it was signed. Since then, it has often been referred to as our country’s founding document. In the absence of a written constitution, the Treaty is New Zealand’s equivalent to Britain’s Magna Carta or the United States’ Declaration of Independence, influential documents on the course of a nation’s history, but without formal constitutional status.

As such, it guides, but not dictates, so many of our national actions. In that sense, it is very much a living document, subject to constant discussion and debate, which is healthy in a modern, pluralistic society like ours. The oft-quoted ruling of Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast in 1877 that the Treaty was a “simple nullity” because it had not been incorporated into New Zealand’s law was itself nullified by the 1975 legislation giving legal standing to the Treaty.

The starting point for any discussion about the role and purpose of the Treaty today needs to be what was the intent of those who developed it back in 1840, not what various interests today think should have been their intent. Dame Claudia Orange’s authoritative book, The Treaty of Waitangi, has described events at Waitangi in the days immediately before the Treaty was signed, and the debate amongst the Māori chiefs present. Their focus was on both ensuring that their authority would not be eroded by sharing power with the British, and that their lands would be protected.

Article Two of the Treaty “confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession” and was the basis on which the chiefs agreed to sign the document on 6 February 1840.

Although it was to be more than a century before the Treaty was enshrined in law, there were references to its provisions in some early laws, most notably the Native Rights Act 1865 which established the Māori Land Court. But following Prendergast’s 1877 ruling on a land dispute between a Māori landowner and the Church of England, the strength of Article Two protection gradually weakened, even though Māori continued to challenge what was happening. Prendergast’s ruling created a bind – because the Treaty was not part of New Zealand law, little could be done to uphold the rights and protections it provided. The dilemma was highlighted in the 1938 case of Te Heuheu Tūkino v Aotea District Māori Land Board, where the judge ruled that while there was validity in Te Heuheu Tūkino’s case, according to the Treaty, it was not binding on the Crown because the Treaty was not considered to be part of New Zealand law.

Following the 1975 legislation which rectified this inconsistency, the Court of Appeal determined in 1987 that there were principles to be followed when it came to interpreting the Treaty and any claims for redress that may be made under it. These were that the Crown (the government) had a duty to act reasonably and in good faith; that it had the right to govern and should make informed decisions; and that it should remedy past grievances. The Court ruled that the Crown had an obligation to ensure active protection of Māori interests, and that Tino rangatiratanga, the right of Māori to continue to exercise self-determination, should be recognised. These principles have been summarised as the “three Ps” – partnership, participation and protection. – generally consistent with what the original signatories thought they were agreeing to in 1840.

The history of the Treaty since 1840 has been chequered. There have been occasional lurches to the extremes – Prendergast in 1877, for example, or perhaps even the pace of change under the Ardern government. The current debate about the Treaty Principles Bill is another such move.

At first glance, the Bill’s main provisions (that the Government has the obligation to govern for all New Zealanders; that it will protect all New Zealanders property rights; and treat everyone as equal under the law with the same rights and duties) may seem innocuous. But under the Bill of Rights Act and the existing common law, those basic rights are already established and upheld, making the Treaty Principles Bill unnecessary.

The Bill’s provocation is far less its content than its perceived intent. It is not about providing a reasonable framework within which the original intent of the Treaty and the legal principles accompanying it can be applied to the betterment of all New Zealanders, as that already exists. Rather, it effectively renders the Treaty itself redundant by transferring its content to a separate form altogether. In that sense, it is a modern version of Prendergast’s 1877 ruling.

In another context, it would be unthinkable if a contemporary British government decided to rewrite Magna Carta, or a United States administration decided the Declaration of Independence needed to be re-interpreted (although under the incoming Trump administration who knows what might happen). The same applies with the Treaty of Waitangi. It may be imperfect, incomplete in some respects, or not always upheld as intended. But for all that, it remains the document on which our nation was founded.

The Treaty is therefore our modus operandi for common nationhood. It is not about the dominance of one signatory over the other, but as Norman Kirk said many years ago, about how we all live together in these islands. In that regard, the Treaty Principles Bill is simply the wrong answer to a question that does not properly exist.

The division, misinformation and dislocation it is causing in many quarters is not justified by either our history or the blinkered determination of those seeking to win narrow partisan political points.

 

Last week the government announced plans to build two new tunnels in central Wellington to ease traffic congestion. One will be a second tunnel through Mount Victoria to improve the flow of traffic to the eastern suburbs and Wellington International Airport. The other will be alongside the existing Terrace tunnel to improve traffic flows into the city from the north. 

On cue, the Green Party MP for the eastern suburbs’ electorate of Rongotai, Julie Anne Genter, announced her vehement opposition to the plans. All the tunnels would do is encourage the proliferation of cars entering and travelling across the central city, (despite the fact there is no alternative) when the emphasis should be on getting cars out of the city and encouraging more cycling and reliance on public transport, she argued.

The Green leaning Wellington City Council and Mayor are already a national laughingstock because of the way in which their obstinate insistence on adding cycleways to the city’s narrow inner-city streets is driving businesses and customers away.  The Council has become so dysfunctional that the government appointed a Crown Observer this week in what looks like a forlorn attempt to get things back on track.

Genter's intervention last week over the tunnels plan was a chilling reminder to Wellington residents of how determined her Green Party Council colleagues are to thwart any significant roading infrastructure development in the city.  But it seems that that point was not lost on the National and Labour parties who have announced this week that they are working towards a bipartisan approach to infrastructure development.

Such an approach makes sense. New Zealand is widely acknowledged to have a significant infrastructure deficit because plans by successive governments over the years have often stalled due to a lack of long-term political agreement and the uncertainty that has caused. After a visit to New South Wales earlier this year the Prime Minister noted enviously that there was a long-term political consensus between the state’s Labor and Liberal parties about the state’s future infrastructure requirements that were not turned upside whenever there was a change of state government. It seemed then to be only a matter of time before he sought to broker a similar agreement between National and Labour here.

This week’s announcement that National and Labour have reached broad agreement on new rules for Public Private Partnerships they hope will attract greater investment in infrastructure development is a positive, if still conditional, first step. Much still needs to be done to flesh out the details, let alone identify, then bring to fruition, any specific projects. Although what National describes as “a slow tentative march towards greater bipartisanship on infrastructure” will take time, it is nonetheless encouraging. After more than forty years of political division on infrastructure projects from the Clyde Dam to the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway extension more recently, the joint recognition that what Labour describes as “swings in priorities each election cycle” are not helping resolve the infrastructure deficit is a welcome political about-turn.

It is probably just a coincidence that National’s and Labour’s broad agreement was announced just a week after the Wellington tunnels decision and the Green Party’s response, but it does change the political component quite considerably. A broad agreement between the two main parties, regardless of which one is in power at the time, will not only provide greater certainty to potential investors in future Public Private Partnerships, but will also neuter the ability of the Green Party to stymie the development of such projects.

On that basis, taxpayers might be spared repetition of the types of infrastructure delays that have plagued Wellington in recent years. For example, a short seven hundred metre inner-city bypass first proposed in 1963, was not built until 2007. The second Mount Victoria tunnel debate has been going on since Wellington International Airport opened in 1959. Similar lengthy debates have plagued infrastructure developments in other parts of the country.

At one level, this week’s agreement between National and Labour is a pragmatic recognition that there needs to be a better way to address the country’s current serious infrastructure deficit, and that carrying on as at present is no longer credible. It should also lead to a greater recognition among potential Public Private Partnerships investors that the New Zealand environment now looks set to become more conducive to such projects.

At another level the political advantages to both National and Labour are undeniable. For National, which is always been more infrastructure inclined, and its partners ACT and New Zealand First, infrastructure upgrades will now be able to be progressed with more certainty that they will not be upended by a future change of government.  Labour, for its part, will be less constrained than it has been in recent years to commit to future Public Private Partnerships.

However, it would be premature to pop too many champagne corks just yet. Politicians have a notorious ability to back out of agreements if the circumstances no longer suit them or become too politically awkward. Despite the apparent current mutual goodwill, the worth of this week’s agreement will only become obvious when the first jointly agreed infrastructure project is announced.

In that regard, the Green Party’s opposition to Wellington’s proposed new tunnels may prove to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

 

President Ronald Reagan’s successful campaign theme in 1984 was “It’s morning again in America.” It was a theme of optimism and hope for the future. Today, as America awakes after one of the most tumultuous Presidential election campaigns in its recent history, the sight is a far less positive one.

This year’s protracted election campaign, accompanied by intimidation and bullying across the spectrum, a complete aversion to seek the middle ground, and the threats to immediately proceed to Court if results did not go the way candidates wanted, has left the nation that proclaims itself as the world’s greatest democracy, looking in a very shabby state.

Lincoln’s dream of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” seems a long way away in the wake of this year’s election circus. Just as forlorn was the American Ambassador to New Zealand’s social media post that “Elections remind us that our system, with all its debates and differences, ultimately brings us together.”

 America today is deeply divided on political, economic and cultural grounds. The expectation that either of the two candidates for President would be capable of healing these divisions within a single four-year term was completely unrealistic. The best to be hoped for is that America does not become more divided because of the election outcome.

Unfortunately, the re-election of President Trump has diminished that hope. His return will likely exacerbate these divisions, especially since he has vowed a programme of revenge on all those whom he considers responsible for costing him the 2020 election, and not bending to his will to subvert the electoral process to keep him in power then. Moreover, his subsequent determination to exact vengeance on those judicial authorities that have brought about his conviction on several fraud-related charges further suggests his second term as President will be one of revenge, rather than taking America forward.

Aside from his flagship policies, like completing the wall with Mexico, expelling illegal immigrants and imposing new blanket 20% tariffs on all imports, much of Trump’s agenda in the coming term will focus on rolling back many of the Biden Administration’s social and environmental reforms. During the next four years, there are approximately 100 judicial appointments becoming vacant which Trump will have to fill, meaning the prospects of the judiciary at several levels being stacked with loyalists, unlikely to hold the President and his cronies to account for any of the charges that have so far been laid against them.

Trump is constitutionally barred from standing again in 2028. However, given the apparent disregard he has shown for the United States Constitution on other matters, it would be no surprise if he were to challenge this before the next election. After all, it is exactly the trick Vladimir Putin, whom Trump admires greatly, has pulled in Russia to stay in power almost indefinitely. America’s Constitution and institutions of government are in a for a battering over the next four years as Trump seeks to entrench his own absolutist form of rule.

The upshot is that America faces at least for more years of upheaval and uncertainty. Amidst all this sit hundreds of thousands of decent American families, with the same concerns that face many families in this country. They will be worried, as New Zealand families are, about how they will make ends meet, get access to quality healthcare, pay for their children’s education and secure their futures. Generally, they are not interested in the political divisions or games around them – they simply want to be able to vote for people they can trust to do the best for them.  They will feel equally let down by the campaign of the last few months and will at best have limited expectations about what might lie ahead.

For all the pious talk, this election cycle has not been the showcase for democracy Americans might wish. It has left the United States more divided than at any point since the end of the Civil War in 1865. Contrary to the United States Ambassador’s hope that the election will bring people together, it is in fact far more likely to have driven them further apart.

In many ways, the last eight years have seen the demolition of Lincoln’s wish for “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as the American model, because excessive partisanship has destroyed the balance that once regulated America’s complex and multi-layered political system. The next four years now seem set to severely test the validity of Lincoln’s other famous statement (albeit a plagiarising of the biblical evangelist, Matthew) that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”.