North Harbour Stadium, 16 February 2005, 10am
Paul Reynolds, Rebecca Martel, George Ria (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry); Suzanne Doig (Te Puni Kōkiri); Livia Hollins (Ministry for the Environment); Willie and Linda Te Aho (Facilitator and minute secretary - Indigenous Corporate Solutions Limited).
During introductions the following points were made:
Some ideas are to make use of RMA provisions for national policy statements and national environmental standards (currently there are none); Government targeting where it gets more directly involved in water management - eg identifying the 'nationally important' water bodies
Eg in making submissions on plans, developing best practice information and sharing that information out into communities, funding, pilot programmes - such as Lake Taupo - the collaborative project to cut down nitrogen levels in the lake
Water management is complex, the community needs to understand that there are issues and therefore there is a need to raise awareness of the water quality problems and that water is a scarce resource; we want to work on building relationships with Māori, and improving the appreciation of Māori cultural values in the planning and policy process.
Suzanne Doig - One action identified in the discussion booklet is 'Enhancing Māori participation' this is really about building relationships. The booklet identifies two main areas, one is clarifying issues around Māori participation in Local Government - One possible solution is for Central Government to make it clearer to Local Government as to the processes they have to follow in terms of working with Māori; more widely, Central Govt is looking to provide guidance for better engagement on a much wider range of issues (ie not just about water).
Some of the big issues that have emerged from the RMA review and hui like these is the poor relationships in a lot of areas with councils due to poor attitudes of some of the councils, and also capacity and capability issues for iwi to engage, and for councils. What are the local issues? What are some possible ways of addressing these issues - training? resourcing? Are there other ideas?
There is no legal obligation in RMA to consult with Māori, and the proposed RMA amendments will reduce this even further. The submissions closed on RMA amendments yesterday.
As Māori, we work on one act, and now there is work for another act, nothing is synchronised. We are working on building relationships.
Has the Ministry put in a submission? There is too much responsibility put on TPK.
Questions - is there a provision for late submissions on the RMA amendment bill?
Suzanne - We cannot say yes or no because it is now in the hands of the parliamentary select committee, not officials.
Paul - explained the select committee process and how there is still the opportunity to make submissions at that stage.
Lee CherieKing- our experience with the select committee on the Foreshore and Seabed so many submissions but the legislation went through, we feel that what is the point of the consultation process?
Māori are landowners, and those that regulate are the local authorities, therefore you come to us as landowners and owners of development - you must come to us with a different mindset, and we will be part of the decision-making. Māori need to be directly involved to mature and move from consultation and participation to actual governance, management, regulatory and compliance power.
This is an important point - Māori as landowners and stakeholder interests, and also kaitiakitanga, you might like to reference some work done with the Parliamentary commissioner on the RMA.
There are already examples where there is no water left in some South Island places - it has been permitted, permitted, permitted and there is nothing left - water quality is not an issue when there is no water left. This is a worst case scenario now. There are a whole lot of things that need to happen to include Māori in this whole debate (eg Ngāi Tahu are out of that loop) how can this be addressed?
There has been an assumption that the water will keep coming. The issue of over allocation should not be tolerated at all. This relates to land without water.
This whole paper, the danger is similar to that of fish quota. We have Māori involved in fishing and we know fish stocks are declining and people are dependent. We are caught up in the system by being a part of it but we are not part of the system in the management of the stocks, we can't exercise rāhui.
There is a concern that water is going the same way.
We are being dragged into the same thing, we are told to be part of the process, but we won't have a say in the management.
Soon our rivers will be gone. This 'consultation process' - as good as it sounds, is not consultation - it is a way to gear things up to deal with the issues that we put forward. Ask for other perspectives.
There is no discussion on water standards. Two documents have been produced on 'guidelines' but what is needed is standards (two guidelines were shown to the hui).
We need national standards so that local and regional councils can apply those standards consistently. For us, water comes from puna - not the maunga. We want to restore mauri in those places.
Here in the North Shore, not one of our water-courses meets health standards for bathing.
Totally agrees with Bill (Kapea), we are not involved in the regulation and we need to be. We are not there in monitoring and compliance, and we need to be there as kaitiaki and as treaty partners. This includes having our Māori commissioners on an equal status as other commissioners on these decisio- making boards - and not just one representative.
When Local Government take water, we need to be right there to ensure compliance according to national standards and national policy. The local government bodies who have the delegated power allow these things to happen come to us at the last minute for our approval. We as tangata whenua should be delegated power under LAW (RMA s33/34) to be the decision maker and regulator.
No public health water standards have been followed through in legislation.
We have been talking about this for years, are there no national standards available? (Answer - no). We should start with that. This is a serious issue.
In Kakanui, our spring that has dried up as a result of forestry by Rodney Council. Springs at Otakanini Tōpu have also dried up.
There are farm activities and forestry happening all along our rivers that affect our water.
What I am hearing from my people today is the sound of disempowerment. We are consulted at the tail end.
We need to be treated equally as those making decisions and most times we are not. I am tired about people consulting tangata whenua, officials running up and down the country, local bodies, and government departments and we are hitting our heads against brick walls. Our people are capable of being in the highest positions.
National standards - reference to Ngāwhā prison (built on the spring) and the draining of wetlands. We need to have standards that stop this from happening - get our priorities right.
It is likely that the RC will be passed the buck to sort out some of the local issues. He supports the establishment of national water quality standards. Years ago we studies standards in North America which were very high. Also support the idea of a national policy statement. Water is only secondary in importance to people.
More work needs to be done to emphasise the importance of water - to remind people of the value of water, rather than looking straight at allocation measures.
Fully supports the working together idea. Whole of government approach would work on catchments (eg Mahurangi Catchment - heavy sediment).
RMA- there are some issues around the amendment bill - there is no duty to consult in resource consents. There is a concern that despite provisions in Part II matters (relating to Māori) in terms of implementation - no duty to consult therefore it will probably not occur.
Building relationships and capacity - this does not often occur. You could take a lead on looking at good models both in NZ and internationally on best practice for indigenous people being involved in water issues. We have to move from just saying we have got to do it, to actually going though with some models.
Q: Has there been any work on the cost of water?
No comprehensive study.
If you haven't got water, then you can't have agriculture etc. There is a paper on climate change, and you need to reference that work and work together (both steering committees). Paul and I are on both Māori issues working parties (and reference group). This is because you can't have climate change issues without water.
The emphasis of this programme is rural, but there are urban issues which are critical because of the storm water issues and the impacts on our natural water ways. The natural waterways are deemed 'soft assets' owned by the local body. Water is water - rural, urban, puna, awa, moana - Wai Māori, Waitai.
Observed that this document acknowledges the importance of water as a taonga to Māori but then it talks about reconciling that with economic issues.
Māori (particularly in the context of the RMA) shouldn't be seen as anti-development, or as problematic but we are kaitiaki - to protect the whenua, the awa and sacred sites and this is affirmed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As we move forward, we must be in partnership. Any water programme of action must see water as a taonga in the context of the Treaty and this benefits all of us, not just Māori. The RMA seemed to set us apart as world leaders in this area, let's not let that go. Don't just consult with us; allow us to participate. Don't let Māori be relegated to a second tier level of consultation when Māori are the Treaty partner.
We are talking from our background, our history, our culture. We won't just drop all that because of some government law. There is strong resistance to us when we say we are coming from a cultural identity.
On page 7 of the discussion document - the MRG is named. Then it lists the interests represented in the stakeholder reference group.
Are Māori not a stakeholder? The stakeholders are a powerful lobby group. My heart go out to the members of the MRG, they are a reference group not a stakeholder group.
William cites the introduction by the Minister in the document which refers to how "different management regimes... have protected waterways, rivers, lakes and aquifers" This is incorrect. Many Māori have protested against what has gone into our water bodies over time.
There are flaws in the wording of the document:
It is all very well to talk about building better relationships but the ones there today are failing us.
There are many things that we (MRG) have said during our meetings that are not in the document, and a later paper that I was involved in writing on Māori values is not reflected in the discussion document. It should have been included. If you really want to walk the talk: then put our korero from today and the past on Māori values back into these documents or the subsequent policies that are developed.
We have been doing this mahi for generations, and we say and hear the same thing - this is not new, and will continue past our lifetimes.
There are some seeds in the programme that need to be nurtured for our mokopuna.
We who have been doing the work need to be in Wellington talking, not leaving it up to politicians. We need to be resourced to participate, to engage effectively.
Question 1: You tell us that forecast demands are increasing, where is the strategy for greater education on conservation, restoration and regenerating capacity? There needs to be more balance between consumption and conservation.
Question 2: on the issue of relationships with Māori -legally, part 2 of the RMA requires these relationships s6(e) - but more than that, Māori have hundreds of years experience as kaitiaki, as mana whenua protecting and managing land, waterways and so on. This needs to be recognised.
We need to be at governance level, an example could be regional tangata whenua water boards - which could sit alongside councils and make decisions at that level
We need to be at management level - how can you help develop iwi management plans?
We need to be at regulatory/compliance level - perhaps we could establish something similar to honorary fisheries officers.
Our people are capable of conservation. We developed a conservation kit 'Taniwharau' in consultation with Tainui for the Tamaki region during the water crisis. Watercare supported this. Education and awareness is crucial. We are running out of water. This is very serious.
Has there been any work done on technical developments? Eg salination, cleaning, recycling
Answer: those issues are outside the scope of this programme
There was widespread support amongst those in attendance for the idea of recycling and consideration of conservation strategies.
Jane - talked about the contradiction in acts regarding conservation techniques (eg using grey water, alternative technologies for waster water) - there needs to be more consistency/synergy.
Refers to Page 5 "A way forward - 13 actions"
Māori should be up there as action number one - because we are talking about our values as tangata whenua, we have not been involved at governance level and therefore our values have not been adopted.
There is no reference to the Treaty, the Crown should enable Māori values to captured and reflected.
RMA review - planning commissioners will have more involvement in process - in Manukau - there is only one - she doesn't stand a chance - we need equity in the representation of these commissioners.
Enhance Māori participation - this is not strong enough.
Education of elected members on council - The reality is that they are not educated on Māori issues. There needs to be improvement in their capacity.
From discussions of Ngāti Whātua - Hapū/Iwi planning documents - are a way of putting our Māori benchmarks on how we will do things in our rohe. This gives us an onus was well.
There are currently two funds administered by Mfe and MAF - the Sustainable Management Fund and the Sustainable Farming Fund. In the future, when hapu, iwi make applications, we should not have to fight with Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) such as Landcare or Hort research, or Government departments for the same funds. As a solution, money should be put aside solely for Māori. Within this funding, some could be set aside solely for water. This will ensure that Māori planning documents are bite size and achievable.
Currently we are competing with CRIs and Government departments. In the political environment, all that funding disappeared.
We, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua applied for funding for SMF and got it (and had done the first of twelve capacity milestones), but the contract was suspended due to a political about turn in policies. So we do not have an iwi management plan and we have to reapply again with everyone else for funding.
Support for Iwi includes resourcing and access to technology.
Seeks clarification on the involvement of FOMA in the process how does it link into the interests of mana whenua in the Tamaki rohe? It is important to hear the voice of the people of the land. They have a number of employment initiatives etc and need to be involved. Māori population in 2005 28% - this is a substantial interest in Tamaki rohe.
Response: Paul Morgan sits on the MRG. FOMA is represented on the stakeholder group. Many land blocks have not been engaged by FOMA in this process.
Kristy gave some background to the Otakanini Topu - economic development. TPK is assisting them to create their own economic and business development for themselves.
Referred to Page 13 Water conservation orders:
How many successful applications are being made by Māori? What is the likelihood of success given the stakeholders' interests in water allocation?
Answer: unknown
William: under the RMA weighting is against Māori. Farmers would oppose conservation orders because they conflict with their economic use and desires.
If an awa is a taonga to a hapū, how does that weigh against someone who wants to discharge into that awa or take from the awa? How will this be balanced in your policies that you develop?
Answer: it is not - that is what we are seeking from this consultation.
William: National standards should adopt our values and should clearly outline the weightings to be given to our values.
This programme would need to talk to Māori as landowners and tangata whenua - knowing about Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and Māori Trustee constructs. The public need to be made aware that we are more than protestors. We are landowners with economic development aspirations.
Referred to Action 3 - bottom lines - there is no mention of historical information and what local people learn over time (eg seasonal issues and signs of stress on the environment). Too much emphasis is placed on scientific information. Sometimes courts have taken historical evidence as important. It is important that such information is captured in the programme and given the respect it deserves.
Bill referred to plans to develop a dam on the Hotio River - the ARC was interested in studying the river as there was a possibility of income from water charges. But as soon as the water charge issue disappeared, the ARC was not interested in doing the study. We want the study done to address our issues - but it was no longer of economic importance to the ARC. So there is no study on this important awa.
Any regime needs to take into account values.
Urban issues must be integrated into this programme - this is not just a rural issue - that is too narrow a focus, they are all interlinked, and this programme needs to be extended. Metropolitan city limits are extending all the time, into areas where our marae are.
Stormwater infrastructure impacts on our natural waterways, roading impacts on our waterways. Ngāti Whātua has 9 district councils and 2 regional councils - we are asking for consistency on legislative administration.
There is an issue around the political agenda and the legislative programme before the election. This consultation on freshwater started one week before Waitangi Day and when Māori are still reeling from the Foreshore and Seabed issue. Many Māori have not quite picked it up, and this is coming through at some of the hui. Can you assure us that this take will remain an initial stage, and not rocket into policy draft before elections for the sake of expediency? The foreshore issues happened like that. Although I congratulate you on your attempt to take this issue around, the only way that this will work is when Māori are decision makers.
Paul: there is no expectation for officials involved that things will happen before the election, but ultimately it is for Ministers to decide. There is no prescribed end point. We are closer to the beginning than the middle and the end.
Jane: We have learned from our experience on the Foreshore, and there are similarities here. Hopefully there will be better relationships and a better outcome from this process.
Suzanne: There have been no more policy documents written beyond the work that went into this discussion document.
In te reo Māori, the 'a' and 'o' categories indicate different values for particular things - for water it is an 'o' category - indicating the importance of water to Māori. Te Marino presented a gift of a t-shirt to Paul screen printed with the words: "Kia ora ai te wai" (that the water lives on). Ultimately we are interested in the health and benefit of our water.
Page 8 - Relationship between Crown-Māori needs to be prioritised over the other material in the diagram- it is another level.
In the original drafts, the treaty relationship was shown in a way that showed its priority (ie by way of an elongated box which linked to everything else). We wanted to somehow illustrate that it should permeate through all other issues.
Paul has heard:
Acknowledges that outcomes take time (eg te reo, references and acknowledgement of treaty)as a result of the work of people pushing these issues.
Decisions in the past have been made by those who sit only in the economic quadrant in terms of the sustainable development model, the other values and interests have been overridden.
And Māori are also partly responsible for some of the effects on our waterways. This programme seeks for more balance.
In response to Paul's collection of thoughts, William does not think that the summary captures well enough the need for national water standards. I want you to go away with the clear message that we need national water standards more than we need water allocation.
Paul acknowledges this.
It is important for Ngāti Whātua and Pākehā to work together, this fulfils the prophecies of our tūpuna - but it important for our views to be heard.
Pākehā have chopped down our trees, and brought a lot of things that have contaminated our country. What we originally had is already gone, the reality is that we are living in a different way. Hopefully you can put our views into practice so that we can all benefit.
Closing karakia 1pm
Last updated: 25 November 2008