Skip to main content.

Wellington hui

28 February 2005

1. Karakia Mihimihi

2. Introductions

Sue Powell, Riki Ellison, Livia Hollins (Ministry for the Environment), George Ria; Rebecca Martel (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry); Suzanne Doig (Te Puni Kōkiri); Willie and Linda Te Aho (Facilitator and minute secretary - Indigenous Corporate Solutions Limited).

3. Introductions of those in attendance

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

4. Presentation (Sue Powell - Ministry for the Environment)

4.1 Background

  • This programme has involved a cross Government team, several diverse government departments have come together and we speak with one voice
  • The aim of this programme is to improve water management, how to look after streams and rivers and how to protect them
  • This hui is for us to come and listen to you - this is the beginning of the consultation process - the intent is to harvest what people in the community know
  • Following all consultation hui and public meetings, several reports will go back to government, and one of them will be the report from the various hui
  • 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 - : Heitia Hiha, Waaka Vercoe, Paul Morgan, Jane West, Gail Tipa - their contribution has been valuable
  • This programme focuses on rural issues, it does not address the urban water supply, nor does it address marine issues but we acknowledge the importance of those issues.
  • We are not here to talk about ownership, we are here to talk about management.
  • If there are other problems or other ideas, we value your feedback.

4.2 The two main issues are:

  • Water quality is declining -
    • Examples of high profile cases eg Rotorua, Taupo
  • Allocation - involves taking of water, as well as issues around how much water should remain in rivers.

There is also another issue that we will be addressing: Water bodies of National Importance. To date, the Government has been reactive to 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, Waiwhetū Stream? What is the role of Central role in this issue?

Note: The government is not intending to usurp the powers of regional and local councils.

4.3 Possible Solutions - Ideas for a new approach?

(a) Providing National Direction

Some ideas are:

  • To make use of RMA provisions for national policy statements (eg coastal policy) and national environmental standards (eg around air quality standards for health) - 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; should more be done with water conservation orders?
  • 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 come together to address some of the problems
  • Raising awareness - education -
  • Building relationships with Māori
  • Pilot programmes eg Lake Taupo (cooperative approach), sharing information

(d) Providing more tools for regional councils

  • We are asking a number of questions around whether we have enough tools to deal with some of the problems we have identified.
  • Should there be a system of 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?
  • Should it be easier to transfer water permits and consents - if some users have more water than they need?
  • Local Government prepares plans - local authorities could be required to prepare a plan concerning 'big' issues relating to water.
  • Should there be more tools to allow councils to reduce the taking to address issues of over allocation and water quality - is it something we need to look at?

5. Discussion

5.1 Morris Love

Our rohe covers Wellington City, Hutt City and Upper Hutt City.

There is not much irrigation here, and limited farming but there is a large amount of rural area that people don't often see.

We have a very serious interest in the seawater regime, and the rivers and streams affect seawater quality.

Wellington Tenths (WT) does have a farm and does contribute to quality issues for streams and rivers in the area (Awakairangi - Hutt River). The quality of the Waiwhetū stream is a major concern.

Was part of earlier attempts to set national water standards that were done away with (in an era where Government did not consult widely).

From Wellington Tenths point of view the relationship with regional council has been a major effort. If you make changes, look at history of water management (ie look at what worked).

It is disappointing that there hasn't been a better lead from CG to LG eg setting national standards extraordinarily slow and we are paying the price for that).

The impact of urban development on water quality is a major issue. More rural area is becoming urbanised with the development of lifestyle blocks. Inevitably water quality will decrease.

Treaty of Waitangi claim settlement processes offers an ability to establish relationship with CG and advance co-management. You only have one hit - chances of getting it wrong are quite high.

We will need input into water issues over a number of years, in planning. There are things in the future that will change and we need to be there to continually ensure that the changes meet our expectations.

In the revision of plans, resourcing is an issue to do the analysis to ensure that the plan will do what it is supposed to do. This is very difficult to cover issues that will arise. Many consents are done in a non- notified way, eg discharging waste, so rely upon RC to impose suitable conditions.

When you make changes, need to look at a whole raft of issues, there is a lot of experience in running the RMA with councils. CG hasn't played a role, and may not understand what is happening out there.

Tools from settlement process need to be used more.

Example: In our area we have very few water bodies, but two lakes Kōhanga Piripiri and Kōhanga Te Rā are significant resources, but very degraded. There are DOC interests and district and regional council issues. Other interests include the marine environment and what happens with gravel, discharge etc. A joint management operation such as that in Waihora could be used here, and elsewhere. Iwi are seeking much more significant recognition and control.

5.2 Robyn Anderson

How can we support councils in harvesting our resources, how we can clean up our waste, what to do with thousands of car wrecks in our water systems, we need to have more environmental responsibility, seeking ways that we can get guidance at grass roots level, we don't have an abundance of water and we don't have an abundance of quality of water. We need to accept that.

5.3 Jenny Kaye Potaka

In terms of what this programme covers - Does it cover aquifers?

Response: Yes it covers all freshwater in its natural state.

Will the programme consider the issue of bottling and selling water - this implies ownership because that water comes from springs.

Response: We have not got into this issue in any level of detail at this point.

The concept of National importance - does that include Waitaki energy - will there be a weighting on who gets to use water -eg dams are said to support more people therefore they might have more priority.

The website contains more information on values and waterways of national importance - there are seven reports on values available on the website. The values range from recreational values to energy values. Most reports have derived lists of what are the nationally important water bodies.

There has been much debate on whether it is possible or desirable to identify waterways that are of national importance to Māori.

5.4 Morris Love

It is possible to identify nationally important waterways: Wanganui is important to that iwi and it is nationally important - similarly Taupo is of national importance.

The call on those things depends upon the local people, but there is also a notion of what other iwi perceive, particularly where an iwi is identified by their river, lake. The Waiapu River is a national symbol, it is referred to in the song Pokarekare Ana.

5.5 Suzanne Doig

We have taken advice on the difficulties that could arise where iwi/hapū identify their waterway as important, but those waterways may not be seen as nationally important.

5.6 George Ria - It is simple, but there is a fear factor present.

5.7 Willie Te Aho

Every iwi or hapū have their own pepeha or whakatauki that identifies their water body, or waterway.

5.8 Morris Love

These are identifications of national importance.

5.9 Ihaia Puketapu

Is the Central Government looking at any major shifts in design - are they looking at national building of stormwater treatments plants, are we moving towards making it illegal to discharge?

The technology exists - in Europe they reuse their water, they don't discharge. They recycle their water. Why are we not moving this way? Cost seems to be the issue, but the cost of not doing this will be even worse.

Seaview - apparently the water is drinkable after treatment.

We are wasting water resources. I have read Morgan Williams' (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) reports on sustainability and I am reiterating what is said in those reports.

Our problem has been the measuring of our nation's prosperity on GDP, but this is not the best measure to use. This focuses on economic use - not our total prosperity.

Is the government actually listening to those who have the best information eg the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?

It is difficult to accept the separation of freshwater from marine issues, we need to look at things holistically.

We sell a clean green image - this is just a marketing ploy. We depend upon that brand. We need put integrity behind that image and brand. We need to take ownership for doing this. Otherwise, we will suffer if people realise that we don't live up to this clean green image.

Sue Powell: this programme is complementary to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's reports. We do take that information on board. Fundamental redesign of urban system is a very long-term issue - and we are probably not looking at that kind of fundamental change.

Ihaia Puketapu: Is there a shift for free resource consents? You could buy your own sewerage treatment facility etc. We should facilitate that, facilitate the recycling of water. We are wasting clean aquifer water - why because that is the system we are hooked into.

Sue Powell: there are some councils taking a strong 'green' line. It differs from area to area.

Ihaia Puketapu: The term 'natural' if preferable to the term 'green'. What is happening now is 'unnatural'.

5.10 Jenny Kaye Potaka

People tend to ask how can we get more, rather than asking how can we need less? How can we waste less?

Manage the need rather than manage the quantity - that has to be part of any water programme of action.

5.11 Morris Love

We need to raise people's consciousness about freshwater resources - mainly in the urban area. One project is the "daylighting" of Waitangi Stream - to bring it up on to the surface to remind people that the stream stills runs and still has eels in it - it has just run underground because of the urban development.

Seaview Marina - building interrupted aquifer, keeping people's consciousness about these issues is important.

5.12 Ihaia Puketapu

The language of the RMA under the concept of sustainable management - talks about "avoid, remedy or mitigate". We seem to do more remedying and mitigation - why don't we just avoid? We have the technology to do this. We must remember that Papatūānuku is affected.

5.13 Te Rira Puketapu

On page 16 of the Document Issue 6 "Māori Participation in Water Management could be improved". This implies that Māori have not really wanted to participate in water management. This is not true. Māori need to be more than just commentators. Someone else takes that commentary and says that they will do this or that with it while Māori sit on the sideline. Māori need to be on those bodies where the important decisions are made that will affect everyone in NZ.

Quotes Shane Jones - in 20 years time, the population of this country is going to be mainly Māori and Polynesian. Therefore Māori cannot remain as mere commentators. The Foreshore issue is an example of what can happen if things are not done properly to involve people who have such a strong foothold in the land.

I have grown up and watched the denigration of the Waiwhetū Stream. It is very hard to recover part of it. We will never get all of it back.

The natural life should be able to live in it, survive and grow in it. It makes it difficult for us to say in our pepeha that that is our stream given the state it is in. We cannot get food from it (eels - too many contaminants).

Māori are directly affected, daily lives around Marae with their people and there is responsibility upon all of us (all NZ) that where denigration has happened that it is put right.

Up until 20 years ago, factories were allowed to discharge into the stream, it would change colour every day. The insidious part of it is that a battery manufacturer - up to 20 years ago, discharged lead into the stream. Today, in that part of the stream, the silt contains 1% lead which is high enough to be mined. What responsibility does industry have? And how can they be made responsible for what they have done? They have made profits. Yet they are the first ones to squeal when they have to get resource consent. The ratepayers seem to bear the responsibility of cleaning up their messes.

Just flicking through the booklet, there does not seem to be any mention of the word "mauri" in the discussion booklet. This describes the almost spiritual life force that is in everything, including the waters. We know that 75% of our bodies are water, and we can live without food, but not without water. So we cannot live without it, it is essential. Mauri is fundamental in the way Māori speak and think about their waters.

If you read the labels of many bottles in our home, they say, don't put this near skin, etc, but it all ends up in the drains and then in the waters. This is part of the insidious contribution to the contamination of our water.

We objected to use of sewage waste for the making of compost. The main objection was the fact that the collection of that sewage included human blood from embalming process, and that compost was used for fertilising market gardeners to grow food. Māori would not do this - it is abhorrent to our belief systems.

Te Rira referred to an objection to a land fill above the intake of our aquifer. Leachate from the landfill could find its way into the water. So the council put the leachate into the sewerage system. This was a good move.

Administration of the RMA is an important facet.

On issue of discharge or use of weedkiller in the water, parties were asked to compromise - illustrating how Māori opinion is regarded.

The RMA seems to be under a process of continual change. RMA talked about matters of national importance and the way that Māori think about how they are affected by the consent process.

In the last round of changes, Wellington Aratahi Committee noticed that 'tangata whenua' were not specified, there was a reference to 'Māori'. Tangata whenua have responsibility as kaitiaki in our area, so if tangata whenua are seen as too difficult, councils can take the easy way out, Māori can be pitted against each other and we all lose.

I am not an engineer, but it seems practical when there is a sharing of resources, in the summer there are low flows in the stream, and the oxygen levels are down, aeration is needed. I have made the suggestion for low level weirs.

Settlement process - this is an obligation if the Treaty of Waitangi is going to be taken seriously. If we disparage the Treaty, we disparage ourselves, not just Māori - ie if you make a commitment and walk away from it this is disparaging yourself.

5.14 Morris Love

In this region Māori participation is very active, it comes from the tangata whenua groups - those who do have the kaitiaki responsibility. Councils in this region haven't had too much difficulty in discerning who is who. We probably deal with 10 resource consents per week, and one major one per month. An intimate knowledge of the place is necessary (eg the earlier Silverstream tip that was affecting the aquifer).

We are poorly resourced in terms of getting a professional response.

There are some better tools that are available. The Whanganui people are currently in negotiations with government regarding the Whanganui River, but that is a good example in terms of having a much greater interest from the Māori authority. There is a sliding off of that in the political realm, too expensive or too difficult to deal with tangata whenua. I disagree. They know who we are and know that we fulfil our responsibilities well. With regard to costs, they unfortunately get our kaitiaki cheap, too cheap. These issues are not going away easily.

5.15 Te Rira Puketapu

Cost factors of putting things right - diverting the stream encapsulating the contaminated sediments and sealing it off. This could cost $3.5 million. Now the question is who is going to pay? If no obligation is put on industry, then it must fall on government. The council has spent money on investigation, but not the diversion. Ultimately rates will go up if council is responsible.

Sue: is responsible for contaminated sites and the remediation fund. Industry can be targeted, but this is no use if the industries are no longer operating. But government is dealing with legacy. There is a central government resource to apply for to address these issues.

5.16 Te Rira Puketapu.

NZ has a transient population. Why should ratepayers pay for something that they were not responsible for? Māori tend to stay within their rohe. This is something that may be overlooked. Government has to take more responsibility.

5.17 Bella Tuau (Health Protection Officer)

Has attended today to listen and will be making a submission through health channels.

5.18 Tania McPherson (TOKM)

There are some obvious connections between Fisheries management and management of freshwater, eg eel fishery, and sustainable management.

  • Managing input and output controls - total allowable catch;
  • a question is whether this programme will go down the path of market based mechanisms - that will commodify and privatise the resource similar to the quota management system).
  • In the area of fisheries management there have been issues of prioritising - customary rights have priority, and non-commercial needs must be looked after. While NZ is a model internationally for fisheries management, we don't have very good co-ordinated mechanisms for dealing at local scale eg eel fishery.
  • Freshwater plans seem similar to Fisheries plans - this is a new development.

A huge topic is the issue of Māori rights, and the question of how you value things. How do you prioritise values, how do you balance the non-commercial and the commercial? We are still working through these issues.

It is easy to politically manipulate if you have a strong lobby group. So it is important that all the interests groups work together to achieve sustainable solutions - rather than politically motivated solutions.

5.19 Te Rira Puketapu

Eels - current operators are catching commercially, they have come in and cleaned our rivers out because they knew there was going to be a change. We did some testing and a study to see where our iwi sat in terms of what resources are available to us, and it is poor.

Quota system is not the best option, customary rights are still most important.

5.20 Jenny Kay Potaka

Jenny supports the concept of a whole catchment assessment rather than dividing up the management of catchments in terms of boundaries of councils etc.

The river should be viewed as a whole system.

Take money off the urban developers who are concreting over the land, getting an advantage out of abusing the resources and give that to those people who are doing things to restore the balance (eg riparian planting).

5.21 Te Rira Puketapu

Two lakes Kōhanga Piripiri and Kōhanga Te Rā, one chain around lakes owned by Hutt City Council, and one owned by Regional council, how do we as Māori exercise our customary rights (eg eeling) when we do not have control. We all know that it is very hard to change conservation estates.

In the future in the urban areas, I am convinced that we are going to have to have compulsory water metering to conserve water. People must take responsibility for the water they take.

6. Summary and Conclusion

6.1 Sue Powell

Reflection of key themes

  • Waiwhetū Stream - the state of it and how there is a need to restore it - and who pays for this?
  • Not to forget history of water management and keep the good things during this phase of change
  • The government hasn't been there since NWASCA
  • Careful in disturbing relationships
  • Look at Treaty processes
  • Challenged on national importance issue
  • Value of freshwater
  • Need to learn to manage waste and lessons (eg PC)
  • Maintain NZ brand image of 'clean green
  • Role of Māori in decision making - deal with tangata whenua rather than "Māori"
  • Role of Industry
  • Focus on avoiding rather than remedying and mitigating
  • Find and support local solutions
  • Govt need to be involved in restoration in a substantive way
  • Encouraged to take a holistic view of catchments
  • Lessons from fisheries management system
  • The challenges of dealing with multiplicity of government departments

6.2 Riki Ellison

This hui reiterates what has been said around the country. Whakatakoto manuka - challenge to government to show more leadership, to incorporate Māori values better.

Tiakitanga and caring are the same thing. Everyone wants clean water, to be able to swim in the water, to get kai out of our water.

There are challenges at Local government levels, Māori need to participate better. There are some pretty significant names of our water bodies (Waimakariri, Taupō-nui-a-Tia). There are some good models of Māori engagement, but there is much that can be improved. Māori need to continue to push the boundaries of some of the good things that we are doing. Kaitiakitanga is an important responsibility and we cannot avoid it, so we have to participate in the system.

We know how to manage water. We have done it for a long time. The challenges are daunting, but exciting.

Ki uta ki tai, is how we talk about our waters at home.

Meaningful co-management is a key.

Some of the small things we can do as individuals are important. It is essential that we look to the future.

6.3 George Ria

Te Waiwhetū, Te Awakairangi these are beautiful names, with significant meaning. These rivers are the veins of Papatūānuku, and they flow out to Tangaroa.

Mauri - all throughout the land we have heard of the need to restore the mauri of our waterways.

6.4 Closing korero (Te Rira Puketapu)

Acknowledges the Government for coming to the marae to provide an opportunity for discussion. However, it is difficult for our people to be available on a week day due to work commitments. We hope that government will take notice of our views, but having made submissions before which have been ignored, there is scepticism of the submission and consultation process.

 

Closing karakia 1.10pm

Last updated: 25 November 2008