Table of Contents
Pee Kay
No Minister
Guest Post by Ivan Barnett
To all readers,
I have put this document together in the hope that it may be useful to others who are facing similar issues in their own districts. I have researched the material carefully and done my best to present it clearly and accurately.
I am a retired dry‑land farmer, now 82 years old, and this has been an interesting exercise for me. After a lifetime on the land, I still care deeply about the future of rural communities and the fairness of the systems that govern us.
My concern is with the way some decisions are being made behind closed doors, without full transparency, and without proper democratic accountability. I believe it is important that all New Zealanders – including farmers – understand their legal rights, the limits of council authority, and the proper role of iwi consultation under the law.
My wish is simply to ensure that local government operates openly, lawfully, and in a way that respects everyone’s rights. Your comments, thoughts, and feedback will be much appreciated.
– Ivan
1. THE CORE LEGAL TRUTH: IWI HAVE NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE LAND
Under New Zealand law, iwi have no power to:
• require permits
• impose conditions
• charge fees
• demand Cultural Impact Assessments
• approve or veto resource consents
• regulate farming activities
• control private land use
Only councils, acting under acts of parliament, can require consents – and even they must stay within strict legal limits.
Any council that behaves as if iwi have regulatory authority is acting ultra vires (unlawfully).
2. THE TREATY DOES NOT CREATE PARTNERSHIP OR CO‑GOVERNANCE
This is the most misunderstood area in New Zealand public law.
The Treaty of Waitangi:
• contains no partnership clause
• does not require co‑governance
• does not give iwi shared sovereignty
• does not give iwi authority over private land
The “partnership” idea is a 1987 metaphor, not a constitutional rule.
Councils that claim they are “Treaty partners” with iwi are:
• misrepresenting the law
• misleading the public
• creating unlawful expectations
• exposing themselves to legal challenge
3. WHAT THE RMA ACTUALLY REQUIRES – AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
The RMA requires councils to:
• “take into account” Treaty principles
• “consider” cultural effects
• “take into account” iwi management plans
The RMA does NOT require:
• iwi approval
• iwi sign‑off
• iwi veto
• mandatory Cultural Impact Assessments
• payment to iwi
• co‑governance
• partnership
“Take into account” means consider, not obey.
4. UNLAWFUL (ULTRA VIRES) COUNCIL PRACTICES TO WATCH FOR
These practices are not authorized by law and can be challenged:
1. Mandatory Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs)
CIAs are not legally required.
Councils cannot force farmers to obtain one or pay iwi for one.
2. Iwi veto or approval requirements
If a council says ‘iwi must approve this’, that is unlawful.
3. Iwi conditions inserted into consents
Only councils and the Environment Court can impose conditions.
4. Treating iwi management plans as binding
They must be considered, not followed.
5. Delegating decision‑making to iwi committees
This breaches:
• RMA s 31–33
• LGA s 10–14
• democratic accountability
6. Council staff intimidating councillors
Councillors must act independently – not under pressure from:
• the mayor
• the chair
• the CEO
• iwi authorities
• staff
This is a breach of statutory duty.
5. PROTECTION FOR COUNCILLORS: DECLARATION OF NON‑INTIMIDATION
Councillors should adopt a formal declaration stating they are:
• acting independently
• free from intimidation
• not delegating authority to iwi
• not pressured by the mayor/chair/CEO
• not treating iwi as co‑governors
This protects:
• councillors
• farmers
• the integrity of the decision‑making process
6. WHAT FARMERS CAN SAY TO COUNCIL – AND BE LEGALLY CORRECT
Here are lawful statements farmers can use:
‘Please provide the exact statutory authority for this requirement.’
If they cannot, the requirement is unlawful.
‘Iwi cannot require permits or approvals on my private land.’
This is legally correct.
‘Cultural Impact Assessments are not mandatory under the RMA.’
Correct.
‘I am not required to pay iwi for consultation.’
Correct.
‘Council cannot delegate decision‑making to iwi.’
Correct.
‘Iwi management plans must be taken into account, not followed.’
Correct.
7. WHAT COUNCIL LEADERS MUST NOW PUBLICLY CONFIRM
The mayor, chair, and CEO must state – clearly and on record – that:
1. Iwi have no regulatory authority over private land.
2. Iwi cannot require permits, approvals, or fees.
3. Iwi cannot impose conditions on consents.
4. Councillors must not be pressured to treat iwi as co‑governors.
5. All decision‑making authority remains with elected members and authorized council officers.
If they refuse, they are acknowledging that unlawful practices are occurring.
8. THE BOTTOM LINE FOR FARMERS
Here is the truth – clean, lawful, and unshakeable:
You own your land.
You control your farm.
Iwi cannot regulate you.
Councils cannot force you to pay iwi.
Councils cannot require iwi approval.
Councillors must act independently.
Any unlawful pressure can be challenged.
Farmers are not powerless.
Farmers are not required to submit to unlawful demands.
Farmers are protected by the law – and the law is on your side.
Ivan Barnett is an 82-year-old retired farmer who began farming in 1959 at age fifteen.
He was a member of Young Farmers and served 33 years with the St John Ambulance service.
In 2001 he was appointed manager of the BHU Organic Research Farm at Lincoln University, remaining there until 2018 before continuing part‑time at the University.
He retired to Beckenham in 2022
Ivan Barnett’s post is a very simple yet unobstructed synopsis of the law, purely based on fact!
It highlights the way our education system has been hijacked by ideologists drafting, implementing and indoctrinating the younger generation.
Ivan Barnett is an 82-year-old farmer. Ardern is 45.
The article underlines the vast difference of a generation and an education system based fact as opposed to an education system based on cultural indoctrination and centred on an ethnic ideology, all for political objectives and most worryingly, all swallowed by New Zealanders!
In contrast, the recent post by Colinxy on the kindness doctrine demonstrates the change in New Zealand’s modus operandi – from fact to fiction. https://nominister.wordpress.com/2026/03/26/the-political-cruelty-of-kindness-how-sentiment-became-a-soft-authoritarianism
All New Zealand mayors should receive the Ivan’s treatise. Please forward to your city or regional mayors.
All too often we hear/read of councillors who dare challenge the new approach and are being intimidated and isolated.
Mayoral contact details in New Zealand are accessed through individual city or district council websites.
This article was originally published by No Minister.
