For over 2 years the Prime Minister, the Minister of Corrections, and local MP Nanaia Mahuta have known of the problems occurring in the Waikato and the concerns raised by local Māori as they spent $1.3 million. I want to illustrate how serious those concerns are by reading out a letter I received today: “Kia ora, My name is Irene Kereama-Royal and I currently reside in Hamilton. I am a qualified lawyer and was admitted to the High Court in Auckland as a Barrister and Solicitor in 1995.... 

From one of a myriad of examples of soft coersion:

“The signing of a Relationship Agreement between Genesis Energy and six Huntly Marae and the Huntly based Waahi Whaanui Trust was the culmination of five years of engagement and dialogue. The agreement records the parties’ intention to establish an enduring, positive and beneficial relationship which directly addresses the effects of the Huntly Power Station on local Marae, while recognising the Huntly Power Station is a key strategic asset for Genesis Energy and New Zealand. Through regular engagement and funding provided by Genesis Energy, the parties seek to deliver the broad objectives of developing a long term relationship, assisting Marae development, fostering cultural understanding, supporting the kaitiaki role of the Marae and enhancing the environment and supporting education and training initiatives”.

Waitaha (te Runanga O Waitaha Me Mata Waka Inc) appeal against the granting of RMA consents by Waitaki District and Otago Regional Councils, claiming the Councils had failed in their resource consents process to apply the Treaty of Waitangi, Resource Management Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Local Government Act. Waitaha representative Stephen Bray said it was "not his organisation's intention to apply undue pressure or to influence anyone, but to give clear understanding of its concerns and its perspectives of the appeal process it had been part of". "Waitaha values were not tradeable, nor could they be compromised by others. Only Waitaha after consultation could alter those values"

Bob Jones on Auckland Council's cultural impact requirements

Waitaha (te Runanga O Waitaha Me Mata Waka Inc) appeal against the granting of RMA consents by Waitaki District and Otago Regional Councils, claiming the Councils had failed in their resource consents process to apply the Treaty of Waitangi, Resource Management Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Local Government Act. Waitaha representative Stephen Bray said it was "not his organisation's intention to apply undue pressure or to influence anyone, but to give clear understanding of its concerns and its perspectives of the appeal process it had been part of". "Waitaha values were not tradeable, nor could they be compromised by others. Only Waitaha after consultation could alter those values"

New Zealanders will pay more for their electricity and have less security of supply as a result of Maori spiritual arguments over the Resource Management Act, says National's Environment spokesman Nick Smith. He is commenting on yesterday's Environment Court decision that will allow power generator Genesis to use water from the Whanganui River for only a further 10 years. "It is political correctness gone mad when key decisions on infrastructure are made on the basis that diverting the Whanganui River for hydro development will adversely affect Maori spiritual beliefs and self-esteem," Dr Smith says.

Ngati Kura wheel clamp extortion

Other provisions in the Education and Training Bill that transfer powers to Maori and create de facto Maori quotas, as outlined in section 9(2):

• section 307(1)(c) power of Maori Advisory Committee to elect 1 member of the NZIST Board
• section 312(1) requires the NZIST to establish a Maori Advisory Committee
• section 312(3)(a) NZIST Council must consult with the Maori Advisory Committee
• education Councils acknowledge the principles of the Treaty in the exercise of their functions and powers
• the NZ Institute of Science and Technology collaborate with Maori and iwi partners to improve outcomes for Maori learners and Maori communities
• New Zealand Institute of Science and Technology: Schedule 13 requires that the Institute's governance, management and operations give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi etc; recognise that Maori are key actors in regional social, environmental, and economic development

De facto Maori quotas in employment rules

• section 258(2)(a) NZIST Council must include at least 1 "Maori"
• section 344(3)(b) Workforce Development Council must include representation by Maori employers
• section 128 a school Board's policies and practices must reflect cultural diversity. Presumably this governs Board's roles in the appointment of Principals, which may favour an applicant's ancestry over competence.
• section 380 the Tertiary Education Commission appoint members only after consultation with the Minister of Maori Development
• section 449(4)(b)(v) require the Minister to consider the collective understanding of partnership principles when considering appointments to the Teaching Council
• section 564(2)(d) general principles: schools and training providers to recognise the aims and aspirations of Maori, the employment requirements of Maori and the greater need of Maori in the education service

Under these provisions, all "Maori" are relegated to belonging to a generic minority "identity", stigmatised and patronised as requiring special attention regardless of their individual skills and unique personality.

Northland Regional Council has granted resource consent to New Zealand Refining Company Ltd to dredge the entrance to Whangarei Harbour. Dredging will allow larger crude cargoes of around 1 million barrels to be shipped to Marsden Point. Conditions of the resource consent include payments of $1.15 million (plus GST if any) to local tangata whenua to form a Kaitiaki Group.

A Staff Report on submissions noted the potential for "conflict between the Māori worldview and the western worldview including lack of proper consideration of cultural effects such as the ability of tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga".

Mr Simmons (on behalf of Refining New Zealand) submitted that "significant efforts have been made by the Applicant to address concerns expressed regarding cultural issues. RNZ has been inclusive and had engaged in a culturally sensitive way following input from the NRC’s cultural liaison officer and iwi resource management representatives, and had listened to comments made at several hui held at different marae. He submitted the Applicant’s cultural engagement, and the project itself, have also been shaped by its independent cultural expert, Mr Coffin. He said that RNZ had very carefully scoped and designed the project to minimise all environmental and cultural effects, and had responded to outstanding cultural concerns by proactively and constructively proffering mechanisms, including establishment and funding of a ‘Kaitiaki Group’ (KG), ecological enhancements, and steps to protect avifauna. Overall, he submitted that we can be confident that the consultation effort has been robust and genuine. On the basis of the evidence provided by RNZ, he further submitted that all relevant cultural effects have been appropriately addressed". 

Refining New Zealand is also required under the Consent conditions to mitigate environmental effects of the dredging, including providing a Biosecurity Management Plan (Clauses 9 - 12); Marine Mammal Management Plan (Clauses 21 - 28); Coastal Bird monitoring (Clause 29); Korora (Little penguin) breeding enhancement consultation (Clauses 30 - 33); Oi (Grey Faced Petrel) contribution (Clauses 34 - 35); Harbour Restoration and Enhancement Monitoring Programme (Clauses 56 - 60); Benthic [seabed] Ecology Management Plan (Clauses 66 - 106) and Water Quality monitoring (Clause 107).

Resource Consent Applications for the Crude Shipping Project APP.037197.01.01 17 July 2018 Report and Decision of the Hearings Commissioners
115 A1087324

Kaitiaki Group (KG)
44 The Consent Holder shall, at least six months prior to the date that the capital dredging is intended to commence, provide a written offer to the relevant representative entities of tangata whenua groups of Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa to establish and maintain a Kaitiaki Group (‘KG’).
(a) For the purposes of these resource consents the ‘relevant representative tangata whenua groups’ are: Patuharakeke, Te Parawhau, Ngāti Kahu o Torongare, Te Waiariki, Ngāti Korora, Ngāti Tu, Te Uriroroi, and Ngātiwai; (b) The entities nominated to represent the tangata whenua groups listed in clause (a) of this condition shall be identified by tangata whenua. Tangata whenua shall advise both the Consent Holder and the council as to whom their representative entities will be; and (c) Other tangata whenua groups may be invited to join the KG where they have been endorsed by the majority of the members of the KG and confirmed by the council.
Advice Note: There are several existing groups exercising various roles aimed at improving the health of Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa, including, for example the “Kaitiaki Roopu” which was established under resource consents granted to Northport for its port expansion.

45 Each of the above parties listed in Condition 44 who accepts the Consent Holder’s offer may nominate one representative and an alternate representative to the KG. The Consent Holder may also nominate one representative and an alternative representative to the KG.
46 As soon as practicable after acceptance of the Consent Holder’s above offer by one or more parties, a Charter establishing the KG shall be executed by the Consent Holder and the accepting parties, following which the KG shall be constituted. The Charter shall set out/include the following, as a minimum:
(a) The name by which the KG shall be formally known; (b) The functions of the KG in accordance with Condition 47 below, and how such functions shall be exercised by the KG; (c) The composition of the KG and the process by which membership may be amended; (d) How the KG intends to carry out its functions, including the frequency and format of KG meetings, and methods for decision-making; (e) A dispute resolution process whereby any differences that may arise in establishing and/or operating the KG may be resolved by direct discussions between the parties in dispute, and failing that, by reference to mediation by an AMINZ affiliated mediator (the costs of the mediator to be met by the Consent Holder); (f) The rates of remuneration for members of the KG; and (g) The period the KG shall operate for; which shall be no shorter than is necessary to fulfil the KG’s functions under these resource consents.
Resource Consent Applications for the Crude Shipping Project APP.037197.01.01 17 July 2018 Report and Decision of the Hearings Commissioners
116 A1087324

Functions of the KG 47 The functions of the KG are to:
(a) Recognise and provide for the importance of Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa as a taonga to tangata whenua, within the framework of these resource consents; (b) Recognise and provide for the kaitiakitanga of Māori who have a kaitiaki relationship with Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa, within the framework of these resource consents; (c) Facilitate the involvement of Māori who have a kaitiaki relationship with Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa in the exercise of these resource consents; (d) Facilitate the incorporation of kaitiaki responsibilities and values in the exercise of these resource consents; and (e) Provide a forum for engagement between Māori who have a kaitiaki relationship with Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa, the Consent Holder and the council regarding the exercise of these resource consents.
Roles of the KG 48 In fulfilling its functions, the role of the KG shall be to:
(a) Nominate up to two people with knowledge of mātauranga Māori to train as marine mammal observers; (b) Nominate a representative to sit on the MPLC; (c) Receive reports and information from the Consent Holder required pursuant to these resource consents, including but not limited to, predator control and installation of nesting boxes for kororā/little penguin (see Condition 30), and notification of any discovery of archaeological material (see Condition 66); (d) Review and comment, as necessary, on the following (amongst other things): the MMMP required by Condition 21; the Harbour Restoration and Enhancement monitoring programme required by Condition 56; the BEMP required by Condition 99; and the RMP required by Condition 124; (e) Review and comment, as necessary, on the monitoring reports produced by the Consent Holder prior to them being submitted to the council to ensure the KG views are made known to council prior to any review; (f) Work collaboratively with the council and the Consent Holder to determine and implement appropriate procedures to control any adventive pests and weeds present within any disturbed area; (g) Receive updates every five years on new technology and processes related to the Dredge Management Plan; (h) Develop a Matauranga Māori Monitoring Framework; (i) Receive from the Consent Holder notification of any receiving water quality limit exceedances (see Condition 108); and consult with the council’s Compliance Manager regarding any receiving water quality limit exceedances in accordance with Condition 108; (j) Provide advice on enhancing access to mahinga kai sites;
Resource Consent Applications for the Crude Shipping Project APP.037197.01.01 17 July 2018 Report and Decision of the Hearings Commissioners
117 A1087324
(k) Identify, develop, establish and/or approve suitable studies or projects designed to improve water quality, coastal processes, environmental, ecological, and cultural health of the Whangārei Harbour entrance (including its shores) and northern Bream Bay; and (l) Receive requests from Māori who have a kaitiaki relationship with Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa for the undertaking of any cultural ceremonies relating to the exercise of these resource consents, including without limitation in the event of discovery of kōiwi; and for facilitating the provision of any such cultural ceremonies the KG reasonably deems to be appropriate.
49 The Consent Holder shall provide written confirmation to the council’s Compliance Manager within two weeks of execution of the Charter establishing the KG pursuant to Condition 46.
50 The first KG meeting shall be held as soon as practicable after execution of the Charter establishing the KG. The KG shall determine how it conducts/administers its functions under these resource consents.
51 The Consent Holder shall:
(a) Meet the reasonable costs, up to a maximum of $10,000 per year, incurred by the KG in fulfilling its functions under these resource consents, including KG meetings and remuneration of KG members; subject to normal business practices, including invoicing and accounting, and in accordance with the Charter produced under Condition 46; (b) Give members at least three weeks’ advance notice of the date, time and location of KG meetings; (c) Take Minutes of KG meetings, which shall be forwarded to KG members and the council within three weeks of each meeting; (d) Provide copies of the relevant reports and documentation required by the conditions of this resource consent to the KG; (e) Provide the KG with opportunities to review and comment on the following documents: the MMMP required by Condition 21, the Harbour Restoration and Enhancement monitoring programme required by Condition 56, the BEMP required by Condition 99, and the RMP required by Condition 124; (f) Have particular regard to any relevant comments provided by the KG under Condition 51(e) in the preparation and implementation of the documents (including any subsequent amendments) referred to in that condition; and (g) Provide monthly email updates to the KG on any dredging undertaken, and on the outcomes of monitoring conducted in general accordance with these resource consents.
52 The Consent Holder shall provide funding to the KG as follows:
(a) An initial payment of $150,000 (plus GST, if any) within one month of the KG being constituted in accordance with Condition 46 (referred to below as the ‘Initial Kaitiaki Fund’); (b) Ten annual payments of $50,000 each (plus GST, if any), with the first payment to be made within six months of completion of the capital dredging authorised by these resource consents (referred to below as the ‘Ongoing Kaitiaki Fund’); and
Resource Consent Applications for the Crude Shipping Project APP.037197.01.01 17 July 2018 Report and Decision of the Hearings Commissioners
118 A1087324
(c) Ten annual payments of $50,000 each (plus GST, if any), with the first payment to be made within six months of completion of the capital dredging authorised by these resource consents (referred to below as the ‘Poupouwhenua Fund’).
53 The Initial Kaitiaki Fund in Condition 52(a) above is intended to provide immediate working capital for the KG to assess the effects of the capital dredging authorised by these resource consents on Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa. The Ongoing Kaitiaki Fund in Condition 52(b) above is intended to enable the KG to continue to monitor the effects of the exercise of these resource consents on Whangārei Te Rerenga Parāoa, including maintenance dredging. Nothing in this condition, however, is intended to limit the use of the funding provided by the Consent Holder pursuant to Condition 52, provided such use is consistent with the KG’s Charter. 54 The Poupouwhenua Fund in Condition 52(c) above is to be utilised towards restoration or enhancement projects at Poupouwhenua, including (without limitation) the examples set out in Condition 59 below. The Poupouwhenua Fund shall be held and administered separately to the Initial Kaitiaki Fund and Ongoing Kaitiaki Fund. The use of the Poupouwhenua Fund shall be determined by the Patuharakeke representative to the KG at their discretion. The Patuharakeke representative may, entirely at their own discretion, include other members of the KG in determining how the fund is used. 55 Except where the context requires otherwise, all the Consent Holder’s obligations with respect to the KG under these resource consents are conditional on the KG being validly constituted, including execution of the KG Charter through agreement by the relevant parties.

Source:

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL : Report and Decision of the Hearings Commissioners Meeting held at Toll Stadium, Whangārei and Takahiwai Marae on 26 February – 2 March and 13–14 March 2018

One Pure, owned by Hong Kong based corporation Hon Lung International, with the capital and expertise to build a massive water bottling facility, felt the need to approach Hawke’s Bay tribal entity Ngati Paarau^[i]  for “support and partnership ^[ii]” in their endeavour. Why?

According to Ngati Paarau  spokesman Denis O’Reilly,  this  support and partnership  is “good for our region and our nation, all of us, regardless of our ethnicity or derivation”.

So can Mr O’Reilly answer the following questions for the citizens of Hawke’s Bay and, indeed, the entire nation:

1. What is the nature of the “support and partnership” which was requested of Ngati Paarau by One Pure? Are these “support and partnership” services of a scientific nature relating to the  preservation of our aquifer? If so, did One Pure approach any other organisation for this expertise?

2. If  Ngati Paarau’s  knowledge regarding the Heretaunga Plains aquifer (flowing tens of metres underground)  is in the nature of traditional maori knowledge, should this knowledge not be preserved and accessible to those beyond Ngati Paarau, or can this traditional knowledge only be exercised by members of Ngati Paarau?

3. Mr O’Reilly states that One Pure’s plant will have “minimal effect on the aquifer, if any”. Did Ngati Paarau conduct independent tests on the bore to verify this statement, or did they simply accept assertions to this effect from “polite and respectful” One Pure Director Yongnan (Boris) Kang? 

4. How does Ngati Paarau’s “support and partnership” enhance the “oranga” – (wellbeing) of the environment and people of Hawke’s Bay, as “an agreed primary value” of the “partnership”?

5.  Is there any reason why One Pure would respectfully approach Ngati Paarau, beyond the fact that it needed Ngati Paarau’s consent  as an “affected party” to extract water from the aquifer?

6. Has or will Ngati Paarau or any members of Ngati Paarau received any benefit or payment from One Pure by way of compensation for the “support and partnership” provided to One Pure?

It is clear that Ngati Paarau believe they “own” the Heretaunga Plains aquifer.  As Mr O’Reilly states: “The prevailing dominant notion is that our water belongs to no one.. . despite the …prescient statement by Tareha Te Moananui  …that “the land is yours, the water is mine^[iii]”.

National’s Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, which requires local authorities to enter “participation arrangements” with tribal trusts such as Ngati Paarau the length and breadth of the country, will deliver, perhaps, the final step towards transformation of this belief into reality.