Skip to main content.

7 Feedback from the Hui

This section further expresses the key themes that have been developed and the comments there were made by participants during the consultation hui.

7.1 Prioritising Māori values and a Māori world view

Kua tapahia ngā rākau Māori, kua ngaro ngā manu Māori. Inaianei ka kitea ngā paina …oinei ngā mahi tūkino o te ao. Kāore i tiakina ngā wai.10
(Rotorua Hui)

The relationship that Māori share with the environment cannot be overstated. It is reflected through whakapapa, ancestral place names and tribal histories. The regard with which Māori holds the environment reflects the close relationship with their ancestors, being direct descendants of Ranginui and Papatūānuku.

The quote above indicates the irony of the Crown’s coming out to advise Māori of the effects of climate change on the environment. Government officials soon recognised they did not have to convince Māori that climate change is an important issue, or that the future is for our children and grandchildren. The importance of restoring balance in the environment is intrinsically understood by Māori. This conversation has come quite late as it has been part of Māori awareness for a long time.

A recurring message of these hui was that the Māori World view in relation to climate change is not being adequately considered, and the proposed policies do not go far enough to protect the environment.

The following three quotations demonstrate these feelings:

The thrust of these policies is clearly economic, that is an important element. But if we don’t look after the climate, we are not looking after all life species. Our belief systems and our Māori world view are not being taken into account. They are universal belief systems. Where is your leadership on that?
(Gisborne Hui)

Why are dollars and cents being posed against the future of the planet? They don’t compare.
(Rotorua Hui)

I have serious concerns about the government’s programme – it is focused on money exchange and carbon trading. Tangata whenua are getting caught up in that. I am opposed to the trading system and the commodification of resources. I appreciate the concerns of Māori Land owners and their land use. My concerns are for Papatūānuku. Your options are too soft. Why are profits privatised and costs socialised? I support national environmental standards and national policy statements but again we must work in conjunction with Papatūānuku. The energy strategy talks about triple bottom line – where is the cultural reporting? What about the quadruple bottom line? I am in favour of penalising the polluters. Pollution has been allowed for far too long. Why are the targets so low?
(Tainui Hui)

Māori agreed on the importance of the issue. Climate change will affect lands, waterways, flora and fauna, and food sources – and consequently the responsibility of Māori to exercise kaitiakitanga.

The Māori world view is holistic and focuses on caring for all aspects of our environment. It is thus a model for sustainability and should be accorded higher priority in policy and decision making. This can only occur with improved analysis, better Māori input into policy development, and ongoing quality engagement

7.2 Te Tiriti o Waitangi

The Treaty of Waitangi obliges the Crown to protect Māori people in the use of their resources to the fullest extent practicable, and to protect them especially from the consequences of the settlement and development of the land.11

Māori frequently referred to their Treaty relationship with the Crown and asserted rights and guarantees affirmed in the Treaty:

Māori are significant land owners with a huge potential to add benefit to this issue for the country. In applying basic Treaty principles, what are some of the incentives that the government is looking at to meet its Treaty obligations? …How will the Crown provide opportunities, build capacity, and develop people? Nothing in this presentation addresses this. How do you turn that picture around?
(Christchurch Hui)

Under the Kyoto rules only forests established from 1990 onwards can be counted as creating new carbon sinks and are therefore eligible for carbon credits. Clear boundaries in the proposed government policies, such as this 1990 date, flow directly from the Kyoto Protocol. Yet there had been insufficient consideration of tangata whenua issues when the government of New Zealand entered into that international arrangement:

The Treaty of Waitangi responsibility was not properly considered when the Kyoto Protocol was signed. The government did not work with Māori in this international context. A key Treaty issue is that the Crown must be working with Māori on how these issues are managed. There is no in-depth discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi rights of Māori to carbon credits.
(Pūkawa Hui)

Ngāi Tahu openly made a point about its ability to use land that had been returned pursuant to a Treaty Settlement with the Crown. If that ability were to be constrained or penalised by the government’s proposed policies, it may well lead to litigation, or a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal for a contemporary Treaty breach:

Ministries think that their policies and proposals cover all New Zealanders. But Māori are different – there is the Treaty relationship, and there are issues around settled iwi relationships and the pre-determined use of lands that were returned following settlement. Ngāi Tahu had land returned. If the Crown changes the terms of a settlement asset that disbenefits Ngāi Tahu’s use of land, that is a question that we will have to look at closely.

Such comments were consistent throughout the regional hui. Clearly, further analysis is needed on Treaty impacts—particularly for those iwi who have settled. Treaty issues need to be woven into proposed policies in which clear bottom lines are acknowledged. An example is Section 6–8 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

7.3 Government co-ordination and leadership

Every hui called for the government to lead by example, not just in small ways such as reducing the size of its vehicle fleet. Government organisations should be leading by example in their business practices as well. For example, the Department of Conservation (DOC) and LandCorp who are large pastoral owners, solid energy users and coal miners.

Government agencies are not seen to be acting consistently with their policies:

Taharoa C is proposing a wind farm and has applied for resource consent. The only serious objector is DOC. We have also proposed a special grass growing project (for biomass) – but have faced a long bureaucratic process imposed by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry delays.
(Tainui Hui)

Māori are looking at joint ventures for renewable energy and DOC opposes on the basis of natural character.
(Whāngarei Hui)

During the hui there were requests for government to take a more coordinated approach in its response to climate change. This should involve co-ordination between the Ministry of Social Development, Housing, Health, Immigration as well as ensuring that local government acts are consistent with central government policy:

What intersector work concerning social issues such as urban design and planning is taking place to deal with this issue? How is the government going to ensure an understanding of the lifestyle of Māori and how is it going to ensure equity for our people in terms of being able to access those opportunities around climate change opportunities and initiatives? Another big issue in Tāmaki is immigration and the impact on transport and other infrastructural needs. How are you incorporating the immigration issue into your equations and the subsequent demand on transport and infrastructure?
(Auckland Hui)

Māori want to come home to the north and build. Councils have policies that are barriers to this. There are policies in the NZES around building. What collaboration is happening between Housing New Zealand, local government and central government? This is a resourcing and funding issue for us … There also needs to be more co-ordination between the Māori Land Court (eg, its powers to issue occupation orders), the Far North District Council and so on.
(Whangarei Hui)

Also expressed was the need for government to investigate ways to provide further incentives for developing opportunities that positively impact climate change

7.4 Consultation

7.4.1 Consultation process generally

At every hui, participants expressed scepticism and disillusionment about governmental consultation generally – especially as the Treaty of Waitangi requires the Crown to consult with Māori on important issues.

Participants expressed that too often, the views, values and submissions of Māori are simply ignored. According they called for consultation that better reflected the Treaty relationship, as typified by the following passage:

The kind of process being undertaken today is alienating. We are not in charge of the kaupapa. We are not engaged. Officials come in, give a presentation, then go away and make recommendations to government which may or may not be followed … Climate change was not created by Māori, but by Western civilisation and their greed. Tangata whenua have become vulnerable by these processes, so we need a stake in the ground, we need to participate for our own protection. We need honest and robust debate amongst Māori, not with our Treaty Partner because the treaty is not implemented in this country.
(Gisborne Hui)

7.4.2 Information, timeframe, representation, and resourcing

Criticisms about information availability, complexity, volume, and relevance to Māori were voiced at almost every hui:

There is a saying that if you feed your child too much from the basket you’re liable to choke him. I feel as if I’m choking today. This is a lot of information to digest.
(Rotorua Hui)

I reiterate the comments about the short timeframe. It is too short. There is so much information in these documents and the information is complex and it takes time for our people to understand these complexities. Only then can we give meaningful feedback.
(Tainui Hui)

While I congratulate the agencies involved in undertaking this consultation process, the people here don’t speak for themselves [but] represent others. We wear more than one hat and despite the excellent credentials of the participants here today, we have to make our way through huge documents, and then are expected to make submissions by 30 March. Is there any funding to help us to consult with our own people and then prepare submissions?
(Rotorua Hui)

At the first consultation hui held in Gisborne, Ngāti Porou sought to host another consultation hui with officials. It was held on 29 March in Ruatoria, and Ngāti Porou expressed their appreciation for the time they had had to read and digest the information in the discussion documents so they could then make constructive and considered responses.

7.4.3 Consultative forum

The proposed hui on 21 March for representatives from each hui was seen as a positive step. Yet , some hui expressed the need for more than one representative from each rohe. Further it was said that:

[The] forum must be ongoing, not just established for one hui. There needs to be continuing consultation with a group that is well versed in these complicated issues.
(Gisborne Hui)

In Gisborne discussions, advocacy for ongoing dialogue was a key feature and a model was proposed for an ongoing consultative group that would include all policy elements. At other hui, Māori identified what they considered to be models of good consultation practice including:

  • Public Works Act process accepted by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)

  • National Māori network hui with ERMA

  • Water Programme of Action ongoing consultation via the Iwi Chief Executives forum

  • Oceans Policy Forum.

7.4.4 Other concerns about consultation

In addition to the above, other concerns raised about consultation were that:

  • Māori are over-consulted, and that consultation should be more cohesive (for example, the Water Programme of Action, Wai 262 and Climate Change all overlap)

  • Māori had not been consulted properly during the Kyoto process, which could be considered to be a Treaty breach

  • there ought to be some opportunity or forum for Māori to be consulted in te reo Māori

  • consultation ought to be carried out with landowners as well as tribal groups

  • all hui should have been publicly advertised. There were frequent complaints about insufficient notification of the hui. However, this was less of a problem where local co-ordinators, with the necessary connections and relationships with the hapū and iwi and landowners, took a lead role in identifying and engaging the key people who should be involved

  • iwi representatives that attended the hui expressed their desire to be adequately resourced to be able to engage and consult with the members of their iwi and hapū.

While I congratulate the agencies involved in undertaking this consultation process, the people here don’t speak for themselves we represent others. We wear more than one hat and despite the excellent credentials of the participants here today, we have to make our way through huge documents, and then are expected to make submissions by 30 March. Is there any funding to help us to consult with our own people and then prepare submissions?
(Rotorua Hui)

  • Selection of representatives for each region on the Māori Reference Group (meeting of 21 March 2007) was also an issue: some felt that selecting one person was not adequate as this person would be representing a number of groups for whom they may or may not have the mandate.

Among the criticism there was acknowledgement of the efforts made by the lead ministries with respect to the consultation hui on climate change. Where tangata whenua specifically requested additional meetings with officials on specific issues, those requests were met. Two further hui were agreed to: with Tūwharetoa (13 March) and Ngāti Porou (29 March). Commitments were also made to meet with Māori forest owners in Taranaki.

Suggestions made for addressing the ongoing engagement of Māori in relation to climate change included that officials advocate for:

  • Māori input through to and beyond the papers and recommendations to the Ministers and Cabinet

  • a further full consultation round on the actual policies prior to legislative confirmation process

  • combining Māori reference groups that relate to natural resources.

7.5 More and better Māori-specific information – quadruple bottom line analysis

7.5.1 Economic impacts and opportunities

The documents we have been provided with are extensive, but what is missing is an analysis of impacts on Māori specifically. How do these issues affect me as a significant landowner? There is a big chunk of analysis missing. There needs to be a policy analyst’s role to examine the impacts on Māori and then bring that out to the people. You are expecting us to carry out that analysis, yet you are the experts on climate change issues. Our issues are different and unique compared with the general public.
(Tainui Hui)

Whilst many Māori were concerned about the impacts of climate change on the environment, they frequently requested a report on the economic impacts and opportunities from the proposed climate change policies that specifically affect Māori. It was said that before Māori could truly engage, they needed to know how the policies affect them and their choices. Better information would enable Māori to make more informed submissions on the policies, and also more informed decisions about future land use. A key question for Northland, for example, was whether there would be incentives for Māori to retain their land in indigenous forests, or to convert from pine back to indigenous species. There was also a call for research into the benefits of organic farming in Northland. Many asked to be at the forefront of any research opportunities that might arise from the policies.

We need access to some tools, score cards which contain material such as economic data that would enable our communities to make informed submissions. Where is this information available and what support systems will be in place?
(Gisborne Hui)

7.5.2 The nature of Māori land

The focus of Te Ture Whenua Māori 1993 (the Māori Land Act) is the retention of Māori land in Māori ownership. Because of this, as well as the realities of fragmentation, multiple ownership, and limited land use options given the location of much Māori land, several requests were made for better information about how the proposed policies impact on the management of Māori land given its limited flexibility. Those requests included for example, a comparative analysis of the options of farming and forestry:

We have to generate our wealth from farm gate returns or forestry returns. We cannot rely on capital gains like other farmers in this country ... tūpuna whenua does not go on the open market according to our tikanga. So the growth of our land ownership in this country is going to increase. So too will our liabilities according to these proposals.
(Rotorua Hui)

Many Māori advocated for a quadruple bottom line analysis to be carried out in order to assess the direct impacts of proposed plans and policies on Māori, as well as to identify the opportunities that might flow from these policies specifically for Māori. Such analysis would have to take into account the Treaty of Waitangi, property rights, and the particular vulnerabilities of Māori referred to in Section 6 on this document.

7.5.3 Case studies

The following case studies were often used in hui to illustrate how policies might operate. It could be useful to included information about them in future consultation documentation and processes:

  1. Ngāti Porou forestry project
  2. Lake Taupō nitrogen trading
  3. The operation of ‘Grey Markets’ and the ‘Warehouse Deal’

7.6 The need for equity

Officials were informed of the inequities that will arise if the proposed policies do not take into account the limited flexibility in dealing with Māori land:

The only certain thing that I have heard today is that taxes will go up. When it comes to that, we ought to be treated differently because we can’t sell our land like everybody else.
(Tainui Hui)

There was also a perception that Māori landowners and some iwi must already be carbon neutral, given the vast amounts of forestland (both indigenous and exotic) in Māori ownership. Some of the questions were, “Who is really responsible for the emissions?”. and:

In terms of your information per capita, what is the information relating to Māori and emissions? I would expect that with their large amount of native and exotic forests, Māori as a people would be ranked quite low per capita.
(Tainui Hui)

A controversial issues that arose during the hui was using the year 1990, as in the Kyoto Protocol, as an arbitrary date for eligibility of carbon credits. Some of the largest tracts of Māori land are standing in forests. Owners felt they should be rewarded for continuing to hold their lands in forests, yet the imposition of 1990 as a cut-off date for carbon credit eligibility impacts adversely upon Māori:

We have the highest percentage of Māori land still in indigenous forests. How are we to be recognised or even compensated for holding our lands in this state that now clearly benefits the country?
(Pūkawa Hui)

1990 is a date that has been imposed upon us. Māori have been doing the right thing by our environment for a long time so we must have some rights for what we have been doing … You are preventing our ability to participate in the economy.
(New Plymouth Hui)

The question was asked what can be done in New Zealand to provide for iwi who have pre-1990 forests? Do domestic policies have to be Kyoto-based? Is it not preferable that our policies are climate based? For example, it was often recommended that domestic policies encourage the conversion from exotic to indigenous forests; there ought to be some credit or reward for Māori from establishing such new indigenous forests regardless of this being on pre-1990 or post-1989 forest land.

Māori are significant landowners and are involved in both forestry and agriculture. There were constant calls for industries to be treated equitably from the outset. The proposed policies privilege farming, and forestry bears an inequitably large part of the burden. The transport industry and energy efficiency must also be targeted.

The government is taking the easy way out. It entered into an international agreement, now it is placing the burden of that on one sector. I am saying that if foresters have to pay, so too should the farmers.
(Christchurch Hui)

Farming seems to get preferential treatment in this country. They have a strong lobby group. There needs to be more equity.
(Nelson Hui)

In light of their past experience, Māori expressed concern about being disproportionately affected by government policy, simply because government fails to understand Māori realities. For instance, it was argued that Māori are disproportionately represented in lower-income households and will be more vulnerable to likely increases in energy prices:

Climate change literature also needs to consider the context of a lifestyle ‘benchmark’, the way that people live their lives now and the contribution that this makes to climate change. Many tangata whenua live below this current lifestyle ‘benchmark’. The proposed changes may further disadvantage our people with putting in place systems and compliance measures that are not affordable for our people.
(Auckland Hui)

There is a strong view that Māori will share a disproportionate amount of the burden that will result from these policies. The management of Māori freehold land is less flexible than non-Māori land, resulting in an inability to make capital gains on corpus lands. Owning vast amounts of forestland means that, collectively, Māori are low emitters and ought to be rewarded. Yet the imposition of 1990 as the arbitrary date for issuing carbon credits impacts adversely upon Māori. Similarly, industries should be treated equitably from the outset. The proposed policies privilege farming, with forestry bearing an inequitably large part of the burden. The transport industry and energy efficiency must also be targeted.

There were strong calls for research to clarify and confirm these distinct Māori realities, and to ensure that such distinctions are reflected appropriately in any reshaped policies that go forward to the Ministers and Cabinet.

7.7 Impacts on Māori realities – questions and proposals

Other specific questions raised and proposals made were:

  1. how does the Afforestation Grants Scheme affect the Māori reality, which is that lands are leased out? Do credits attach to trees or land?
  2. what are the effects if any of the proposed policies on Ngā Whenua Rāhui Covenants
  3. SILNA issues need particular consideration in the forestry policies going forward
  4. assess valuation of land for the purposes of future Treaty of Waitangi settlements
  5. assess the impacts, if any, on land banking of Crown land for the purposes of Treaty Settlements
  6. recognise the status of land returned to Māori as a result of Treaty settlements
  7. recognise the need to encourage conversion from exotic to native species
  8. carbon credits will benefit the wealthy corporates; accordingly some should be set aside for Māori
  9. clearance of forests for papakāinga12 should be exempt from any penalty regime for deforestation: there should be more and better information about thresholds and the impacts for different sizes of land blocks
  10. there needs to be research funding into the status of land and farming practices (such as organic farming)
  11. what are the impacts of the policies on Māori knowledge?
  12. what opportunities and incentives are available for research and development specifically for Māori in the energy sector: geothermal, tidal energy and wind farms?
  13. there needs to be better definition of some of the terms used in the policies, such as “what is a forest? Much Māori land is covered in scrub – is that included?”
  14. there needs to be better co-ordination between local government, central government and the Māori Land Court (for example, in relation to its power to issue occupation orders).

It was requested that government recognise these points in making their decisions.

10 Indigenous forests have been cleared. Māori birds have been lost. Now we see pine everywhere, and our waters have not been cared for. These are the dreadful things that are happening in the world.

11 Motunui-Waitara Report (Wai 6 1983).

12 Can mean original home and is sometimes used to describe a village settlement. The concept of papakāinga has a deeper meaning expressing the strong relationship the Māori community has with ancestral land.

[ |