Formal Opposition to

Summary of Position

I oppose the current framing and scope of the Inquiry into Ports and the Maritime Sector. While the stated goal is to improve productivity and economic performance, the inquiry's design reveals troubling omissions — including the absence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, safeguards against privatisation, and meaningful public or environmental accountability.

This inquiry risks advancing a model of port governance that privileges corporate interests, weakens public oversight, and erodes local and Māori authority under the guise of national efficiency.

1. Prioritises Economic Output Over Public Good

The inquiry is explicitly framed as a means to “lift productivity” and “economic performance” — terms that often signal deregulation, cost-cutting, or asset restructuring rather than public-serving reform.

This is not a public-interest review — it is a performance audit for commercial expansion.

2. Ignores Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori Marine Rights

The terms of reference omit any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, mana whenua interests, or Māori coastal and fishing rights. This exclusion risks producing recommendations that are blind to Treaty breaches and inconsistent with co-governance principles already enshrined in other sectors.

This is not an oversight — it is an erasure.

3. Opens Pathway to Privatisation and Deregulated Port Models

The vague review of “ownership and governance” opens the door to privatisation, corporate consolidation, and foreign investor control of essential national infrastructure.

Ports must remain in public and local hands — not auctioned to the highest bidder.

4. Undermines Worker Rights and Labour Protections

There is no acknowledgement of port workers' rights, pay security, or job protections — only vague references to workforce "capacity" and training. This aligns with a model of automation and deregulated labour markets that disempowers those who sustain the sector.

5. Environmental References Are Superficial and Insufficient

While the inquiry mentions decarbonisation and climate resilience, it lacks any reference to marine biodiversity, pollution control, or iwi-led environmental stewardship. Without substance or commitment, these are rhetorical placeholders.

6. Expands Executive Control and Centralised Oversight

By framing ports as emergency and national security assets, the inquiry risks expanding executive powers and enabling centralised governance — bypassing community input and local government autonomy.

7. Disregards Community Voice and Local Democratic Oversight

The inquiry fails to ensure community access, cultural recognition, or participatory governance over port infrastructure. Public good is sidelined in favour of commercial throughput.

Conclusion & Recommendations

This inquiry is biased toward industry outcomes, blind to Treaty obligations, and dismissive of ecological and community concerns. I therefore recommend that the Committee:

• Amend the Terms of Reference to recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori marine rights.
• Reframe governance discussions around public interest and equity, not just performance.
• Include protections against privatisation and investor-led asset transfers.
• Mandate ecological and cultural impact assessments in all port expansions or upgrades.
• Embed worker protections and union rights into workforce development plans.
• Guarantee local and regional representation in all major decision-making processes.
• Limit national security framing to prevent executive overreach or bypass of due process.

We need a maritime future anchored in sovereignty, ecology, fairness, and public trust — not just cargo throughput and commercial speed.

Respectfully submitted,

Ukes Baha

Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst

ukesbaha.com