Tag Archives: Mana Whenua

At least $2.6 million ratepayer funds being spent because Horowhenua DC refuses to determine mana whenua

By Veronica Harrod

18 September, 2020

At least $2.6 million ratepayer funds being spent because Council refuses to determine mana whenua. Horowhenua District Council has committed at least $1.4 million ratepayer funding to Te Rūnanga o Raukawa and $814,500 to Muaūpoko Tribal Authority and the Muaūpoko Lands Trust in two separate agreements over Levin’s Waste Water Treatment Plant called The Pot. The agreements, worth a combined minimum total of $2.6 million, were signed by all parties prior to a decision by Manawatu Whanganui Regional Council hearing commissioners on June 2, 2020 to grant the Council a 25 year resource consent to continue storing and discharging treated waste water to The Pot, situated on ecologically and culturally important sand dunes about 4 kilometres west of Levin. In both agreements the Council says it, “takes no position in relation to who holds mana whenua, customary interests and rights, and/or rights of iwi/hapu over any area.” An Environment Ministry document titled ‘Guidelines for Consulting with Tangata Whenua under the Resource Management Act: An Update on Case Law’ states that although determining who holds mana whenua “can be a controversial issue” that “reasonable steps must be taken to identify the correct tangata whenua group. “It is the third agreement Council’s chief executive David Clapperton has signed with Te Rūnanga o Raukawa without the matter being discussed around the Council table – and the second known agreement signed by Larry Parr who is listed on Council’s webpage as chief executive officer for Te Rūnanga o Raukawa. Mr Clapperton also signed lucrative financial agreements with Te Rūnanga o Raukawa over Foxton’s Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Levin Landfill. The latest agreement was signed on behalf of Ngati Raukawa hapu including, “Ngati Kikopiri (Ngati Huia), Ngati Hikitanga and Ngati Pareraukawa. ”Ngati Raukawa hapu parties to the agreement include Pataka Moore, David Moore, Rachael Selby, Ngatokowaru Marae Committee and Ngati Kikopiri Mori Marae Committee Society in association with the Kikopiri Marae Reservation Trustees. Te Rūnanga o Raukawa, Muaūpoko Tribal Authority and Muaūpoko Lands Trust all agreed to:

1 Inform the regional council within 24 hours of signing the agreement, signed by Te Rūnanga o Raukawa on 5 March and MuaUpoko Tribal Authority on 16 April, “that their position on the Resource Consents have changed and they no longer oppose a 25-year term.”

2 Inform hearing commissioners deciding The Pot application the agreement entered into with the Council responds to, “their concerns, in particular kaitiakitanga, whanaungatanga, manaakitanga and rangatiratanga.”

3 Support the Council in, “any further matters before the hearing commissioners or any appeals” including appeals by the Council if The Pot consent was refused or conditions were imposed which limited or negated the agreement.

4 “Not participate in any way (including supporting any other party) in any process relating to the resource consents being granted, including before the hearing commissioners.”

5 “Not take or be involved in any other proceedings against” the Council or “make complaints against” the Council, “in relation to the discharges at The Pot.”

6 Assist the Council, “to talk with other submitters to try and resolve issues before the hearing commissioners or on any appeal in a manner that achieves the outcomes of this Agreement.”

7 “Work together to identify, assess and, if appropriate, assist consenting potential new areas for irrigation of treated wastewater from the LWWTP on the ‘Tucker Block’ land adjacent to The Pot” owned by the Council.The Council also committed to work with MTA to negotiate and sign a Memorandum of Partnership, “as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than 3 months from the commencement of this Agreement.”

In 2013 DoC’s helicopter tours and catered lunches failed to quell Māori opposition to aerial 1080 so they dropped it anyway … will this happen to Iwi that protect the Raukumara Reserve?

I was sent recently a NZ Herald article about NZ’s Dept of Conservation (DoC) teaming up with Ngāti Porou to protect the Raukumara Forest Park:

“Iwi including Ngāti Porou, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Te Ehutu, Ngāi Tai, Whakatōhea and Te Aitanga-ā-Mahaki, and affiliated hapū, have occupied and continued to maintain mana whenua on all flanks of the ranges.

DoC, which administers the park, was working on a co-ordinated approach regarding its management.

The last large-scale possum control operation was 20 years ago involving aerial application of 1080 pesticide. The region was free of tuberculosis (TB), which was partly why there had been little 1080 focus. There had also been strong local opposition.”

On reading the article I was reminded of Reihana Robinson’s well researched book on 1080 use in NZ called  ‘The Killing Nation’. In brief she describes what she terms DoC’s  ‘take a Māori into the bush’ strategy outlined in a Landcare Research paper by Chrys Horn & Margaret Kilvington titled ‘Maori and 1080’.  The paper investigates how to gain iwi ‘agreement’ to use 1080. It’s about ‘building trust’ they write as ‘research is, by itself, not sufficient to allay community & iwi concerns.’

They are clearly aware and acknowledge that ‘Iwi concerns are substantial’ citing ‘loss of native birds, poisoning of deer and dogs, the potential effect on water supplies and human health, and how poison disturbs spiritual principles.’

The authors, says Robinson, “focus on mind control. They don’t call it mind control. They use the term ‘perceived control’ and it is this underlying psychological construct that must be communicated to  ‘help’ Maori communities adapt to change and adversity”. How to get agreement on the use of 1080? … don’t focus on the merits of 1080, convince them of the “merits of pest control or eradicating Tb”.

Robinson describes Horn & Kilvington’s ‘paternalistic clanger’ …  “that ‘it is the element of choice that is important rather than the quality of the options’.”  They proceed to cite examples where local iwi agreed to 1080 without public outcry … ie ‘how to sell poison to Maori communities’.

Horn & Kilvington then stoop to the ultimate tactic of LYING by claiming there IS an antidote to 1080 poisoning. Patently untrue says Robinson. 

Yes we environmentalists know that there is no antidote to 1080. That’s not rocket science at all.

See page 10 of this government document from the MOH (2015) stating there is no antidote to 1080.

“At a time when communities are increasingly negative about the use of 1080, time and resources must be allowed for consultation processes” say Horn & Kilvington. They are concerned that DoC staff do not “recognise the difference between information and consultation”.

(Note, environmentalists who have attended these consultation meetings will concur that the people with genuine concerns are not heard and the meetings are steered by the person at the front to effectively exclude them & to achieve a predetermined desired outcome. This manipulative method is called the Delphi technique, a method used also by councils when they ‘consult’ with you, see below the article).*

Proceeding to the main point here … Robinson describes “the critical role of Urewera Maori within DoC disclosed in the Landcare paper”… “DoC tried to give ‘all the community groups involved a high level of perceived  control over the possibility of aerial drops in the area’.

So DoC transported Maori into the Uruwera bush to show “damage caused by possums” and their effect on “birdlife”. DoC’s ‘take a Maori into the bush’ strategy did not work on Moehau in 2013.’ The lunches and the helicopter tours failed as described …

…then DoC went ahead & dropped the poison anyway. 

Are you getting the gist now of DoC’s ‘consultation’ and what it really means?

I am going to add a pdf file here of this particular chapter of Robinson’s book so you can read it for yourself. (She did give me permission to quote and to reproduce the chapter for your perusal).  Perhaps you may be interested to purchase her book to read the entire scope of concern environmentalists both Maori & Pakeha alike have about the use of this Class 1A Ecotoxin in NZ’s environment. And about how DoC ‘get around’ Māori opposition and the need to consult.

Here is a link to the pdf of the chapter by Reihana Robinson:

Reihana Robinson Maori and Business as Usual

Here is a link to the Herald article:

DoC teaming up with Ngāti Porou to save ‘dying’ Raukumara Forest Park

 


* How to politely disrupt the Delphi technique.

LG’s definition of consultation
“Consultation is a formal statutory process that occurs in response to a decision that has been taken (even if that decision is a draft decision).”