Skip to main content.

Hastings hui

23 February 2005

1. Karakia (Heitia Hiha)/Mihimihi (Ngāhiwi Tomoana)

2. Introductions

Mike Jebson, George Ria (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry); Claire Nesus (Te Puni Kōkiri); Sandra McIntyre; Livia Hollins (Ministry for the Environment); Willie and Linda Te Aho (Facilitator and minute secretary - Indigenous Corporate Solutions Limited).

3. Introductions of those in attendance

During introductions the following points were made:

3.1 Ngāhiwi Tomoana

Some time ago, our Tupuna gave us a publication - He Toa Takitini - and it speaks about te arohanui o Ranginui ki a Papatūānuku, we have been given a whakapapa and the mauri of that whakapapa, and our job is to uphold that. This is fundamental to us and we will talk about it ad nauseum.

3.2 Serena O'Donnell

Recently returned from the Waikato, and I became interested in this issue because of the pollution I saw in the Waikato river.

3.3 Marei Apatu

Acknowledges the process of having a scribe who is able to pick up on the essence of what we are saying, it provides integrity to the process of consultation and provides a level of comfort that what we say is going to be put forward.

3.4 Heitia Hiha

This issue has shades of the Merchant of Venice - trying to separate water from land is similar to Shylock trying to separate the flesh from blood - water should not be taken from the land and should not be sold to others.

3.5 Morry Black

I am concerned about over allocation of river waters and the relationship of the aquifers and the rivers is not being recognised. As a Māori I see the whole thing connected - mountains to the sea. 

3.6 Leon Hawea

A concern to us is the slowly withering away of our mana whenua, tangata whenua status as we see other peoples' rights having more priority to ours - we want better participation in decision-making.

Willie Te Aho explained the process for the hui, and the closing date for submissions - March 18 th.

4. Presentation (Mike Jebson - Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)

4.1 Background

  • Rather than saying "I'm here from the Ministry and I'm here to help you' Mike's version is: "I'm here from the Ministry and I'm here for you to help me". Mike explained his responsibility together with Sue Powell (Ministry for the Environment) to lead the cross-government team focussing upon water - involving a number of government departments.
  • Mike referred to the reference in the booklet to the Treaty Relationship - we want to know how do we make that more relationship more meaningful?
  • This programme involves freshwater from the mountains to the sea - as was said in Karitane ( Dunedin), the rivers and streams are the arteries and veins of Papatūānuku, and this message of connectedness is a powerful one.
  • This programme does not address fisheries management, nor does it address the urban water supply, but the connectedness of those issues is recognised.
  • Mike gave a background of his own experience of declining water quality in the streams he enjoyed in his farming upbringing, and the value of water in terms of his family's farming background in the Canterbury Plains.
  • We need a healthy water system for all dimensions and value sets relating to water - social, health, cultural, spiritual and economic (hydro, irrigation - the wealth of the nation depends upon the land), environmental, mahinga kai - therefore wise management is needed.
  • This discussion document and the water programme reflect some 18 months of initial thinking around what the problems are and some proposals and ideas to address those problems. This stage is testing that thinking, and that is why we are here today.
  • If there are other problems or other ideas, we value your feedback.
  • Some of the preliminary ideas were tested with
    • a general stakeholders group (eg fish and game, forest and bird federated farmers, FOMA, energy companies); and
    • a Māori Reference Group - a useful forum: Heitia Hiha, Waaka Vercoe, Paul Morgan, Jane West, Gail Tipa (however this document is a government document - and if you don't like the document - don't blame the Māori Reference Group).

4.2 The two main issues are:

  • Water quality is declining -
    • Examples of high profile cases eg Rotorua, Taupo
    • We cannot sit back and allow this to happen to such precious resources.
  • Allocation - involves taking of water, as well as issues around how much water should remain in rivers. There is not enough water to meet everyone's desires and needs. Demand continues to grow. There needs to be much wiser use - how can we meet those needs so that the rivers don't suffer, and so that communities don't suffer.

There is also another issue that we will be addressing: Water bodies of National Importance - this issue needs to be tested more with communities. To date, the Government has been 'fire fighting' the specific major problems, what are other nationally significant water bodies that the government can step in and provide assistance with - as it has in Waitaki, Taupo, Rotorua, Rotoiti? What is the role of Central role in this issue? We have been told at many hui so far that the Government is not fulfilling its duties under the Treaty of Waitangi with regard to water - when should it step in? How can we work together more effectively to solve the problems relating to water?

4.3 Possible Solutions - Ideas for a new approach? (Sandra McIntyre)

The ideas that I will talk about are just ideas and we really need to hear what you think about them. You may disagree with these ideas and have better ideas.

(a) Providing National Direction

Local and Regional councils manage freshwater - and they have been left alone to do this. But what happens where there are issues that affect the country as a whole, or national priorities?

Some ideas are:

  • To make use of RMA provisions for national policy statements and national environmental standards - this would allow priorities for water management and environmental bottom lines to be set up front - eg how much water should stay in a lake or river (currently there no national policies or standards);
  • How to identify priorities - Government targeting where it gets more directly involved in water management -identifying the 'nationally important' water bodies - eg water quality in Rotorua Lakes - maybe government should be involved earlier.

(b) Central Government could become more involved

Such as in getting together to make submissions on regional plans, in developing best practice information and sharing around that information, funding for councils, use more pilot programmes (eg local projects and solutions that are already established)

(c) Working together

  • How can all different sectors (eg councils, scientists, Māori) come together to address some of the problems
  • Raising awareness - education - Sandra has heard many times that rural people are aware of the problems with water, but people in the cities are not.
  • Building relationships with Māori
    • Clearly Māori have a really big interest. We want to look at ways of making Māori participation more effective. What other things can we be doing to make this more effective?
  • Pilot programmes eg Lake Taupo (cooperative approach), sharing information

(d) Providing more tools for regional councils

  • The discussion booklet sets out some ideas around comparing and prioritising consents (rather than looking at applications in isolation) should there be some kind of auctioning and tendering of water where there are competing applications?
  • Transfer of water permits and consents - if some users have more water than they need, should transfer be made easier?
  • Local Government prepares plans - local authorities could be required to prepare a plan concerning 'big' issues relating to water.
  • Providing a way for councils to reduce the taking to address issues of over allocation and water quality - is it something we need to look at?

As Mike has said, we need to hear from you which ideas are good and which are not.

5. Discussion

5.1 Marei Apatu

Whose rights are right? I refer to the Treaty and the rights that it gives to us as tangata whenua, not the principles of the treaty, but the spirit in its entirety. There has been a huge failure in the delegation of management to local government who continue to deny their responsibility. The relationships need to develop.

There needs to be a complete change of attitude on the part of local government, Central Government may well need to come in to take a big stick to local government.

In terms of relationships, we want to participate as tangata whenua, not as a stakeholder. We must play an integral part of the decision-making processes. We have a lot to offer in co-management regimes, we can make meaningful contribution as kaitiaki. If we want to cast the image of clean green, then we need to recognise the cultural face that can help to provide this. On the (foreshore and seabed) hīkoi we heard that 'they want our culture, but they don't want us".

We are marae, and pā people. We often do this type of work because we are involved in our marae committee etc. We take up huge amounts of time to take part in these processes - moumou taima (a waste of time). Of course we need more resources, applied appropriately to make the process more effective, we need to build our capacity.

We know there are Crown rentals in shingle management. We don't see any of that; it goes back into the coffers of government. This is economically driven.

The RMA review and the foreshore process has meant that we do not have confidence in the government. Material has been snuck through over Christmas, which prioritises economic players over environmental issues.

My fear is that what used to be notified activities will now become discretionary non-notified activities and transparency will be lost. I do not have faith in the local government decision-making - given past decisions over water allocation.

The focus on economic issues must be changed: environmental imperatives must take more priority over economic imperatives. However we acknowledge that they do go cap in hand because our people own vineyards, but there must be a balance.

We have taken the opportunity to meet and discuss some of these issues and they include:

On the issue of "First in first served" we are tangata whenua, we were first here therefore our priorities should be first.

We need to set some kind of performance indicator that takes us back to how we remember the former glory of our resources.

Catchment plans - ngā puna roimata, the tears of Ranginui that comes down to Papatūānuku. We agree with the kōrero of the veins of Papatūānuku. We also have a view on the veins of Tangaroa. We talk of the continual cycle from Ranginui to Papatūānuku. So the notion of having a split process of having catchments that is broken up, with different sets of decision-making and no cultural input. This has been relegated to second class, second tier position. The continuum of a whole catchment needs to be the look. These are big issues. How can we make this happen? Is there any political willingness to make provision for this to happen - this needs to come from the top and be recognised from the top. The Treaty is sacrosanct and this must be the starting point of the management of water.

If there is any form of water rental then this is an opportunity to put some of that aside to support our young people to go through university to upskill in this area - to build our capacity - to prop up tangata whenua to grow our own people around these particular sorts of issues. These people (skilled in resource management technical issues) are rare, and we need to turn that around.

In summary:

  • We need to look at a system that takes more account of factors other than economic (environmental, cultural).
  • We do want to get to a position where we have a good model in place - that recognises our status as tangata whenua.
  • We had to fight the Hastings District Council over the issue of water quality and water standards in terms of discharge of waste to water. We went through a long and enduring process to have our cultural imperatives taken into account. The council has placed too much emphasis on economic imperatives. We fought to ensure that what was discharged was ultimately inert to Tangaroa and Papatūānuku. Tangata whenua had a win, and this was a win for the community - and what has been established is a committee that has 50/50 balance.
  • We don't have the resources to sit alongside of the hydro companies and others who have major economic interests.

5.2 Heitia Hiha

On the point regarding the committee, it is not a nice job; it is a difficult job. So it is right to have a 50/50 balance. But when it comes to the good things, there is no 50/50.

5.3 Peter Paku

Water has been very important to our family for many a year. I am part of two committees that deal with waste - we have huge problems in this area, and much of the work that I have put into these issues is unpaid.

With regard to some of the tools that were on the screen earlier, the regional councils have shares in the port companies. They are the 'Crown in drag'. So when they say there is no putea, this is rubbish.

Some of those pictures that we have seen how did we let it get to that level?

The Milk and Cheese industry here is based on water - and we see some of the messes that are happening and we need to address these issues.

Stock herds are being switched now, and a lot more water is needed for them now.

I worked on the 'second generation Regional plan' which took us three years to alter. Throughout that process we could not pick winners. We don't have a policy on land use. There needs to be planning on land use. The RMA allows for transferable water permits. There are areas that need to be changed.

Changes for regional rules and monitoring require Māori commissioners, not advisors that are seconded. There must be funding for that from the ports.

The current allocation method is flawed. If people lose water, we lose crops and we lose employment.

We have told HDC in their planning not to allow too much taking above the aquifers/springs. Our springs are not being harnessed. They are being pumped when they are already draining the land at the same time - the system is inefficient.

Water not being used should go back in the melting pot. Even though it is said that there is no right to renewal, in reality they do, and we will end up in the Environmental court.

Coastal villages are being set up and septic tanks are making their way into them. From a sewage point of view, you can smell it - soap leaves tell-tale signs. We need better monitoring.

In terms of allocation - I have never been a fan of first in first served. Glazebrook was allocated one third many years ago. If we stuck with this, Glazebrook would still be taking one third. One third was to flow to recharge our system.

We need a better definition of what is a drain and what is a stream. What flows into our streams (like Pakowhai) are being polluted by drains.

There are crazy rules on septic tanks etc that will impact on us as well. It costs up to $15,000 to establish a septic system.

Old style of living - you used to put your kāinga near a stream, which was usually clean, there was kai. As Kaitiaki we who live at the bottom of the river control of the river, if you lived upstream in the old times and you put paru in the river, I would be up there poking a stick in you.

Karamu stream is filthy and polluted and full of weed. How do we make the councils do anything?

The councils approach to shingle - this needs to be changed.

5.4 Heitia Hiha

I was involved in the MRG on cultural issues. Since this has come out, I have looked more at the management side and the legal side.

Our relationship treaty wise has always been with Crown, we used to have the department of Māori Affairs and if we had problems, we could feed these back through the Department. Now TPK is policy focussed, not a community active organisation, we have lost our direct chain of communication to the Minister.

The Crown is delegating its responsibility to local bodies and therein lies the problem. The development of SABU and LATES organisations within a local body, private arms - we hope that the Crown will set up Māori constituency like the Bay of Plenty where Māori will be ensured participation at regional council level.

Seabed/Foreshore - an assumption was made by the Crown. Today I hear a lot of other assumptions, like the Crown owns the gravel. Where is the legal say so that the Crown owns the gravel? At least is doesn't say it owns the water.

Some time ago, I asked Nick Smith the difference between a water right and ownership of water. He said that was a can of worms. Now this programme has opened up that can of worms.

The statement in the document that the Crown is vested with the right to manage - where is the legal basis for that statement? It is too similar to the assumption made regarding the foreshore. Māori have always been willing to share resources, but as soon as a commercial value is placed on the resource (eg quota) then we jumped up and down.

The document (issue 6) says that Māori Participation in water management 'could' be improved. I say that Māori participation in water management must be improved.

The Crown is passing responsibility to Local bodies but they are considered to be private under the Public Finance Act.

Things like endowment lands get hidden out of sight. Those of us on the RC Māori committee feel we have a fairly good relationship in the development of policy.

But the real place is back at the table where the decision is made. We need someone at that table to speak on our behalf, so how can it be said that we have our say?

Water permits - I am pleased that the wording is permits and not water rights (Glazebrook says he has 32% but what he has is a quantity regardless of the water level in the river). Allocation should allocate a percentage of what is in the river at a particular time.

I disagree with first in first served. Water belongs to the land, it shouldn't belong to a person.

I agree with transfer of permits. Sometimes people aren't using their water, and sometimes those who have the rights live overseas and it isn't used. This needs straightening up.

I am against the water auction idea or selling water. If it is RC managing the use of water, then all of those should come back to RC to be reissued.

Perhaps in anticipation of what is going to happen, Glazebrook has already developed its own 11 hectare lake.

People are responsible to their neighbours.

5.5 Leon Hawea

Ka whati te wai, ka whati te whenua.

At the end of the day when you return to Wellington and write your policies etc, those of us at the chalk face are still dealing with water quality and management. We need to know what type of time we will see results of our contribution to your process- such as within 10 years, the quality of this stream will be swimmable, in what amount of time will we have no pollution? How can you guarantee us that what we say will trickle down to guide us and help us to sustain this resource?

The blockage in terms of relationship of iwi with Crown - the problems occur at the level of local government. There is no Māori participation in the decision-making. You must impress the role of tangata whenua, and how RC and DC relate to those parties in a decision-making role, not just as providers of advice. We must contribute at the beginning not at the end.

The system currently in place is not working. We are always on the back foot. Water is an important issue, but our lack of participation is a much wider issue.

Maybe Ministry for the Environment can fund a different organisation so that Māori can pay our rates to a Māori 'council' who will look after our interests. Water management is so critical to us.

We know councils operate through policy writing. We live in a racist regime that is intent on cutting out participation of Māori, because the focus of local councils has been economic. This programme seems to be coming from an environmental base. Where do our beliefs and our values lie? You may need to show the light on how councils are going to relate. They do not recognise the Treaty in their policies.

5.6 Waa Harris

Two creeks meet behind me are dead and have been for years. The waters do not flow. How do I get my streams back to how they once were? I tell my mokopuna that I used to swim in there, get crayfish and other kai. Now the smell is disgusting because the water is stagnant, and I am left with their paru. The Regional Council should be answerable to somebody. On the 19 th December last year, a horticulturalist put two bores in paddocks before he got the application for the water. I am not a scientist but this is not common sense. The Regional Council put a little circle around it and only let those houses know about the resource consent. I live opposite the marae, but I was told that I couldn't speak. So I responded that the aquifer starts and stops within that aquifer? This is ridiculous. Now my aunty has no water in her bore in the summertime, because everyone else is drawing water. There are health and safety issues. Hastings District Council put a bore down and wanted us all to join their line and go on their bores and not on our own. We have to pay for pipes that pipe the water. Now, the council goes elsewhere, but we are expected to stay on their bore.

We are a captured community. We were there before everyone else. Now we are surrounded by lifestyle blocks that are taking the water. But they won't acknowledge that they live in Pakipaki. Further down in Bridge Pa is the same. They don't say it but we know we don't constitute enough money in the rates to be worthwhile.

5.7 Heitia Hiha

Te Awa o te Atua used to be a flowing stream now it is dry. Glazebrook lives next door and he has all the water. The little kids play in the dry bed and sometimes they leave the little kids in there and sometimes Glazebrook opens the gate and lets the water flow without warning.

I liked Paul Morgan's model at the top of the South Island where some water is allocated to the environment. That system of water allocation could happen here.

Water users and polluters, their intake should be below their outlet. The well should be at the lower end of their stream.

During the Resource consent process for outlet for sewage, we argued that the permit should be intergenerational, not beyond the generation of those decision makers. 35 years passes outside the knowledge of the people who are present. So it was lowered to 12. 

5.8 Morry Black

Under the RMA, in terms of the allocation of permits, Māori should have more say in, as rivers are recognised as taonga under Article 2 of Te Tiriti.

The concept of water bodies of national importance should not have more weight than existing matters of national importance.

The Water Programme of Action is needed, we all know of the quality declining and that our rivers are drying up, who is responsible for that? It is Regional Council - they have been remiss in their duties. It is time for Māori to have a greater role.

There needs to be a cap on the amount of groundwater that is taken. There are always new applications for water permits, the affected parties status needs to be changed.

Environmental and cultural factors should be prioritised over economic factors - which should come last. If we fail on the environmental side, who has to pay? Rotorua and Taupo are classic examples.

In the summer, you can't swim in our lagoon. We all know that it is caused by nutrients, they are passing the buck by not recognising this.

There are many sites discharging contaminants into our river systems. Wineries need water to irrigate. And now wineries are on our side, because they are marketing their grapes which are irrigated with water that has human effluent in it. Yesterday's enemy is today's friend. We need pilot programmes to compensate for our past actions and inaction and Māori need to part of the design of those programmes

5.9 Robert MacDonald

I agree with what has been said previously. I agree that the Regional Council is responsible for the problems.

Māori Communities are dying for lack of water, but people seem more concerned about putting ducks on a puddle.

Ownership - interesting experience in Waimarama - water was shared but now, if you haven't got a right, it is not legal, so if you fall out with your neighbour, tough. Rights under the Treaty need to be clarified.

There is a lot more that we can do. Our Incorporation has taken up riparian planting. We can close off waterways that run through our farm and start our project. However our legal situation has not been resolved satisfactorily in the Māori Land Court. 

5.10 Jenny Manger

Tangata whenua got here first. We are a first nation, and we are winners. Observations about our environment that were made by our grandparents are only now being recognised by the scientists.

It is unjust that this process is not going to each hapū and each marae to allow tangata whenua to have their say.

We need water in our veins. There was a perfect description today about the veins and arteries about Papatūānuku. We have many water-laden whakatauaki. I had hoped that our people would bombard you with those, but perhaps we need to live them as well as chant them.

I implore you to be proactive.

We want our own management teams, we don't want to just be policy people, we want to be practitioners - leading the way for other communities. We have an opportunity from rentals, for capacity building. We need practice, not theory. I am against theory. I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars cramming my head full of theory at university. We need to live our reality.

I am part of the Tukituki Cultural Health Index, a team with some young brilliant people on it. Every site we looked at was impacted upon, there was not one pristine site. It was astonishing to see the number of dried up streams - with no overhanging vegetation, or framed with exotic plants or grass. Our own mindset of a healthy river is different to 100 years ago.

My idea was not to moan, but to go out and get the tools of the decision makers. Ngāhiwi has been the main driver of us having a mussel farm out in the bay.

We have to go to so many lengths just to be tangata whenua. We have to participate in so many worlds and be twice as good.

5.11 Serena O'Donnell

Today was more of an information gathering exercise for me, and I have learned a lot today.

Secondly I came to see what difference the two trusts that I am involved in can make. One way is that we have people who lease from us, and we can see the amount of water wasted on crops particularly in the summer, and we could sit down with them and work out a better way of meeting their needs and the wider community's. We can personalise it more. Everyone has a personal responsibility to improve the quality of the water, to do whatever they can do. Water is wasted by orchardists who wet the road. There are ways of growing your crops - meeting your economic needs - and balance other needs. Because they can get away with it, they do get away with it.

5.12 Stirling Halbert

From what I have heard, if we are going to earmark anything, mindsets need to change at our regional level and at central government level. Our representation of Māori needs to be there and recognised in our region.

Māori Affairs - that representative body needs to be reformed so that we can have representation with our regional council.

5.13 Ngāhiwi Tomoana

I am from the iwi and I am here to help you. Every hapū was against the foreshore, and the Crown took no notice. So our comments are based on our history and our whakapapa. We need to be kaitiaki of our own whakapapa.

Whakatauaki: Our symbols

Heretaunga haukunui - Heretaunga of the life giving dews.

We are kaitiaki of the mist and dew

Heretaunga ararau - Heretaunga of the arcadian pathways.

This refers to a place in Macedonia, a place where orchards and rural communities thrived.

Heretaunga haro te kaahu - Heretaunga seen through the eyes of the soaring hawk

Heretaunga takoto noa - Heretaunga of the departed chiefs

Our language "ko wai", nā wai, nō wai etc, illustrates that our waters are absolutely vital.

The regional council is not here to look after tangata whenua interests, they are farmers and look after farming interests.

Our shopping list - our way forward is based on the 13 actions outlined in your document.

Our plan B, to make the Crown listen, is to sue them - just as we did on the Foreshore issue, we won in the Māori Land Court, then the Court of Appeal (then the Government changed the legislation).

1. Develop National Policy Statements - we must have our own wharenui with our own paepae - our own experts that every policy must run through. Policy statements should reflect that iwi (whanau, hapū, waka) as tangata whenua are the kaitiaki over the mauri of all freshwater.

2. National policy statements and standards must meet criteria that tangata whenua set (too often we have experienced "save the native species, stuff the natives")

3. Address nationally important values: They must recognise tikanga, kawa, whakapapa.

4. Central Government must provide legislation that Regional Councils must take into account tangata whenua issues. The RMA does make provision for this but it has not been applied.

5. Increase Central Government's support for local government: A LITE or Local Iwi Trading Enterprise should be set up to monitor and collect water rates from every user. We can then manage the water as kaitiaki.

6-8. Developing mechanisms: Just like lawyers have to pay into a fidelity fund, there should be a bond on all dischargers. Eg Fonterra's requirement that if you do not comply with our requirements/standards, we will not buy your milk.

9. Set requirements for plans - Punish those who ignore standards

10. Enhance Māori participation - Refer to Action 1 set up our own paepae.

11. Allow Regional Councils to allocate water to priority uses. Yes as long as it goes through LITE. It is also our tikanga is to Manaaki.

12. Raise awareness: We already have programmes for education. etc

13. Collaboration: We must create our own strategic plan. Tangata whenua still own vast quantities in our headlands, maybe we could store water up there as kaitiaki, and then look after our downstream people.

We could be cynical and expect our shopping list to be ignored and thrown in the rubbish bin and revert to plan b (court action). But not to list them would be remiss on our part as kaitiaki.

6. Reflection of key points

6.1 Mike Jebson

  • Treaty is a key issue and the need for tangata whenua to be involved in decision making
  • Clear statements and concerns that Treaty and role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki is not being recognised at regional level,
  • Big problems with water management - access to water for small communities eg Māori communities seeing water being wasted around them but they do not have access
  • Some good ideas on rentals (eg shingle)
  • Concerns about separating land from water - and the need for integrated management from mountains to the sea, and that the systems are living systems
  • Avoid direct selling or market mechanisms, but look at the water as part of the land
  • The need for communities to take responsibility and embrace water management eg riparian management
  • Real concern around the Crown as Treaty partner delegating and relying upon Local Government without providing guidance on how they operate
  • Regional councils must be answerable in terms of their management and the need for a watchdog
  • The need for a time frame - it needs to be measurable - is it a 10 year vision or a 50 year vision?
  • The need for recognition of iwi, hapū, whānau, waka, tikanga

This information will be put together with all other information and there will be a long reflection. This programme is about the balance that works for the community and for Māori. This is not a short-term programme, it will take years. There are no short term fixes, but our challenge it to find the right pathways.

6.2 George Ria

The stories you have told today remind me of our own experience at home at Waikanae, Gisborne.

We know that what is good for one iwi is not necessarily good for others. We have different needs and different solutions.

Imagine the name of Waihīrere - it should be abundant with water - but it is not. Where is the water?

Tikanga is not science, tikanga is common sense and that came out today. This programme is the first off the block for the government's 'sustainable development framework' the four well-beings.

More needs to be done to restore balance between these wellbeings. Cultural should perhaps be the most important.

Perhaps we need to educate Pākehā to understand our values base.

It was clear from today's hui that tangata whenua need to be part of:

  • Decision making
  • Management
  • Regulators and compliance

6.3 Marei Apatu

Noted that further submissions would be made and this would be led by Morry Black.

1.50pm Closing Kōrero (Marei Apatu) Closing Karakia (Heitia Hiha)

Last updated: 25 November 2008