section 33 rma transfer of functions to tuwharetoa … › assets › wrc › wrc-2019 › ... · 2...

1

SECTION 33 RMA TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO TUWHARETOA MAORI TRUST BOARD

Submissions received Sub # Name Organisation Page

1 Mark Wadham - 3

2 Dr Nick Bradford - 3

3 Gerry Williams - 3

4 Cynthia Ellis Korohe Marae Committee 3

5 Mandie Brown - 5

6 Stephen Colson Mercury 5

7 Karen Sky Genesis Energy Limited 5

8 Danny Loughlin Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust 6

9 Jenny and Roger Strong - 7

10 Harold Baigent Tuekau Business Park 8

11 Lance Davis 8

12 Timothy Plummer 8

13 Jeno Capo 8

14 Ron Vautier 8

15 Kenneth Simon 8

16 Mike Davies 9

17 Harry Young 9

18 Andrew Beer 9

19 Julie Purdy 9

20 Mark Sidebotham 10

21 Ross Baker One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 10

22 Pierce Brown 11

23 Mark Oliver Motere Lands Ltd 11

24 Ngahana Hartley and Shontelle Bishara

Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust on behalf of Te Mahau Marae

12

25 Lynley Hunt 14

26 Judy James 14

27 Ross Lynch 14

28 Anthony Toro Bidois Te Arawa District Maori Council 15

29 Dave Potaka 15

30 Kēpa Morgan 15

31 Robert McPherson Armer Farms (NI) Limited 16

32 Wallace Rivers Te Runanga O Ngai Takoto 17

33 Te Kanawa Pitiroi Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Marae Trustees & Hapu

17

34 Beryl Tawa Waihaha Marae 19

35 Michelle Phillips Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Runanga 19

36 Topia Rameka Tauhara Middle 15 Trust 19

37 Topia Rameka Tauhara Moana Trust 21

38 Topia Rameka 22

39 Vivian Hahipene Matewawe Margaret hahipene Whanau Trust 23

40 Amy Walker Lake Taupo Forest Trust 23

41 Dr Mervin Meiring 25

42 John Palmer 25

43 Chris Hughes 25

44 Geoff Parker 26

45 Colin Anderson 26

46 Christopher Fidoe 26

2

Sub # Name Organisation Page

47 Wendy Clark 26

48 G.P Larsen 27

49 Topia Rameka Tauponuiatia Management Board 27

50 Sylvia Phillips 28

51 Trevor Sheffield 29

52 Bruce Ward 29

53 John Funnell 30

54 Te Wharau Walker Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust 31

55 Yvonne Moana Bidois QSM 33

56 Te Rangikaheke Yvonne Moana Bidois QSM

Te Tahuhu o Tawakeheimoa Trust 33

57 Glenn Tootill and Marcia Murray

Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society (THRMOA)

33

58 Paora Bennett Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu

36

59 Trevor Simpson 38

60 Opaea Steadman Opaea Whanau Trust 38

61 John Hura Lake Rotoaira Trust 38

62 Harry Carlson Te Arawa River Iwi Trust 40

63 Lee Short Democracy Action 41

64 Maihi Mariu and Patricia Otimi

Waihi Marae Trust 43

65 Christine Rankin Taupō District Council 44

66 Ngahiwi Tomoana and Chrissie Hape

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated 45

67 Jocelyn Reeve Taupō Lake Care Inc. 45

68 DC Webster 47

69 Alan Cockle Waikato Conservation Board 47

70 Karen Vercoe Te Arawa Lakes Trust 47

71 Derek Stubbs 49

72 Muriwai Ihakara and John Rapana

Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority 49

73 Lisa Loughlin Te Rangiita Marae 50

74 Sylvia Tapuke 51

75 Paul White Lakes & Waterways Action Group Trust 52

76 Mary Hill Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc

52

77 Phillip Murray Te Runanga o Te Rarawa 54

78 Donna Flavell Waikato-Tainui 56

79 Kiri Diamond Whanganui Bay Marae Committee 57

80 Dene Thomas 58

81 Joseph Tauheke Tuhakaraina Te Maru o Ngati Rangiwewehi Iwi Authority 58

82 Dennis Thompson Tarimano Marae Trust 59

83 Colin Guyton, Jacqui Hahn and Luke Pepper

Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers

59

84 Donna Awatere Huata Office of the Māori Climate Commissioner 61

85 Wi Huata Aotearoa Carbon Forestry Ltd 63

86 Toa Faneva Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated 64

87 Gabrielle Huria Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 65

88 Louis Bidois Pekehaua Puna Reserve Trust 68

89 George Asher Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa 68

90 Vanessa Eparaima Raukawa Charitable Trust 77

91 Sarah-Jane Cuthers 81

3

SUBMISSION 1 Mark Wadham

Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No

Would you like to speak to council about your feedback? No

Comments: The Ratepayers elect their representatives to the WRC. By contrast Ratepayers have no status whatsoever as far as the TMTB is concerned. The WRC can only transfer its functions to another public authority. In my view the TMTB is not a public authority and as a consequence the WRC does not have the ability to proceed with this action.

SUBMISSION 2 Dr Nick Bradford

Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Did not indicate

Would you like to speak to council about your feedback? -

Comments: Re the testing of Lake Taupo water in near-shore sites. I would like to submit that the testing for swimmable status which currently only tests for E.coli should be widened to also include testing for cyanobacteria ( blue-green algae). These have occurred in sufficient numbers to form occasional blooms in Lake Taupo which have caused problems such as skin irritation in swimmers. There would need to be collection of a sufficient sample size, 5 litres would be minimum, with the ability to filter/concentrate the sample. I would be grateful for your consideration of this proposal and your reply.

SUBMISSION 3 Gerry Williams



Comments: Dear Sirs I am concerned that this is another attempt at Maori domination and takeover of a public amenity. Many people, residents and visitors, enjoy the facilities of Lake Taupo and we all respect the lake and what it offers. We are all New Zealanders (Kiwis) and it does not require a race based organisation (in this case an Iwi) to control the lake. Their initial intentions may be perfectly accommodating, but as we have seen too often recently these arrangements can get out of hand - as an example the recent Rahui on fishing the Waitahanui Stream, and illegal Maori roadblocks during the recent lock-down. If the Council no longer wishes to manage the Lake it should be passed to a suitably constructed board of interested parties - maybe the Harbourmaster or some similar organisation. We are fearful of having our rights of access abused or diminished if it is passed to exclusively Maori control.

SUBMISSION 4 Korohe Marae Committee, Cynthia Ellis

Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes

Would you like to speak to council about your feedback? Yes

Comments: 1. This submission is made by Ngāti Hine & Korohe Marae Committee on the proposal to transfer

specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

4


2. In short, we the Korohe Marae Committee/Ngāti Hine support the Proposed Transfer.

Ko wai mātau o Ngāti Hine / Korohe Marae Committee

3. Ngāti Hine is a sub-tribe of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Our maunga is Matauhipo, our awa is Waimarino and our marae is Korohe. Korohe is a village about seven kilometres north of Turangi, it is sited adjacent to the Waimarino River and about 2 kilometres in from Lake Taupo. The affairs of the hapū are managed by our Trustees and Marae Committee.

Support for the Proposed Transfer

4. We the Korohe Marae Committee/Ngāti Hine support the Proposed Transfer of the following

functions from the Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:

a. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which are tributaries to Lake Taupō.

c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō.

d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment.

e. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and Waitahanui).

f. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō catchment.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and track-record of practicing

kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In Korohe Marae Committee/Ngāti Hine’s view, the Proposed Transfer:

a. Is being made to an iwi authority that:

i. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the function, power, or duty; and

ii. has the relevant technical capability and expertise;

b. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its ratepayers including Ngati Tuwharetoa members).

6. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now

Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams):1

Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be

5


nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.

7. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA where it is

appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Ngāti Hine & Korohe Marae Committee commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

8. We do wish to be heard in support of this submission.

1 Waitangi Tribunal, 2011, p.113.

SUBMISSION 5 Mandie Brown



Comments: Tena koe, This is a sensible and appropriate gesture from the WRC towards the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa. As a descendant of Tuwharetoa I support the Council transferring functions to the TMTB. This responsibility will allow the TMTB as representatives for Ngati Tuwharetoa Iwi to fulfill their duty in exercising kaitiakitanga over important and significant taonga, moana, awa, whenua ki raro for the wellbeing of its hapu, marae and iwi. Ngati Tuwharetoa hapu have lived and relied on the moana and its tributaries for their cultural wellbeing and sustenance for a 1000 years. The iwi has always monitored their environment using matauranga, tikanga/kawa. Supporting the TMTB to continue to exercise kaitiakitanga over their taonga acknowledges these values of the iwi that are integral to forming and continuing a healthy and happy partnership. Nga mihi

SUBMISSION 6 Mercury, Stephen Colson



Comments: Mercury NZ Limited supports the proposal notified by Waikato Regional Council on 8 June to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. Mercury agrees that the proposed transfer is a more efficient way of carrying out the monitoring functions set out in pages 6 to 11 of the proposal document. We note Council will retain an oversight of the transfer. Any further transfers may be of interest to Mercury.

SUBMISSION 7 Genesis Energy Limited, Karen Sky



Comments:

6

SUBMISSION 7 Genesis Energy Limited, Karen Sky

Genesis Energy supports the principle of mana whenua undertaking environmental monitoring, and the increased value and insight this could provide to the environmental monitoring programme.

SUBMISSION 8 Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust, Danny Loughlin



Comments: 1. This submission is made by Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust on the proposal to transfer


2. In short, Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust supports the Proposed Transfer.

Ko wai mātau o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust (NTFCT)

3. NTFCT is a Charitable Trust that acts, amongst other things, as the Mandated Iwi Organisation of

Ngāti Tūwharetoa for the purpose of the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 and to act as the Iwi Aquaculture Organisation for the purpose of the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. Accordingly, NTFCT represents over 30,000 individual iwi members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

4. Pursuant to its Trust Deed, NTFCT’s purposes are to receive, hold, manage and administer the

fisheries settlement assets received from Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee Limited (Te Ohu Kaimoana) for every charitable purpose benefiting the present and future members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, wherever they may reside.


5. We the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following


a. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in

Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).



d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at

40 sites in the Taupō catchment.

e. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

Waitahanui).

f. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

catchment.

6. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In [insert organization name] view, the Proposed Transfer:


7

SUBMISSION 8 Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust, Danny Loughlin






Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.

[Emphasis added]

8. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA where

it is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Ngāti Tūwharetoa Fisheries Charitable Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

9. We do not wish to be heard in support of this submission.


SUBMISSION 9 Jenny and Roger Strong



Comments: We would submit that such functions must be tendered out and should not be automatically given to Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board or indeed any other entity. We understand that they would only collect samples and would not make decisions but we consider it good policy that all such decisions should be tendered out on a regular basis and should have a time limit and be subject to the usual quality controls that would be expected.

8

SUBMISSION 10 Tuekau Business Park, Harold Baigent



Comments: What scientific Qualifications are existing in the Body that Council is looking at transferring this to.

SUBMISSION 11 Lance Davis



Comments: This regional council environmental work is a very key function of Waikato Regional. If the Council wishes to outsource this water quality testing and monitoring then the Council has an obligation to the wider community to conduct a fully transparent tender process. This will ensure value for the community and rate payers

SUBMISSION 12 Timothy Plummer



Comments: You cannot have interested parties monitoring and accountable for their own interests. One must have an independent party with no self interest responsible providing required information. By law, councils must tending such work, not simply do a deal and get confirmation by way of submission.

SUBMISSION 13 Jeno Capo



Comments: Water quality monitoring is a core function of a Regional Council. If the Council believes water quality monitoring should be outsourced there is an obligation to the community to follow a best practise procurement policy and conduct a fully transparent tender process.

SUBMISSION 14 Ron Vautier



Comments: Racism/tribalism is morally wrong yet what the WRC is proposing, in transferring their full accountability in ensuring excellent water quality for Lake Taupo, serves to implement more racism/tribalism in the management of what should be a fully public asset. Furthermore, ensuring the best water quality possible requires a scientific approach, not a 'matauranga Maori approach. If some entity outside of council is to be contracted to collect samples for monitoring then any such contract should be entered into only after a tender process open to all equally, so not by giving such a contract to any racist/tribal separatist group, which is what Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board amounts to.

SUBMISSION 15 Kenneth Simon



Comments: DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACY ONE PEOPLE ONE LAW ,DONT BOW TO MOB RULE & THREATS ,

9

SUBMISSION 15 Kenneth Simon

RESIDENT & RATEPAYERS SUPPORTER .

SUBMISSION 16 Mike Davies



Comments: Waikato Regional Council is proposing to transfer specific water quality monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. Dare I suggest that as elected representatives of the entire ward it is your responsibility to adhere to democratic principles in determining who is allocated specific duties it is incumbent on the council to provide. If indeed as is suggested the Council cannot undertake water testing within its current staff or indeed - do not seek to employ such talent for the task - then it behooves the Council to seek submissions of interest in a fair, equitable and democratic fashion. To simply allocate the role to a local Iwi is irresponsible in the extreme and contrary to the faith placed in you by the electorate. Of equal concern to me is by merely handing over control to a race-based group you are actively encouraging discrimination and prejudice within our shores. This should not be tolerated at any level. NZ is a democracy with equal rights and opportunities for all. Please remember this and act accordingly. Open the opportunity up to all interested parties.

SUBMISSION 17 Harry Young



Comments: This could be a precedent of national importance, so although I'm not in Waikato, I feel that it's important to speak out. To pass a core council function to a non-elected minority body is wrong in every way. I am sure the Maori Trust Board have good intentions, but you have a responsibility to oversee every decision and every action, for the whole population. It is very likely that Conflicts of Interest will arise. How will the Council protect the Trust Board from that? These procedures are well established and understood in Public Service. Not in external bodies.

SUBMISSION 18 Andrew Beer



Comments: These monitoring functions must be put out to tender to all interested providers of these functions. It is totally unfair and undemocratic to just give the task to whoever someone in the council might favor should do this process. It's needs to be fair to all providers of these functions (to give them a chance to bid on it) and also the whole process needs to be cost competitive to ensure proper spending and accountability for ratepayers money.

SUBMISSION 19 Julie Purdy



Comments:

10

SUBMISSION 19 Julie Purdy

-

SUBMISSION 20 Mark Sidebotham



Comments: Rascism is wrong. It doesn't work, it is unscientific. Allowing racial groups to subvert the democratic process is wrong. Tuwharetoa do not own Taupo. According to the treaty of waitangi they seceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria. They became British subjects, in return. More than ample recompense; I submit. Taupo belongs now to all New Zealanders, just as Victoria promised. Not to some racially preferred crowd with a mind to making a profit at the expense of the rest of us.

SUBMISSION 21 One New Zealand Foundation Inc., Ross Baker



Comments: TIME OUR POLITICIANS WOKE UP TO FACT NOT FICTION! For far too long our politicians have been brainwashed into thinking Maori are a special race of people, and so they were in 1839, but in 1840 over 75,000 of their tangata Maori ancestors decided to give up their governments to the Queen and become British Subjects with the same rights as the people of England, under one flag and one law, which was endorsed in 1860 by the largest gathering of chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference since the Treaty was signed in 1840. A FACT THAT CANNOT BE DENIED! At some time many of the tangata Maori people decided to became one person with a person from another race and produce a child of both races who was now a New Zealand Citizen, no longer a tangata Maori or person of another race, but a New Zealand Citizen of both races. Fact! This was in most case out of love between the two people/races at some time that cannot be denied. Fact! It is extremely wrong to force this child to become some special race of person when in fact he/she, is the result in most cases of love between two races. Fact! Why destroy this young person’s life by trying to take away half their ancestry when they should be celebrating both their ancestors who made them? It was two people who made this person of mixed race, so let them be proud of who they are and live a happy life as a proud New Zealander! Tangata Maori had the choice, but it’s a fact, and it cannot be changed now, they are no longer the race that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, they are New Zealand Citizens with varying degrees of tangata Maori ancestry who should be allowed to be proud of both their ancestry, but now New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law. Remember, many of their ancestors shook hands with Lt. Governor Hobson at Waitangi on the 6th February in 1840 with the words below, plus 3 hearty cheers from the whole gathering. “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” – New Zealanders! Think about it before you destroy another child’s life wondering who they really are when they should be proud to be a New Zealand Citizen. The tangata Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi did not give today’s Maori the right to be, “In partnership with the Crown” or a Waitangi Tribunal or Ministry of Maori Crown Relation’s, that breaches

11

SUBMISSION 21 One New Zealand Foundation Inc., Ross Baker

the Treaty of Waitangi that over 500 tangata Maori chiefs agreed to become British subjects, “With the same rights as the people of England’. If they made a child of mixed race, then that child becomes a New Zealand citizen, not some special person that has special rights over all other New Zealand Citizens. It must also be remembered on 3 May 1841 the Treaty of Waitangi was superseded by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed. Fact! If a Politician has not got the “Guts” to tell it how it is, then they should not be in Parliament! Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. © 13/6/2020 (Black Friday)!

SUBMISSION 22 Pierce Brown



Comments: As a property owner in Taupo I do not agree with your proposal to transfer water quality monitoring to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. It is the responsibility of the Council to carry out this work. Maori have been given ownership of the lake bottom but I question their ownership of the water. Maori interests focus mainly on their own interests rather than the whole community and I believe this has already been demonstrated in Taupo and other parts of the country.

SUBMISSION 23 Motere Lands Ltd, Mark Oliver Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: I am writing to voice my opinion on the recent proposal Environment Waikato have put forward to transfer Lake Taupo water quality monitoring to an outside party who have no affiliation with private property. I believe that Environment Waikato is already doing a great job with the water monitoring and has an exceptionally fine employee who is dedicated to the task at hand and very respectful to the landowners as well as their operations. I do not agree with what has been proposed and do not see why someone who is very good at their job could potentially be removed from this task because another group believe they are more entitled. Your proposal suggests a group of people believe they have a special affiliation with the land and water that others do not. This belief is not an entitlement to go onto private property for their own agendas. I believe all land owners have a very special affiliation with the land. Land owners have paid many millions of dollars for this entitlement and I believe the privilege to own and care for that land is treasured very deeply by them. I am a land owner within the Taupo catchment and I have bought this right and I don’t believe Environment Waikato has any right to go inviting third parties onto anyone’s private property without the land owner’s consent. There are already multiple parties which have been given access by others through my property which has nothing to do with my business. These are as follows: • The Lines Company • Transpower • DOC • Bike Taupo – Walkway track • Forestry rights to two different parties on my land • Transit • Geonet for seismic monitoring

12

SUBMISSION 23 Motere Lands Ltd, Mark Oliver • Weather stations run by government agencies • Environment Waikato • Various Taupo Sporting events. e.g. Ultrathon • Epic Events The above listed parties they have all been given access rights with their own keys to come and go to complete their various tasks they want on my land. I do not want to add to this list. This is a working farm with multiple people involved who not only work here but live and hunt here. I have many operations happening here at any one time. Under the name of health and safety, I am extremely uncomfortable with other parties having access rights into my property for their own agendas. I would feel much more comfortable knowing Environment Waikato are collecting the water themselves and taking it to their own lab to avoid multiple parties handling these samples. It exposes this important job to unnecessary risks, handling errors, or manipulated water sample results. I can only imagine landowners would not want to expose themselves to any form of the above. When it comes to liability. Who takes ownership for any wrongdoings on my property? In addition to the stock on the farm, I have a lot of expensive equipment, infrastructure, and machinery all necessary to make this operation possible. If an accident occurred while Environment Waikato were testing water such as gates being left open resulting in stock getting on the State Highway, my property was somehow interfered with, or information such as gate codes was passed onto an opportunist, I know that Environment Waikato would take great responsibility to help remedy the issue. Would this be the case if the third party you are proposing to invite onto my property caused damages or would I be stuck with all liability? There is already theft and poaching problems in this area as is. I have a lot to potentially lose with absolutely nothing to gain in this proposal. I think this proposal being pushed onto private land owners is very disrespectful. Your proposal suggests that it is a more cost-efficient model for testing water quality. Who is saving money? I don’t believe that my rates will be going down as a result of this proposal? If cost efficiency is the driver for this proposal then why don’t we as land owners test our own water? Why is it that I must spend my time and money defending my own property rights when I am already happy with the job Environment Waikato are doing? It is very disappointing and a waste of time to try and address something when there is no problem? Environment Waikato you are an organisation whose sole purpose is to monitor and protect the Waikato Environment as is. Your important role is paid out of Waikato landowner’s levies so do not pass the buck to another party. Please respect the good job you are already doing and please do not get involved with other people’s political agendas. It has nothing to do with the science you are doing.

SUBMISSION 24 Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust on behalf of Te Mahau Marae, Ngahana Hartley and Shontelle Bishara



Comments: Submission by Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust on behalf of Te Mahau Marae

1. This submission is made by the trustees of Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust on behalf of Te Mahau Marae

on the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. In short, we the trustees of Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust on behalf of Te Mahau Marae

support the Proposed Transfer.

13


Ko wai mātau o Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust

3. The purpose of the Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust is the administration and preservation of Te Mahau

marae for the benefit of the descendants of Petera Te Whataiwi / owners in Waihi Kahakaharoa 1A, and to apply any income received in relation to Te Mahau marae, for the purposes of promoting health, social, cultural and economic welfare, education and vocational training and general advancement in the life of Te Mahau Marae descendants.


4. We the Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from

the Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:





d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40

sites in the Taupō catchment.


Waitahanui).


catchment.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In [insert organization name] view, the Proposed Transfer:


i. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or

performance of the function, power, or duty; and


b. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its ratepayers including Ngāti Tūwharetoa members).



Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack

14


of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.


appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Te Whānau o Hokoaro Trust on behalf of Te Mahau Marae commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.



SUBMISSION 25 Lynley Hunt



Comments: -

SUBMISSION 26 Judy James



Comments: Lake Taupō is a national treasure that holds special value for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the local iwi of Taupō. Ensuring the health of the lake is regarded as a top priority at both a national and local level. Ngāti Tūwharetoa have local knowledge about the lake and its tributary streams, and have a deep desire to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the well-being of the lake for the benefit of all." Lake Taupo is a treasure for ALL...I do not believe any one person can claim more right to the lake than another. We have hunted and fished this area for over 50 years..I doubt any other party has more knowledge than our family / fellow hunters/fishers. The local IWI recently, without any consultation recently closed off a famous fishing spot, and also closed off Five Mile Bay...for absurd reasons...no consultation...this will happen if they are given any power over the lake. Its upsetting to us to imply one party (Maori) have more of a relationship with this land than us, we find is separatist and divisive.

SUBMISSION 27 Ross Lynch



Comments: I support the transfer of functions around water monitoring at Lake Taupō from WRC to Tūwharetoa. Tūwharetoa play a unique role in the management of Taupō and have an important ancestral and long term connection to the lake which I think will only lead to improved environmental outcomes. The proposal also

15

SUBMISSION 27 Ross Lynch

is a huge step forward in councils working with iwi partners across the country. Your proposal notes that there are efficiencies to be gained from undertaking the transfer, and this combined with the likely improved environmental outcomes for the lake and the importance of honouring Treaty partnership in the work of council I think makes this proposal a great opportunity. I've read the submissions received up to 25 June on your website, particularly those opposed, and would make two general points. The first is that many submitters consider this process to be unfair and that WRC should tender out the function. Most of these submissions are out of scope, because the RMA does not allow for these functions to be tendered to just anyone who wants to do it - iwi authorities are deliberately empowered in the RMA to receive powers and functions under the RMA. The second is that the level of racism coming through from opposing submitters is extremely concerning. While not surprising, this kind of racism is a very poor reason for WRC to not go ahead with the transfer. Your proposal is sensible, well-considered, well-timed and acknowledges the role of Tūwharetoa in caring for the lake. To not proceed on the basis of racist vitriol from some members of your community would be a huge disappointment and undermine the leadership taken to get to this point today.

SUBMISSION 28 Te Arawa District Maori Council, Anthony Toro Bidois



Comments: Ko Tongariro te maunga Ko Taupo-nui-a-Tia te moana Ko Tuwharetoa te Iwi Ko Te Heuheu te tangata. Submission translated by WRC as follows: Tongariro is the mountain Taupō is the lake Tūwharetoa are the people Te Heuheu is the man.

SUBMISSION 29 Dave Potaka



Comments: -

SUBMISSION 30 Kēpa Morgan



Comments: The proposal to transfer these monitoring functions to Ngāti Tūwharertoa under S33 is supported unreservedly. Ngāti Tūwharertoa will have the technical skills required with up-to-date training combined with the passion to carry out these duties with commitment and care due to the whakapapa relationship that is held with this tāonga. The advantages of proceeding with this proposal are set out in the Statement of Proposal He Tauākī Marohi Proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to an iwi authority and there do not appear to be any adverse outcomes.

16

SUBMISSION 30 Kēpa Morgan

The gesture is also a real demonstration of Regional Council's commitment to the partnership principle stated in the Principles of The Treaty of Waitangi and will be seen positively by our Iwi and Hapū, our Government, and the majority of New Zealanders. The transfer of these responsibilities is also considered an opportunity as with Regional Council retained in the role of quality assurance, the combined input of both organisations could lead to innovations and insights not previously identified under the past monitoring regime. The successful transition to a Ngāti Tūwharertoa monitoring regime will be celebrated as a significant turning point for Iwi involvement in kaitiakitanga responsibilities and other Iwi and Hapū will without a doubt be enthusiastic about opportunities to follow this excellent leadership example. Mauri oho, Mauri tū, kia matāra!

SUBMISSION 31 Armer Farms (NI) Limited, Robert McPherson



Comments: AFNIL is a family-owned farming business with 17 farms located in the Bay of Plenty, Central Waikato and Taumarunui areas of the North Island. It farms circa 12,000 dairy cows on 14 dairy farms operating a system one farming philosophy with a focus on pasture utilisation and low inputs. This low input approach and managing the farm's footprint through operating a sustainable and profitable farming system is a pillar of the farming business. This business has actively invested in the Lake Taupo Catchment and is largely supportive of the current Healthy Rivers water plan by the Waikato Regional Council and the time frames and processes they have identified. AFNIL takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously and operates stringent effluent management, nutrient management and water quality management systems. It has five farms operating within the Lake Taupo Catchment which is audited yearly for compliance to its Resource Consent. AFNIL has extensive riparian fencing across not only its dairy farms, but also its grazing properties and has dedicated areas to wetlands and planting of both native and exotic forestry in areas not suitable for pastoral farming. Like most farmers AFNIL strongly recognises the importance of improving water quality as well as enhancing ecosystem health. Farming in the Lake Taupo Catchment and also the greater Waikato catchment means that we are very aware of the downstream impacts of our on-farm practices. As a family farming business we have a deep love and respect of our environment with over 30 years developing wetlands and habits for native flora and fauna; we believe in leaving the land and the environment in a better condition than when we purchased it for the future generations of not only our family, but all New Zealanders.

In writing this submission we wish to register our objection to the proposal to transfer specific Lake Taupo monitoring to an lwi authority at the same time as acknowledging the role Maori has in the Taupo region and indeed New Zealand in regards to water management. Our objection is based on the following:

1. "Section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) enables a local authority to transfer any one or more of its functions, powers or duties under the Act to another public authority, except for the power of transfer itself'.

17

SUBMISSION 31 Armer Farms (NI) Limited, Robert McPherson

It is AFNIL' s contention that neither Ngati Tuwharetoa or the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board are "public entities" therefore do not qualify for any transfer of functions or powers currently held by the Waikato Regional Council.

2. And given in this instance Ngati Tuwharetoa through the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board holds legal

title and ownership of Taupo Waters, AFNIL is of the view that only an independent neutral regulatory entity should undertake testing and that entity should be the Waikato Regional Council.

SUBMISSION 32 Te Runanga O Ngai Takoto, Wallace Rivers Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Finally, New Zealand is about to see one of our Regional Councils using common sense in proposing to transfer specific Lake Taupo water quality monitoring functions to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. We fully support Waikato Regional Council and their initiative in proposing this action, a first of its kind in New Zealand, in recognizing the Trust Board's unique status as it holds legal title as Trustee and acts as kaitiaki of Taupo Waters on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Noting the proposal is for a functional service, final decisions remain the responsibility of Waikato Regional Council. Who better than Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board to provide this service, given their people have occupied this region for hundreds of years. It takes brave leadership to embrace and encourage change. Therefore, we tautoko Waikato Regional Council in leading the way despite adverse public opinion and look forward to a positive outcome to their proposal.

SUBMISSION 33 Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Marae Trustees & Hapu, Te Kanawa Pitiroi Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Submission by The Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Marae Trustees & Hapu

1. This submission is made by the Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Trustees on the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupe monitoring functions to TOwharetoa Maori Trust Board (the Propos ed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

., 2. In short, we the Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Hapu support the Proposed Transfer.

Ko wai matau - We are a Ngati T0ewharetoa hap0 situated on the Eastern shores of Lake

Taupo.

3. Ngati Te Rangiita have always been passionate about the care of the environment.

Hence the saying: Ki te Uaki te tangata i te taiao Ka Uaki te taiao i te tangata.

If mankind takes care of the environment The environment will take care of mankind.

Te Kanawa Pitiroi


4. We the The Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Hapu support the Proposed Transfer of the

18

SUBMISSION 33 Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Marae Trustees & Hapu, Te Kanawa Pitiroi

following functions from the Waikato Regional Council to the TOwharetoa Maori Trust Board:

a. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach

sites in Lake Taupe during the summer season (December to February inclusive). b. Regionalrivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers

which are tributaries to Lake Taupo. c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake

Taupe.

d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40 sites in the Taupe catchment.


f. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupe catchment.

5. The Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, with its organisational experience and track-record of

practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupe Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfil the Proposed Transfer. In [insert organisation name] view, the Proposed Transfer:


i. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise

or performance of the function, power, or duty; and


b. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore

its ratepayers including Ngati Tuwharetoa members).

6. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by

now Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams):1

Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Maori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act's credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers - which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of 'efficiency' - is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapu lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.

Time to move forward and commit to our responsibilities for the

protection of our waters and the environment as a whole.

7. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA

where it is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the

19

SUBMISSION 33 Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Marae Trustees & Hapu, Te Kanawa Pitiroi

Trust Board's role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. The Ngati TeRangiita Waitetoko Hapu commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.


SUBMISSION 34 Waihaha Marae, Beryl Tawa Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: On behalf of Waihaha Marae Papakainga Reservation Trust We support Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board Section 33 Submission

SUBMISSION 35 Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Runanga, Michelle Phillips Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Runanga Trust would like to thank Waikato Regional Council for the opportunity to submit on your proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupo monitoring functions to an iwi authority. The Ngati Tahu-Ngati Whaoa Runanga Trust supports this proposal in principle but paramount to this support is that the rights of other treaty partners are not encroached upon by any extension of monitoring outside the relevant iwi authority’s boundaries as stated in Treaty Settlement legislation.

SUBMISSION 36 Tauhara Middle 15 Trust, Topia Rameka Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Submission by Tauhara Middle 15 Trust

1. This submission is made by the trustees of Tauhara Middle 15 Trust on the proposal to transfer


2. In short, we the trustees of Tauhara Middle 15 Trust support the Proposed Transfer.

Ko wai mātau o Tauhara Moana Trust

3. Tauhara Middle 15 Trust is the Ahu Whenua Trust who is charged with the responsibility of looking after over 250ha of land located at the base of Tauhara Maunga, within the Taupo catchment.


4. Tauhara Middle 15 Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the

Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:


b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which

20

SUBMISSION 36 Tauhara Middle 15 Trust, Topia Rameka

are tributaries to Lake Taupō.





5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organisational experience and track-record of practicing

kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In our view, the Proposed Transfer:





6. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams):1

Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.


appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective.

8. Tauhara Middle 15 Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust

Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

9. We do not wish to be heard in support of this submission. 1 Waitangi Tribunal, 2011, p.113.

21

SUBMISSION 37 Tauhara Moana Trust, Topia Rameka Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Submission by Tauhara Moana Trust

1. This submission is made by the trustees of Tauhara Moana Trust on the proposal to transfer specified

Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. In short, we the trustees of Tauhara Moana Trust support the Proposed Transfer.

Ko wai mātau o Tauhara Moana Trust

3. Tauhara Moana Trust is the Ahu Whenua Trust who is charged with the responsibility of looking after over 1000ha of land within and outside the Taupo catchment


4. Tauhara Moana Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the Waikato

Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:








kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In our view, the Proposed Transfer:





6. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams):1

Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into

22

SUBMISSION 37 Tauhara Moana Trust, Topia Rameka

Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.


appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective.

8. Tauhara Moana Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board

for their leadership on this kaupapa.


SUBMISSION 38 Topia Rameka Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: I make this submission in my personal capacity as a member of Ngati Tuwharetoa and as the Chief Executive Officer of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board ('Trust Board') at the time that this matters was originally being considered by both the Trust Board and Waikato Regional Council. I am very familiar with all of the interactions between those parties and constituents that led to the agreement in principle to explore this kaupapa. The proposal to transfer water quality monitoring functions is the absolute right thing for the Waikato Regional Council to be considering and demonstrates an enhancement and commitment toward real partnership as envisaged under the Resource Management Act and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I have reviewed a selection of the submissions and note that most of the opposing submissions are based on the fact that either: 1.Council are unable to transfer to a non-public authority. - My response is that under s.33 (RMA) an iwi authority (which the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Baord is) is considered a public authority. 2. These powers should not be granted because the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Boar represents Maori. - My response to this is that there should be no place in New Zealand for racist-based submissions and these should be dismissed absolutely. In summary and based on my view there is no valid submissions opposing the proposal. I fully support the proposal and wish to be heard in support of my submission.

23

SUBMISSION 39 Matewawe Margaret Hahipene Whanau Trust, Vivian Hahipene



Comments: The findings from their monitoring will have subsequent recommendations which will need action and funds. Good move as Maori understand kaitiakitanga better than most. The current condition of our waterways is unacceptable.

SUBMISSION 40 Lake Taupo Forest Trust, Amy Walker



Comments: Submission by Lake Taupō Forest Trust

1. This submission is made by the Lake Taupō Forest Trust on the proposal to transfer specified

Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. In short, we the Lake Taupō Forest Trust support the Proposed Transfer.

3. Ko wai mātou o Te Ngahere o Taupō Moana

The Lake Taupō Forest Trust was established by Māori Land Court Order in 1968.

The land comprises 68 Māori land blocks and 15 blocks owned freehold by the Trust on the eastern shores of Lake Taupō. Of this area, 24,207 hectares (71 per cent) are planted in forest. There are approximately 13500 owners with interests in the lands.

The Trust leases the land to the Crown for productive forestry. Planting commenced in 1969 and was completed by the late-1980s. Harvesting commenced in 1994, and the harvested areas are being replanted each year, thus creating the second rotation crop.

In 2000, the Crown and Trust agreed to change the terms of the lease from a 70-year, two-rotation arrangement to a one-rotation lease. As a result, leased land is now returned to the Trust following the harvest of the first rotation crop. The Crown is due to finish the lease in July 2021 and the Trust will then start receiving 100 per cent of forestry income.

Lake Taupō Forest is managed by NZ Forest Managers Ltd, a privately-owned forest management company which undertakes contract management of forests.

Around 30 per cent of the land remains in a natural state to support and protect important environmental values including waahi tapu and waterways. The Trust’s forest is Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) accredited. The accreditation recognises the Trust’s environmental, social, and economic viability as a forestry landowner.

The Trust provides benefits to owners in the form of annual dividend distributions and grants totalling around $6 million per annum. It also provides access to the land for food gathering and recreational activities.

The Trust is governed by 11 elected Trustees who are elected by rotation through triennial elections. Newly elected Trustees are appointed by the Māori Land Court. The next election is due to take place in 2022.

24



4. We the Lake Taupō Forest Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from

the Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:


sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive). b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers

which are tributaries to Lake Taupō.

c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake

Taupō. d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and

October) at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment. e. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

Waitahanui). f. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

catchment.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and track-record of

practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In Lake Taupō Forest Trust’s view, the Proposed Transfer:


i. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise

or performance of the function, power, or duty; and ii. has the relevant technical capability and expertise;

b. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore

its ratepayers including Ngāti Tūwharetoa members).



Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thorough going infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be a major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.

We further add that given the FSC accreditation of Lake Taupō Forest Trust which recognises

25


the high level of environmental, social, and economic practices as a land manager, gives further assertion that Māori entities are more than capable of acting as kaitiaki over their whenua.


where it is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Lake Taupō Forest Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

We do not wish to be heard in support of this submission 1 Waitangi Tribunal, 2011, p.113.

SUBMISSION 41 Mervin Meiring



Comments: If the council is unable to monitor the said water quality, the function should be offered to tender by suitably qualified entities not randomly transferred to a selected party, as is expected in any democracy democracy.

SUBMISSION 42 John Palmer



Comments: These functions should be administered by a democratically elected body like the Waikato Regional Council. The Trust Board has no responsibility to the Waikato Region or its people.

SUBMISSION 43 Chris Hughes



Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites I oppose the proposal to transfer specific water quality monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. Reasons for opposition: Lake Taupō is a national treasure, much admired and valued by many people - both locally and nationally. I wholeheartedly support the Waikato Regional Council’s intention to ensure the health of the lake is a top priority - I share, without any distinction, interests in clean water, unpolluted soil, and the preservation of plant and animal diversity. However, it is obvious this proposal is more about advancing a political agenda than following best practice in this important environmental work. An examination of the proposal gives no confidence the delivery of a more efficient, streamlined and effective service would be the case, as claimed in the ‘Statement of Proposal’. I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: 1) The Council would be providing financial and technical assistance to build capacity within the Trust Board, surely an admittance that the Board does not have the expertise to undertake the function. Evidence: Excerpt from ‘Statement of Proposal’ (p.10) “If all of this work is transferred to the Trust Board, year one would see an increase in costs to Council, as staff would need to provide training and orientation of the sites. In the following years there would be cost savings and these savings would be used to offset the additional cost of quality assurance checks needed to be done on water samples prior to importing the data

26

SUBMISSION 43 Chris Hughes

into our Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff”. 2) I have no confidence that the transfer of monitoring functions would result in financial benefits for the Council, as claimed by the Council chair Russ Rimmington in a June 2 press release. Instead, as it is obvious the Trust Board lacks expertise and experience in best practice water monitoring, there would be a need for additional auditing, which is likely to result in added costs. Evidence: The Statement of Proposal (p.81) states that any cost savings would be offset by the additional cost of quality assurance checks which would need to be done on water samples prior to importing the data into the Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff. 3) The ‘Report to Council – Public Excluded’ (dated 13 September 2019) has identified the risk that the Council may be expected to undertake similar agreements with other iwi authorities or local authorities that may result in not being able to deliver on expectations due to competing priorities. 4) The proposal ignores established rules around best practice. Decision sought. I request that the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites in Lake Taupō be rejected. Instead, in accordance with best commercial practice and in accordance with fiduciary duty guidelines published by the Auditor General it is essential the Council publicly tender the water monitoring rights for Lake Taupo. If the Council believes outsourcing a core function of water quality monitoring is a better option than doing so inhouse, it should not gift this contract without contest to a favoured entity. The Council has a legal obligation to the whole community to follow a best practice procurement policy by conducting an open and fully transparent tender process - a process in which the Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board could participate alongside other potential service providers. In doing so the public could have more confidence the water monitoring function would be carried out in an accountable, efficient and cost-effective manner.

SUBMISSION 44 Geoff Parker



Comments: Lake Taupō is a national treasure that holds special value to ALL New Zealanders, therefore I do not agree with transferring Lake Taupō monitoring functions to an iwi authority or any tribal opportunist group.

SUBMISSION 45 Colin Anderson



Comments: I do not think this should be done

SUBMISSION 46 Christopher Fidoe



Comments: I am totally opposed to this blatant Racism. You are abrogating your responsibilities – do your job!

SUBMISSION 47 Wendy Clark


27

SUBMISSION 47 Wendy Clark


Comments: If Council has decided it needs to outsource this function, it should follow a best practice procurement policy by calling for tenders. Is the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board even qualified to undertake this role on behalf of Waikato's citizens and ratepayers? Council's own Statement of Proposal indicates they are not, otherwise Council staff would not need to "provide training and orientation of the sites." (page 10) Section 33 of the RMA tasks regional council with providing "efficient and effective service delivery". There is a conflict between this objective and Council's decision to gift the job to Tuwharetoa for the purpose of meeting another objective ie supporting a "partnership" relationship with one sector of the community. Council needs to get this precedent-setting decision right if it wishes to preserve its credibility in the eyes of the wider community. RECOMMENDATIONS That the function be outsourced to a contracted service provider by way of a competitive tender process. That the tender process be transparent and follow good business practice. That the contract be awarded to a service provider that has the relevant expertise. That the objective of outsourcing the role should be to create efficiencies and an effective service delivery. That Council act in a manner that preserves its credibility in the eyes of its citizens and ratepayers.

SUBMISSION 48 G.P Larsen



Comments: I do not agree with the proposed transfer of water quality testing of Lake Taupo to be transferred to any Iwi tribal authority. This an abrogation of the Waikato Regional Authority’s duties and responsibilities.

SUBMISSION 49

Tauponuiatia Management Board, Topia Rameka



Comments: Te Poari Whakahaere o Taupō-nui-ā-Tia (Taupō-nui-a-Tia Management Board) The Taupō-nui-a-Tia Management Board was established pursuant to the provisions of a Deed between the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Trust Board) and Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown) signed in September 2007. The role of the Taupō-nui-a-Tia Management Board are to manage Taupō Waters as if it were a reserve for recreation purposes under section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977. The Taupo-Nui-a-Tia Management Board is composed of eight Board members with four appointed by the Minister of Conservation having regard to the interests of the Crown, conservation, recreation, tourism and freshwater sciences to represent the public interest; and four appointed by the Trust Board. A key function of the Taupō-nui-ā-Tia Management Board includes determining a Management Plan for

28

SUBMISSION 49

Tauponuiatia Management Board, Topia Rameka

Taupō Waters; considering and deciding on non-commercial research and recreational use applications for use of Taupō. The Taupō-nui-ā-Tia Management Board has recently developed a Draft Management plan for Taupō waters as part of its role as an administrative body under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Board will soon seek feedback on the Draft Management Plan for Taupō Waters. The Board is supportive of the proposal to transfer Lake Taupo water monitoring functions to the Trust Board.

SUBMISSION 50 Sylvia Phillips



Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites in Lake Taupō. I am writing to OPPOSE this plan as follows: Lake Taupō is a national treasure, much admired and valued by many people - both locally and nationally. I wholeheartedly support the Waikato Regional Council’s intention to ensure the health of the lake is a top priority - we all share, without any distinction, interests in clean water, unpolluted soil, and the preservation of plant and animal diversity. However, it is obvious this proposal is more about advancing a political agenda than following best practise in this important environmental work. An examination of the proposal gives NO confidence the delivery of a more efficient, streamlined and effective service would be the case, as claimed in the ‘Statement of Proposal’. I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: 1) The Council would be providing financial and technical assistance to build capacity within the Trust Board, surely an admittance that the Board does not have the expertise to undertake the function. Evidence: Excerpt from ‘Statement of Proposal’ (p.10) “If all of this work is transferred to the Trust Board, year one would see an increase in costs to Council, as staff would need to provide training and orientation of the sites. In the following years there would be cost savings and these savings would be used to offset the additional cost of quality assurance checks needed to be done on water samples prior to importing the data into our Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff”. 2) I have no confidence that the transfer of monitoring functions would result in financial benefits for the Council, as claimed by the Council chair Russ Rimmington in a June 2 press release1. Instead, as it is obvious the Trust Board lacks expertise and experience in best practise water monitoring, there would be a need for additional auditing, which is likely to result in added costs. Evidence: The Statement of Proposal (p.81) states that any cost savings would be offset by the additional cost of quality assurance checks which would need to be done on water samples prior to importing the data into the Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff. If Council Staff already have the experience and knowledge to be able to mentor and audid iwi input, then they have the capacity to do the job themselves - CHEAPER than letting others do this work for them. 3) The ‘Report to Council – Public Excluded’ (dated 13 September 2019) has identified the risk that the Council may be expected to undertake similar agreements with other iwi authorities or local authorities that may result in not being able to deliver on expectations due to competing priorities

29

SUBMISSION 50 Sylvia Phillips

4) The proposal ignores established rules around best practice. Decision sought I am requesting that the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites in Lake Taupō be rejected. Instead, I suggest the Council follow established best practise. If the Council believes outsourcing a core function of water quality monitoring is a better option than doing so inhouse, it should not gift this contract without contest to a favoured entity. The Council has an obligation to the whole community to follow a best practice procurement policy by conducting an open and fully transparent tender process - a process in which the Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board could participate alongside other potential service providers. In doing so the public could have more confidence the water monitoring function would be carried out in an accountable, efficient and cost-effective manner.

SUBMISSION 51 Trevor Sheffield Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: A specific duty which should rest with the Council is being off loaded without due authority.

SUBMISSION 52 Bruce Ward Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: I have elected not to speak as I am about to start calving so will not be able to attend, as with Healthy Rivers Submissions. Water Quality is very important to the whole Waikato region, and should be done by qualified technicians so the data/ results are / remain unbiased. If WRC does not want to do the work then the work should be subcontracted out via a tender service. The Trust are not qualified to carry out the work in a unbiased way or using qualified technicians to do the testing. Currently there are resource consents that require the consent holder to monitor and send results to WRC, a lot are not received on time and some need repeated chasing up. If WRC does testing, results are done on time. This proposal does not guarantee results on time which could result in detrimental degradation of water quality due to the delay in receiving results. A) Waikato Regional councils responsibility is to do water monitoring. By WRC staff doing testing the results are taken as unbiased/ neutral. Handing it over to a third party brings the testing and results into disrepute, especially when the third party has a vested interest/ links to properties that affect water quality(farming). "Waikato Regional Council (Council) is responsible for ensuring that our waterways, lakes and streams are kept healthy and clean. To do this we monitor the water quality of the lake, streams, rivers and groundwater that make their way into Lake Taupō. By doing this monitoring, we can determine whether the water is safe for recreational activities and can track other water quality trends important for the ecology and appearance of the lake. The detection of any decrease in water quality can trigger discussions and possible action to remedy these changes." B) The Trust Board has local knowledge about these waterways, possesses the appropriate level of technical expertise and are present at sites around the lake and streams more often than Council staff can be. This enables earlier detection of changes in the lake and stream water quality as well as quicker response times to any major incidents that may affect water quality." Their possibly being present more often does not affect the amount/ frequency of water testing if a

30

SUBMISSION 52 Bruce Ward problem is encountered. Testing is to be done a certain amount of times, if they are present more often and detect anomalies in water quality, they should contact WRC, as WRC will need contacting anyway to deal with the situation. C) Council did consider a contract for services; however a transfer of functions supports the Trust Board’s fiduciary duty and relationship with Taupō Waters in a way that holds greater significance than a contract, for both TMTB and council. " A contract for services means costs are controlled, what you are proposing has NO cost controls, it is an open cheque book, which can be abused. WRC is paid for via rates and its spending is accountable to the rate payers. this Trust entity would not be. D) Council also considered the option to not transfer; however, this was not within the spirit of section 33 and such an option would not allow Council to progress and enhance its relationship with the Trust Board." There is already a co-management agreement of waterways between the parties and this is not necessary. There is NO information provided as to WHY it should happen. E) Having local people on the ground provides a range of benefits for this work, including fast response times if equipment is identified as faulty and quicker responses to major incidents. Local insights can also be applied to the raw data received from monitoring equipment, and local knowledge about sensitive sites can be accessed easily by Council staff when dealing with major incidents." Raw data should not be adjusted in any way and sites should be constant, this statement says data can be changed and influenced to suit a personal / organisation agenda. Results are supposed to be factual, unbiased. A lot of equipment nowadays can be remotely monitored to assess faults F) Council staff will not be required to travel to Taupō as regularly to undertake this work, saving travel time and fuel costs." This is a core responsibility of a regional council. My understanding is the water is tested in Hamilton so makes no difference whether someone travels from Hamilton to taupo and back to Hamilton to drop samples, as opposed to sample from taupo to Hamilton then person returning back to taupo. Exact same mileage, time. Taking the samples is a specialised task and should be done by someone qualified G) Cost savings - "It is estimated that this would save council $.... over a 10-year period, as our staff would not be required to travel to Taupō to collect samples, to do manual readings or test equipment." I disagree as samples still need to be taken to Laboratory for testing meaning a 2 way trip, no difference whether Hamilton to Taupo back to Hamilton or taupo to Hamilton back to taupo. WRC staff can fix equipment as they are there, as opposed to the Trust ringing WRC and someone making special trip to fix equipment. H) If all of this work is transferred to the Trust Board, year one would see an increase in costs to Council, as staff would need to provide training and orientation of the sites. In the following years there would be cost savings and these savings would be used to offset the additional cost of quality assurance checks needed to be done on water samples prior to importing the data into our Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff. Any residue funding would be used to undertake additional monitoring for other projects." these figures are fictitious. there are no costs to do the operation. Costs can skyrocket due to there being NO contract for service. If WRC do it as they are now there are NO third party costs, which the proposal would have.

SUBMISSION 53 John Funnell Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: I oppose the transfer of the responsibility to any organisation other than the Regional Council. The Tūwharetoa Trust Board under the Deed have ownership of the lake bed, but not the water. The Government have made that very clear. There is a legal proceeding underway to get clarity of the Deed to define the extent of the controls of the Deed. The Regional Council is an independent and appropriate authority to control the lake and ensure it remains an area of pristine water available to all New Zealanders.

31

SUBMISSION 54 Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust, Te Wharau Walker Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Submission by Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust

1. This submission is made by the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust on the proposal to transfer


2. In short, we the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust support the Proposed Transfer.

3. Ko wai mātou o Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust (NTCT)

The Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust is the post settlement entity that is responsible for managing the assets that Ngāti Tūrangitukua received under wai 84 the Tūrangi Township settlement.

On 26 September 1998, the Crown signed a Deed of Settlement with the Ngāti Tūrangitukua hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The Ngāti Tūrangitukua Claims Settlement Act 1999 gives effect to this settlement. The settlement covers claims made by Ngāti Tūrangitukua arising from the creation of the Tūrangi township, in the central North Island, in the 1960s and the development of the Tongariro power scheme. It aims to restore the Mana of Ngāti Tūrangitukua and the honour of the Crown by settling this historic, but recent, grievance.

The settlement includes an apology by the Crown for its wrongdoings and a redress package of cash, land, and administrative arrangements. Most of the settlement affects the Tūrangi township. The apology from the Crown is a very significant element of the settlement and clears the way for Ngāti Tūrangitukua and the Crown to form an honourable relationship. The value of the settlement does not directly compensate for the losses suffered by Ngāti Tūrangitukua but provides a platform for the hapū to build on.

Arrangements to improve the Ngāti Tūrangitukua relationship with local authorities form part of the settlement. Ngāti Tūrangitukua received title to ten reserves managed by the Taupo District Council. Although there is no change to the management or public use of the reserves, one of the key roles of the Trust is to maintain the Deed of Settlement.

The Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust was established to manage the assets on behalf of the hapū.


4. We the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following


a. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites

in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).


c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō. d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October)

at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment. e. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

32

SUBMISSION 54 Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust, Te Wharau Walker


catchment.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organisational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust’s view, the Proposed Transfer:



performance of the function, power, or duty; and ii. has the relevant technical capability and expertise;

b. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its

ratepayers including Ngāti Tūwharetoa members).



Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thorough going infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be a major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.

As a post settlement governance agency, the Trustees understand the context under which various Acts and pieces of legislation have been unfairly and, in some cases, unlawfully used in reducing the kaitiakitanga role of tāngata whenua. Although small, the act of transferring the functions listed in 4(a) – (f) are endorsed and fully supported by The NTCT Trustees. It would be considered further remedy and endorsement to upholding our mana Motuhake as kaitiaki over our whenua and wai.

7. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA where it

is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.



33

SUBMISSION 55 Yvonne Moana Bidois QSM Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: I fully support the proposal to transfer the monitoring functions to Ngati Tuwharetoa under s33 of the RMA. I support the Statement of Proposal He Tuaki Marohi Proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupo monitoring functions to an Iwi authority, and acknowledge a Waikato Regional Council's commitment to the partnership principle stated in the Principles of Te Tiriti.

SUBMISSION 56 Te Tahuhu o Tawakeheimoa Trust, Te Rangikaheke Yvonne Moana Bidois QSM



Comments: The advantages of proceeding with this proposal are set out in the Statement of Proposal He Tuaki Marohi Proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupo monitoring functions to an Iwi authority, and there do not appear to be any adverse outcomes. The proposal to transfer monitoring functions to Ngati Tuwharetoa under s33 is supported, in the knowledge that Ngati Tuwharetoa will have the technical skills required, with up to date training, combined with their whakapapa relationship to the taonga will ensure their vested and ongoing intergenerational care and attention 'mai rano'. Congratulations Ngati Tuwharetoa and Waikato Regional Council for your bravery, courage and commitment to aspiring to meet the partnership principles stated in the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Without doubt a huge milestone achievement for Aotearoa / New Zealand.

SUBMISSION 57 Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society, Glenn Tootill and Marcia Murray Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Introduction

1. This submission is made for and on behalf of Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society (THRMOA). This submission concerns the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. THRMOA was formally established in 1988. Since then, the THRMOA has grown to include a

significant membership of legal practitioners, judges, parliamentarians, legal academics, policy analysts, researchers and Māori law students. Our vision is Ma te Ture, Mo te Iwi – By the Law, for the People.

3. THRMOA encourages the effective networking of members, makes submissions on a range of

proposed legislation and policy developments, facilitates representation of its membership on selected committees, and organises regular national hui which provide opportunities for Māori to discuss and debate legal issues relevant to Māori.

4. When making submissions on law reform and proposals such as this one, THRMOA does not

attempt to provide a unified voice for its members, or to usurp the authorities and responsibilities of whānau, hapū, and iwi, but rather, seeks to highlight areas of support, concern, and suggest further reform options where appropriate.

THRMOA’s position on transfers of powers, functions and duties under the RMA 5. Section 33 of the RMA provides for a local authority to transfer any 1 or more of its functions,

34

SUBMISSION 57 Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society, Glenn Tootill and Marcia Murray

powers, or duties under the RMA to a public authority. Public authority is defined to include: any local authority, iwi authority, government department, statutory authority and joint committee set up for the purpose of section 80 of the RMA (combined planning). Specified functions cannot be transferred pursuant to section 33.

6. Despite being in force since the RMA’s inception in 1991, section 33 has never been used by a local

authority to transfer “functions, powers, or duties under the RMA” to an iwi authority. Local authorities have transferred particular functions, duties and powers to other local authorities under section 33.1

7. In partial recognition that section 33 transfers (in particular to iwi authorities) had not occurred,

amendments were made to the RMA in 2005 to add provisions for joint management agreements under sections 36B-36E. Section 36B in particular differs from section 33 in that it is not a complete devolution of power but rather allows responsibility for decision making to be shared by the Council and another body.

8. However, despite the 2005 amendments, according to THRMOA’s research, only two section 36B JMA’s have been agreed to between iwi authorities and local authorities – the first between the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the Taupō District Council (in relation to activities on Māori land) and the other between Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou and the Gisborne District Council in relation to particular decisions within the Waiapu catchment.

9. The Waitangi Tribunal has heard evidence on, and made findings in relation to, section 33 of the

RMA. In particular, the Tribunal has found:

a. In Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now Supreme Court Sir Justice Joseph Williams):

Both powers [section 33 and section 188] are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use…. Given the thorough going infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have put forward various reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent this means a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the experience. However, any assertion that iwi lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context is emphatically rejected.2

…

Despite potentially powerful provisions such as the section 33 transfer power and the section 188 HPA option, despite the section 36B joint management provision, and despite the extensive references to Māori in part 2, the RMA regime has not led to kaitiaki control over iconic taonga, nor to kaitiaki involvement in effective partnerships in which control of taonga is shared, and nor even to effective kaitiaki influence in decision- making. The operation of the RMA is therefore not Treaty compliant.3

…

The RMA regime has the potential to achieve these outcomes through provisions such as sections 33, 36B, and 188. But they have virtually never been used to delegate powers to iwi or share control with them. Where some degree of control and partnership has been achieved, this has almost always been through historical Treaty and customary rights settlements. We do not believe that iwi should have to turn to

35


Treaty settlements to achieve what the RMA was supposed to deliver in any case.4

b. More recently, the Tribunal in its Stage 2 report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claims found:

This means that for the 28 years that the RMA has been in force, section 33 has been a dead letter in terms of a mechanism to recognise and provide for tino rangatiratanga and kaitiaki control of natural resources.5

10. The Tribunal in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei recommended that the RMA regime be reformed so that “those who have power under the Act are compelled to engage with kaitiaki in order to deliver control, partnership, and influence where each of these is justified.6 A compulsion within the RMA to use section 33 has not been enacted. Nor have the Tribunal’s recommendations in Ko Aotearoa Tēnei or the Stage 2 Freshwater report been enacted with respect to section 33.


11. THRMOA supports the Proposed Transfer.

12. THRMOA’s grounds for support are as follows:

a. The Tribunal has found on a number of occasions that section 33 provides a mechanism within the RMA to transfer powers, functions and duties to iwi but it has not been used largely due to lack of will by local authorities.

b. THRMOA understands a lot of work has been undertaken over the past two (2) years in particular to determine that the Trust Board is a suitable entity to fulfil the functions that the Waikato Regional Council intends to transfer. In that regard, a suitability assessment has been undertaken.

c. In that regard, the Proposed Transfer would be being made to an iwi authority that (in accordance with section 33):



d. Section 33 has long been a tool available for local authorities use. It has not yet been used for the benefit of iwi. The Proposed Transfer provides an opportunity to address that in the Waikato region.

Concluding whakaaro

13. THRMOA supports local authorities using the tools in the RMA that are intended to increase Māori

participation and decision-making. THRMOA commends the Waikato Regional Council (and the Trust Board) for its leadership in this area.

14. THRMOA does not wish to be heard in support of this submission.

1 https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/RMA/section%2033-stocktake.pdf. 2 Waitangi Tribunal Ko Aotearoa Tēnei – A Report into the Claims Concerning NZ Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity (Wai 262, 2011) vol 1 at 274 (Ko Aotearoa Tēnei). 3 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei at 280.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/RMA/section%2033-stocktake.pdf

36


4 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei at 286. 5 Waitangi Tribunal The Stage 2 report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claims (Wai 2358, 2019) at 68. 6 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei at 286.

SUBMISSION 58 Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu, Paora Bennett Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Submission by the Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua

Hapu

1. This submission is made by the Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu on the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupe monitoring functions to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. The Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua

Hapu supports the Proposed Transfer.

3. Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee I te wa i takahui ai te iwi ki Waipapa Ka piki tuhaha a Te Rangitautahanga

Te Amokapua titiro ki te rangi e Kahui rua nga kaitiaki mai i Te Matapuna

Ko Te Reporepo tatai whetu ki runga Ko Te Reporepo tatai waka ki raro e

Kahui nei tatou te pukai matakirikiri o Turangitukua I karangatia mai i runga o Tongariro te awa

Te Hau o Tunono ka riro Ko te iwi kua haratau ko te ki

Ko Rongomai ano ko Turangitukua Ko Rongomaitengangana Tuwharetoa kotahi tonu ano

4. Ngati Turangitukua is a hapu of Ngati Tuwharetoa who descends from Turangitukua who was

Ariki when the uri of Tuwharetoa established themselves in the inland districts. Ngati Turangitukua also acknowledges its strong connection with the coastal areas occupied by Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and pays due respect to the whanau who continue to hold mana whenua there. The Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee is the governing body of the Ngati Turangitukua Charitable Trust, our Post Settlement Governance Entity established under the 1998 Ngati Turangitukua Deed of Settlement.

5. Ngati Turangitukua lands are in and around the Turangi township in the central north island

and we hold mana whenua with our neighbouring Hapu over Taup6 Moana and many of its tributaries and connected waterways including the Tongariro River where we have exclusive mana whenua from the Tongariro Bridge to the Delta, the Hirangi stream, the Hangarito stream and shared with Ngati Kurauia parts of the Tokaanu stream.

6. Support for the Proposed Transfer

7. We the Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu support

the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the Waikato Regional Council to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board:

37

SUBMISSION 58 Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu, Paora Bennett

8. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in Lake Taup6 during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

9. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which are tributaries to Lake Taupo.

10. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taup6. 11. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at

40 sites in the Taupo catchment. 12. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

Waitahanui). 13. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupo

catchment.

14. The Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupo Moana, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. We as Hapu with mana whenua over many of these waterways look forward to the direct implementation of our kaitiakitanga on our waterways through this agreement to our chosen representative body, the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. In the view of the Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu, the Proposed Transfer: ■ Is being made to an iwi authority that:

• represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the function, power, or duty; and

• has the relevant technical capability and expertise; • Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and

therefore its ratepayers including Ngati Tuwharetoa members).At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Willi ams): 1

• Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33} to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Maori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act's credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers -which in thecase of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of 'efficiency' - is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act . in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapu lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.


where it is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board's role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. The Ngati Turangitukua Maori Committee on behalf of the Ngati Turangitukua Hapu commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

38

SUBMISSION 59 Trevor Simpson Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: I originally wrote a letter to the Council CEO in regard to the above proposal and received his reply on the 6th July 2020. I thank him for that. My submission is a reply to his letter. Dear Vaughan Thank you very much for your reply to my concerns in regard to the transfer of specified monitory functions to an lwi authority. After reading your letter, which I include as part of my submission, I am now more concerned than ever as a ratepayer. This letter does not address the issue of whether Council asked the lwi authority to submit a price to do work presently carried out by Council staff, or did the lwi authority offer to do work Council staff presently undertake for a price. Both options are possible; however, both options are fundamentally flawed. When work presently done by Council staff is to be sourced out, for ratepayer's piece of mind, the required work should be publicly tendered or at a minimum, selected companies should be asked to submit a tender. There will be a number of companies in the region that could undertake such opportunities and they are ratepayers as well. These companies will have the technical expertise, knowledge, experience and local insight just as Council staff have presently. Council has indicated the proposed process is new for the Council. I believe the proposal is an abuse of Council powers and Council is failing to protect ratepayer's funds if such a proposal goes ahead. The proposal should be thrown out.

SUBMISSION 60 Opaea Whanau Trust Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Did not indicate


Comments: The Opaea whanau trust has a beneficial interest in Lake Taupo and some of the surrounding lands. The trust does acknowledge the legal status of the lake with the Tuwharetoa Trust board. Opaea is a Trustee also for Tarete Steedman whanau trust. Also Paora Hekenui Whanau trust.

SUBMISSION 61 Lake Rotoaira Trust, John Hura Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Submission by Lake Rotoaira Trust

1. This submission is made by Lake Rotoaira Trust on the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō

monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. In short, we Lake Rotoaira Trust, support the Proposed Transfer.

39

SUBMISSION 61 Lake Rotoaira Trust, John Hura

Ko wai mātau

3. The trustees of Lake Rotoaira Trust own Maori freehold land which includes the lake bed of Lake Rotoaira, in trust on behalf of over 14,000 beneficial owners. Lake Rotoaira is one of the few privately owned lakes in New Zealand and is located south of Lake Taupo on the central North Island volcanic plateau.


4. We, Lake Rotoaira Trust, support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the Waikato

Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:


Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive). b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which are

tributaries to Lake Taupō. c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō. d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40

sites in the Taupō catchment. e. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and


catchment.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organisational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In Lake Rotoaira Trust’s view, the Proposed Transfer:



performance of the function, power, or duty; and ii. has the relevant technical capability and expertise;




Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thorough infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. In any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an

40

SUBMISSION 61 Lake Rotoaira Trust, John Hura

RMA context. [Emphasis added]


appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Lake Rotoaira Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.



SUBMISSION 62 Te Arawa River Iwi Trust, Harry Carlson Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments:

1. This submission is made by TARIT on the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring

functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource

Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

2. In short, the Te Arawa River Iwi Trust s upport the Proposed Transfer.

3. Te Arawa River Iwi Trust (TARIT) represents the three Te Arawa iwi with an affiliation to the Waikato

River, namely Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whaoa, Tuhourangi - Ngati Wahiao and Ngāti Kearoa - Ngāti Tuarā,

in the co-management and co-governance of the Waikato River and the achievement of Te Ture

Whaimana, the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River. Our relevant legislation is the Ngati

Tuwharetoa, Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010. We have Joint Management

agreements with Waikato Regional Council, Rotorua Lakes Council, South Waikato District Council

and Taupō District Council. We have 8 ministerial accords with the Crown, MBIE, MCH, TPK, DOC,

MfE, MPI and LINZ, with specific clauses pertaining to engagement and policy engagement.


4. TARIT support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the Waikato Regional Council

to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:



b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which



d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40

sites in the Taupō catchment.


Waitahanui).


catchment.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and track-record of practising

kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfil the Proposed

41

1

SUBMISSION 62 Te Arawa River Iwi Trust, Harry Carlson

Transfer. In TARITs view, the Proposed Transfer:






ratepayers including Ngati Tuwharetoa members).

6. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by the now

Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams):

Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the

enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi,

despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing

that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values

into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as a major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central

and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this,

including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent, such arguments reflect a lack

of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities

must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section

33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant

council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of

powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those

factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. In any case, we emphatically

reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of

kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context.


appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role

and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory

perspective. TARIT commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for

their leadership on this kaupapa.

8. As a result of this transfer of functions, TARIT is interested in exploring the potential for TARIT to

undertake similar water monitoring opportunities within our sections of the awa with Waikato

Regional Council in the future. In addition, our understanding is that this proposal applies to the

Taupō waters and TARIT would expect to be directly engaged in any monitoring activities within the

TARIT area of interest.

9. TARIT do not wish to be heard in support of this submission.


SUBMISSION 63 Democracy Action, Lee Short Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: Introduction Democracy Action was established in 2012 by a group of citizens concerned about the erosion of

42

SUBMISSION 63 Democracy Action, Lee Short democratic principles in New Zealand. We have members throughout the country, including the area covered by the Waikato Regional Council. This submission is written on behalf of these citizens, with the proviso that it does not necessarily reflect all the views of any or all members of Democracy Action, but it does reflect the group’s overall view. Some individual members are making separate submissions. I write this submission as secretary for the group. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites in Lake Taupō. Democracy Action opposes the proposal to transfer specific water quality monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. Reasons for opposition Lake Taupō is a national treasure, much admired and valued by many people - both locally and nationally. We wholeheartedly support the Waikato Regional Council’s intention to ensure the health of the lake is a top priority - we all share, without any distinction, interests in clean water, unpolluted soil, and the preservation of plant and animal diversity. However, it is obvious this proposal is more about advancing a political agenda than following best practise in this important environmental work. An examination of the proposal gives no confidence the delivery of a more efficient, streamlined and effective service would be the case, as claimed in the ‘Statement of Proposal’. We have come to this conclusion for the following reasons: 1) The Council would be providing financial and technical assistance to build capacity within the Trust Board, surely an admittance that the Board does not have the expertise to undertake the function. Evidence: Excerpt from ‘Statement of Proposal’ (p.10) “If all of this work is transferred to the Trust Board, year one would see an increase in costs to Council, as staff would need to provide training and orientation of the sites. In the following years there would be cost savings and these savings would be used to offset the additional cost of quality assurance checks needed to be done on water samples prior to importing the data into our Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff”. 2) We have no confidence that the transfer of monitoring functions would result in financial benefits for the Council, as claimed by the Council chair Russ Rimmington in a June 2 press release1. Instead, as it is obvious the Trust Board lacks expertise and experience in best practise water monitoring, there would be a need for additional auditing, which is likely to result in added costs. Evidence: The Statement of Proposal (p.81) states that any cost savings would be offset by the additional cost of quality assurance checks which would need to be done on water samples prior to importing the data into the Council database, auditing of sample data to ensure compatibility, as well as providing ongoing support to Trust Board staff. 3) The ‘Report to Council – Public Excluded’ (dated 13 September 2019) has identified the risk that the Council may be expected to undertake similar agreements with other iwi authorities or local authorities that may result in not being able to deliver on expectations due to competing priorities 4) The proposal ignores established rules around best practice. Decision sought Democracy Action requests that the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites in Lake Taupō be rejected. Instead, we recommend the Council follow established best practise. If the Council believes outsourcing a core function of water quality monitoring is a better option than doing so inhouse, it should not gift this contract without contest to a favoured entity. The Council has an obligation to the whole community to follow a best practice procurement policy by

43

SUBMISSION 63 Democracy Action, Lee Short conducting an open and fully transparent tender process - a process in which the Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board could participate alongside other potential service providers. In doing so the public could have more confidence the water monitoring function would be carried out in an accountable, efficient and cost- effective manner. 1 https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK2006/S00050/new-zealand-first-proposal-to-transfer-functions-to-iwi- authority.htm

SUBMISSION 64 Waihi Marae Trust, Maihi Mariu and Patricia Otimi Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: 1. This submission is made by the Waihi Marae Trust on the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupo monitoring functions to Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). 2. In short, we the Waihi Marae Trust support the Proposed Transfer. Ko wai matou o Waihi Marae Trust 3. Waihi Marae Trust are responsible for the management and care of the papakainga and marae facilities at Waihi Village, on behalf of descendants of Ngati Turumakina. 4. Our whenua and marae lie on the southern shores of TaupiS moana and we actively monitor our environs, including our streams and waterways. 5. Five streams/rivers flow into Te Huri Taniwha (Waihi/Tokaanu Bay). Two major tributaries Tongariro and Tokaanu are monitored regional rivers. The Tokaanu tailrace is also diverted into the area. 6. Whanaunga hapu, who are also Kaitiaki (guardians) of Huri Taniwha, Ngati Turangitukua and Ngati Kurauia actively monitor their environs. We also endorse any submission from them to support the proposed transfer of functions from Waikato Regional Council to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. Support for the Proposed Transfer 7. We the Waihi Marae Trust support the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the Waikato Regional Council to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board:

a. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in Lake Taupo during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which are tributaries to Lake Taupo.

c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupo. d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40 sites

in the Taupo catchment. e. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and Waitahanui). f. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the TaupiS catchment.

8. The Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board, with its organizational experience and t rack -record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupo Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed Transfer. In Waihi Marae Trust's view, the Proposed Transfer: a. Is being made to an iwi authority that: i. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the

44

SUBMISSION 64 Waihi Marae Trust, Maihi Mariu and Patricia Otimi function, power, or duty; and ii. has the relevant technical capability and expertise; b. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its ratepayers including Ngati TOwharetoa members). 9. Perhaps most importantly, is that it places the monitoring back into localized hands. TOwharetoa Maori Trust Board currently collaborates with us to support our monitoring regime. This is over and above that expected by Waikato regional council. that monitoring continues across waterways over and above those indicated in the proposed transfer. Ongoing work of this kind can only be positive. 10. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams): 1 Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thorough going infusion of Maori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act's credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers - which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of 'efficiency' - is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. in any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapu lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context. [Emphasis added] 11. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA where it is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits sq uare ly within the Trust Board's role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective. Waihi Marae Trust commends the Waikato Regional Council and Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa. 12. We do not wish to be heard in support of this submission.

SUBMISSION 65 Taupō District Council, Christine Rankin Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: I write to your Council regarding the proposal to transfer specific regional council Lake Taupo water quality monitoring functions to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. We have already acknowledged publicly the initiative to formally recognise Ngati Tuwharetoa uri in their role as kaitiaki, participating in the collection of data that will assist greatly in the protection of this nationally significant body of water - Taupo moana.

Please receive this letter as formal support of the Taupo District Council for the Section 33 transfer to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

The monitoring actions described in your proposal will obviously support local action, but we hope it also fosters growth of even more champions to protect these special taonga of our Taupo District. You will be aware that both Taupo District and Waikato Regional councils have

45

SUBMISSION 65 Taupō District Council, Christine Rankin worked closely alongside the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board on many occasions and most recently for the work of the Lake Taupo Protection Trust. The Board is no stranger to this form of innovation, leading New Zealand in 2009 when the first Joint Management Agreement, under the Resource Management Act, was signed at Tapeka Marae, Waihi, southern Lake Taupo providing for joint decision-making on notified resource consent applications and private plan changes on Maori freehold multiply owned land within Taupo District. It is for this reason that we support this current proposal for the Board to carry out the described functions.

SUBMISSION 66 Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated, Ngahiwi Tomoana and Chrissie Hape



Comments: Ngati Kahungunu lwi Incorporated (NKII) is the mandated Ngati Kahungunu authority with interests in all aspects of Ngati Kahungunu development. Ngati Kahungunu has the third largest iwi population (62,0001) in the country and over 36,000 registered members. The rohe of Ngati Kahungunu extends from Paritu, north of Wairoa to Turakirae in South Wairarapa; geographically the second largest tribal rohe in the country. To the west of Ngati Kahungunu adjacent to the region of Hawke's Bay, the iwi borders with Tuwharetoa and the region of Waikato. The natural environment has guided, shaped and characterised tangata whenua, who have always been strategically located near important natural resources. Maori 'traditionally' made great use of the environment and worked in conjunction with it to develop their physical world (resources) sustainably, bringing certainty and safety to their communities and those offuture generations. These practices and way of life have been eroded drastically by contemporary resource management practices and policies. Ngati Kahungunu lwi Inc vs The Hawke's Bay Regional Council NZEnvC50 highlights some of the issues iwi face with protecting water quality and the effort needed to advocate not only for Maori but the entire community. The Environment Court decision set national case law as how to interpret the National Policy Statement with regards to "maintaining" water quality. We argued as do many iwi that the degradation of the water quality affects our way of life, given the intrinsic relationship of the water with iwi. However, it wasn't only the cultural values and interests of the iwi alone that the Court sided with, the Court also acknowledged the logic in aspiring to long term goals regardless of the difficulties or likelihood in achieving them. Ngati Kahungunu shares whakapapa with Tuwharetoa and also shares many other interests along our respective borders and waterways. In recent times we have had a close working relationship and share numerous goals in common with Tuwharetoa. From our experience there is no better organisation positioned to monitor the water quality and the well-being of Lake Taupo than Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. Ngati Kahungunu lwi Incorporated fully support Waikato Regional Council's proposal to transfer powers under section 33 of the Resource Management Act to Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. We acknowledge Waikato Regional Council for taking the initiative in using this very underutilised aspect of the RMA but also encourage the Council to explore other ways in using this provision beyond sample collection. 1 2013 census of population and dwellings, New Zealand Ngati Kahungunu population only.

SUBMISSION 67 Taupō Lake Care Inc, Jocelyn Reeve Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Did not indicate

46

SUBMISSION 67 Taupō Lake Care Inc, Jocelyn Reeve Would you like to speak to council about your feedback? Yes

Comments: Taupō Lake Care (TLC) is an Incorporated Society representing the majority of private farmers and land-owning Āhuwhenua Trusts and Maori Incorporations farming in the Lake Taupo catchment. TLC is committed to achieving sustainable, viable farming – environmentally, economically, socially and culturally. Currently we have 37 member farms. Most farms in the Lake Taupō catchment are consented under the Chapter 3.10 cap and trade policy of the regional plan. Our members are contributing to the cost of the groundwater monitoring through the science and information gathering portion of the annual consent charge. We understand this is a third of the total cost.

Submission: Our submission relates to the groundwater monitoring of the transfer of functions. We have no problem with the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (TMTB) collecting water samples from Lake Taupō and its tributary rivers. The kaitiaki role for the water column is their responsibility while the water is on their land. Nor do we have a problem with TMTB collecting samples from publicly owned roads and reserves. We appreciate the contribution to public good this monitoring provides. However, the 40 six monthly and 62 six weekly groundwater sample sites are located on separately owned and/or managed properties. We feel issues relating to these sites are not considered in the Statement of Proposal. We note that there is an intention to provide for quality assurance in relation to sample collection. However, there is no such assurance in respect to the privilege of accessing the 62 (or more) sites located predominantly on farming properties in the catchment. We feel there needs to be good protocols developed that address issues relating to accessing separately managed and/or owned properties for water quality monitoring purposes. Those protocols should be flexible to address individual property needs and should include: -

• Actions to address modern expectations of property management including animal welfare, health and safety, biosecurity and on-farm security.

• Clearly define matters relating to equipment owned by WRC and equipment owned by the property owner.

• Identify the contact personnel and their areas of responsibility including contact details.

• A review timeframe that covers changes in management or ownership.

These days, just as in offices, a farm is treated as a work place. An effort must be made to avoid disruption to the farming activities. There can be serious consequences if stock access to water and feed is interrupted. Visitors and staff need to be informed of other activities on the property. Biosecurity is standard at field days now and becoming more important for all farmers. The current WRC person who collects the ground water samples has a good reputation with farmers. He is known to text the farmer of his intentions in advance and is happy to change his schedule if necessary. He texts again on arrival and when departing. He leaves the property as he found it. This has not always been the case in the past. The Statement of Proposal has focused on the value of building capacity between Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the Waikato Regional Council. Consideration of capacity building with the separate property owner/manager is omitted. Yet the groundwater monitoring is reliant on the generous co-operation of the landowner and manager of the monitoring sites.

47

SUBMISSION 67 Taupō Lake Care Inc, Jocelyn Reeve Farmer consent holders in the Lake Taupō catchment deserve a report on the groundwater monitoring. Just like WRC and TMTB, farmers would gain valuable insights into how groundwater is responding to changes in the environment above. The current lack of information is a serious omission in the monitoring program. TLC has a newsletter for farmers in the catchment where a summary of the monitoring could be provided. Thank you for the opportunity to put forward our opinions. We appreciate it.

SUBMISSION 68 DC Webster Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Tena koe An excellent decision. A full submission - will be directed via email to WRC. Nga mihi. Note: a full submission was not received, and submitter contact details were not provided.

SUBMISSION 69 Waikato Conservation Board, Alan Cockle Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: The Waikato Conservation Board would like to submit in support of the proposed transfer of functions from Waikato Regional Council to Tūwharetoa. Partnership with iwi/hapū is a central focus of the Conservation Board, and the Department of Conservation, under the Conservation Act 1987. Beyond our statutory requirements, we believe genuine partnership arrangements that empower iwi/hapū, are fundamental not only for the environment, but also for economic, cultural and spiritual outcomes. The proposed transfer of functions acknowledges the unique role that Tūwharetoa have in upholding their kaitiakitanga of Taupō waters, to ensure its protection and well-being in the present and for future generations. The Board would like to congratulate the Waikato Regional Council for what is an exciting, precedent-setting first step to utilize section 33 of the RMA to transfer functions to an iwi authority. The leadership you have shown in a new way of environmental management is to be applauded. The Board is happy to work further in future with the Waikato Regional Council and iwi partners for the best environmental outcomes in our shared region.

SUBMISSION 70 Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Karen Vercoe Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Mai Maketū ki Tongariro

Ko Te Arawa te waka Ko Te Arawa māngai-nui ūpoko tū-takitaki

From Maketū to Tongariro Te Arawa the canoe

48

SUBMISSION 70 Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Karen Vercoe

Te Arawa the determined people Introduction This is the submission of Te Arawa Lakes Trust to the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Te Arawa Lakes Trust (the Trust) is established by the Te Arawa Lakes Trust Deed 2009. The Trust is the governance entity mandated by all registered members of Te Arawa to receive and manage the assets and funds established by the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006. This includes ownership of the lakebeds of Te Arawa Lakes. The objectives of the Trust include: the promotion of the cultural well-being of Te Arawa; the maintenance of places of spiritual and cultural significance to Te Arawa; and any other objective the Trustees consider beneficial to Te Arawa. While the Trust is the governance entity for its members, its decisions are informed by hapū and iwi whose contributions to decision-making are delivered to the Trust through their respective Trustees. Te Arawa recognise and acknowledge the significant whakapapa connection to Tuwharetoa. Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa hapū and iwi are tangata whenua, hunga tiaki, and significant landowners over our shared rohe mai Maketū ki Tongariro. Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa have occupied the extent of this tribal boundary for many, many generations. Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa continue to occupy, own, use and manage lands, areas of significance and resources across the rohe and both remain connected to our ancestral lands, waters, wāhi tapu sites and other taonga, even if these may now be in the hands of others, and maintain our rights and interests in them. The relationships of Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa with our ancestral lakes has been recognised by the Crown through Deeds of Settlement, Lakes Settlement legislation and statutory acknowledgments in the Resource Management Act 1991. This submission is made by the Te Arawa Lakes Trust in acknowledgement of our significant relationship with and respect for Tuwharetoa. Proposal Section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) enables a local authority to transfer any one or more of its RMA functions, powers or duties to another public authority, including an iwi authority, except for the power of transfer itself. The Waikato Regional Council is proposing to transfer the following monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:

• Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

• Regional rivers: Monthly assessment on water quality at 16 regional rivers which are tributaries to Lake Taupō.

• Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō.

• Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment.

• Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and Waitahanui).

• Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō catchment.

Te Arawa Lakes Trust Position The Trust supports the proposed transfer of powers because:

• The Waitangi Tribunal has found that the RMA does not provide adequately for the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of iwi and hapū over their freshwater taonga, that no section 33 transfer of powers to an iwi authority have yet occurred under the RMA, and that councils should be actively seeking opportunities to enter into section 33 transfers (The Stage 2 report on the

49

SUBMISSION 70 Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Karen Vercoe

National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claims Wai 2385).

• Lake Taupō is a taonga of special value for Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The transfer of monitoring functions is one means by which their mana, relationship with the lake and aspirations for its management can be recognised and enabled;

• Ngāti Tūwharetoa bring both indigenous mātauranga and technical expertise in western science monitoring methods to the monitoring functions;

• The proposed transfer is therefore a positive step forward for the management of Lake Taupō in particular and for the recognition under the RMA of the relationship of Māori with their taonga waterbodies in general.

Relief Sought The Trust seeks that the proposed transfer of monitoring functions from Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board be confirmed. That appropriate resourcing is provided to ensure the success of this significant initiative.

SUBMISSION 71 Derek Stubbs Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the above proposal. I am submitting this on my own behalf. I oppose the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupo Monitoring Functions to an Iwi Authority. My reasons are: For nearly 200 years Lake Taupo has been regarded by New Zealanders as a public space to which we all have a right to utilise in our capacity as private citizens. We all have an interest and desire to protect the health of the lake, to keep it clean, available, and unpolluted for future generations. The management and monitoring of the lake should only be done by authorities with the expertise, funds, and skills required to manage and preserve the pristine water quality of the lake. This proposal seems to be more in keeping with a political agenda than following a proper well- established local body and governmental ‘best practice’ of utilising an open tendering process for expenditure of taxpayers and ratepayers’ funds. The Council has an obligation to the whole community to continue to follow established best practice and conduct an open and fully transparent tender process open. There is no evidence that the Iwi Trust Board has a monopoly on the expertise and skills (and funds) needed to properly monitor Lake Taupo. It should not be given favourable treatment. Summary: I therefore request that the proposal to transfer monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board at specified sites in Lake Taupō be rejected.

SUBMISSION 72 Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority, Muriwai Ihakara and John Rapana Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: This is the submission of Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority to the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

50

SUBMISSION 72 Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority, Muriwai Ihakara and John Rapana Proposal Section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) enables a local authority to transfer any one or more of its RMA functions, powers or duties to another public authority, including an iwi authority, except for the power of transfer itself. The Waikato Regional Council is proposing to transfer the following monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:







Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority Position The stance of Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority supports the proposed transfer of powers because:

• The Waitangi Tribunal has found that the RMA does not provide adequately for the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of iwi and hapū over their freshwater taonga, that no section 33 transfer of powers to an iwi authority have yet occurred under the RMA, and that councils should be actively seeking opportunities to enter into section 33 transfers (The Stage 2 report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claims Wai 2385).



• The proposed transfer is therefore a positive step forward in the management of Lake Taupō in particular and the recognition of the relationship of māori with their taonga waterbodies under the RMA in general.

Relief Sought Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority seeks that the proposed transfer of monitoring functions from Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board be confirmed. That adequate resourcing is also committed to support this transfer of powers to be successfully implemented.

SUBMISSION 73 Te Rangiita Marae, Lisa Loughlin Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Te Rangiita Marae is the kainga of our hapū - Ngāti Ruingarangi. Our marae sits within Nukuhau, on the western bank of the Waikato River mouth. Ngāti Ruingarangi’s relationship with the moana and awa, has been long held. The moana and awa have provided sustenance with seasonal supplies of fresh kokopu,

51

SUBMISSION 73 Te Rangiita Marae, Lisa Loughlin tuna, īnanga, kōaro, and kākahi of which we have always been grateful for. In short, we the Te Rangiita Marae support the Proposed Transfer.

SUBMISSION 74 Sylvia Tapuke Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: This is the submission of Sylvia Tapuke to the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Proposal Section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) enables a local authority to transfer any one or more of its RMA functions, powers or duties to another public authority, including an iwi authority, except for the power of transfer itself. The Waikato Regional Council is proposing to transfer the following monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:







Sylvia Tapuke Position Sylvia Tapuke supports the proposed transfer of powers because:





Relief Sought Sylvia Tapuke seeks that the proposed transfer of monitoring functions from Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board be confirmed.

52

SUBMISSION 74 Sylvia Tapuke That adequate resourcing is also committed to support this transfer of powers to be successfully implemented.

SUBMISSION 75 Lakes and Waterways Action Group Trust, Paul White



Comments: Introduction Lakes and Waterways Action Group Trust (LWAG) is a leading advocate for the protection of Lake Taupo, its waterways and other local catchment environments. LWAG participated in the Waikato Regional Council Variation 5 (now RP Chapter 3.10) and relevant Taupo District Council processes aimed at reducing the nutrient loadings to Lake Taupo. We are fully supportive of the Lake Taupo Protection Strategy. We continue to actively seek the enhancement of water quality within the Taupo area and firmly advocate for “Sustainable Development Thinking” with regards to any development within the Lake Taupo area. LWAG has been advocating on environmental issues in the Taupo area, but particularly water quality issues, since about 2000. We have over 100 members. Submission LWAG offers support for the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (TMTB). For iwi, this is an opportunity and should produces a positive outcome if monitoring is done correctly with appropriate quality control and mentoring from Waikato Regional Council (WRC). However, we note that water-related data has been collected for many years in the catchment and we are vitally concerned that sample collection procedures do not impact on the quality of collected data. Therefore, we request that the contract for monitoring between WRC and TMTB include:

• Codification of quality standards for sampling and sample lodgement;

• a review clause, which fits in with the timetabled reviews of the Lake Taupo Protection Project. Here,

WRC could review data collected under the contract and compare with with historical data.

• an ’opt out clause’, with fair notification processes, where either party can review, revise or cancel

the contract with good reason.

This data is vital for the Lake Taupo Protection Project. TMTB own ‘Taupo waters’, but does not own water over that area. LWAG is also concerned about a possible conflict of interest where an owner is also responsible for monitoring. We understand that this situation is not common in the Waikato Region. We seek reassurance from WRC and TMTB that this possible conflict of interest will not impact on the quality of data and the volume of data collected. We would like to be heard.

SUBMISSION 76 Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc, Mary Hill Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Introduction

53

SUBMISSION 76 Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc, Mary Hill

1 This Submission is made by the Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc (RMLA).

2 The RMLA is concerned to promote within New Zealand:

a. An understanding of Resource Management Law and its interpretation in a multi- disciplinary framework;

b. Excellence in resource management policy and practice;

c. Resource management processes which are legally sound, effective and efficient and which produce high quality environmental outcomes.

3 The RMLA has a mixed membership. Members include lawyers, planners, judges, environmental

consultants, environmental engineers, local authority officers and councillors, central government policy analysts, industry representatives and others. Currently the Association has some 1,000 plus members. Within such an organisation there are inevitably a divergent range of interests in views of members.

4 While a representative segment of our membership has been consulted in preparing this

submission, it is not possible for the RMLA to form a single universally accepted view on the proposal. It should also be noted that a number of members may be providing their own individual feedback and those may represent different approaches to the views expressed here.

5 RMLA’s main objective in making submissions on Central or Local Government proposals is to

ensure that a coherent and workable body of resource management and environmental law

and practice is developed in New Zealand. As a result it is not the RMLA’s practice to make submissions in opposition. Instead, submissions should focus on what (if any) changes should be made to the proposal to ensure that it will:

a. Be consistent with the general framework of existing laws and policies and legally sound;

b. Be practicable, effective and efficient;

c. Assist in promoting best practice;

d. Produce high quality environmental outcomes.

SUBMISSION

6 The RMLA supports greater use of s33 of the Resource Management Act 1991, which provides for a local authority to transfer any of its functions, powers or duties under that Act to a public authority including an iwi authority.

7 We have had an opportunity to review the submission prepared on behalf of Te Hunga Rōia Māori

o Aotearoa (the Māori Law Society) and we agree with the view expressed in that submission that s33 is underutilised. RMLA supports greater utilisation of transfers under that provision, particularly to iwi in appropriate circumstances.

8 More generally, RMLA supports relationship and capacity building and collaboration between

tangata whenua and local government. This assists in promoting best practice and producing high quality environmental outcomes. This proposal appears to be consistent with those objectives.

9 Because this particular transfer proposal has only recently been brought to the attention of our

organisation, and we have not had time to fully consider it or discuss it with our membership, RMLA does not take a position on the particular details of the proposed transfer arrangements. Nevertheless, we consider it sufficiently important to register our support for the Proposal as an example of the increased use of s33 powers, which is considered to be consistent with RMLA’s objectives outlined in paragraph 5 above.

54

SUBMISSION 76 Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc, Mary Hill The RMLA does not wish to be heard in support of this submission.

SUBMISSION 77 Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, Phillip Murray Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: INTRODUCTION 1. Te Runanga o Te Rarawa is a confederation made up of 23 hapū marae in Te Hiku o TeIka (Far North). The confederation of Te Rarawa and several of its associated hapū emerged prior to the arrival of Europeans in Aotearoa. Traditionally the hapū were part of a dynamic society with well organised social, cultural, political and economic systems. A Te Rarawa Treaty Land Claim Deed of Settlement was signed by our Te Runanga trustees on behalf of hapū marae and Iwi of Te Rarawa in September 2015. 2. Our tribal systems were built on a network of reciprocal relationships where the confederation of allied communities would come together when necessary to combine their resources as an Iwi. Te Rarawa and affiliated hapū established themselves in and around the Hokianga, Whāngāpe and Ōwhata Harbours, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē, Tangonge and areas lying inland to the Maungataniwha ranges. 3. The traditional systems of land tenure for Te Rarawa were based on mana tūpuna (ancestral right) and ahikāroa (continuous occupation). These systems could accommodate multiple and overlapping interests and were responsive to complex and fluid customary land usages. Hapū held land rights. Our Rangatira controlled land use, provided for whānau and hapū occupation and protected the resources for future generations. 4. Hapū and whānau exercised use rights from occupation (ahikāroa). Establishing and maintaining relationships were a key factor in this system. Outsiders could only enjoy rights given by the rangatira including land usage. Such rights depended on ongoing occupation and conformity to local tikanga. Permanent alienation outside the hapū, whānau or Iwi by means of commercial transactions was not part of Te Rarawa custom. DISCUSSION 5. Throughout history, Iwi throughout the motu have sought to maintain their mana tiaki (inherited rights and responsibilities) over their environment. The Crown through legislation assumed regulatory control over these resources and the environment. This limited opportunities for Iwi to develop and use those resources in accordance to their local custom and traditions. 6. Land loss and the Crown’s regulatory regime undermined traditional practices over land, sea and resources. Many areas within the rohe of Iwi were generally not occupied on a permanent basis and were used for hunting or food gathering, the taking of timber and other resources, and the collection of rongoa. When there was an abundance of resources, Iwi would share or trade with others. When resources were limited, then customary practice saw temporary rahui being placed on areas of importance, to allow the whenua to heal and its resources to replenish. Rahui (temporary closures) applied to everyone, including their own whanau and hapū. To this day, ahikaa continues to exercise such traditions through the occasional laying of rahui and or temporary closure of access to areas of importance. 7. In the last century the environment for many hapū has suffered from degradation and exploitation arising from deforestation, siltation, drainage and development schemes, introduced weeds and pests, farm run-off and other pollution into waterways and oceans, and mismanaged use and take of drinking water for. There has been an associated decline in species of importance to Iwi Māori, and many mahinga kai and rongoa gathering places have either been damaged or lost. The loss of control over their resources has resulted in Iwi being defensive and protective over what few resources they have left. As a result, much of hapū whenua remains undeveloped for fear of exploitation. In some cases, the historical impacts to Iwi

55

SUBMISSION 77 Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, Phillip Murray have been irreversible and they have not forgotten. 8. In the last two decades, the rating of whenua and wai have been a point of contention for Te Rarawa because most if not all Iwi have been generous contributors to the public good by having provided land for roads, schools, and hospitals (as an example). Until the end of the twentieth century Māori concerns were generally not well recognized or provided for under current operative planning regimes. This has caused further loss including loss of knowledge and rituals associated with them. 9. There is a time and place for various Local Government legislative tools on offer to be enacted for the sustainable health and wellbeing of the communities whom they serve. For the hapū of Tūwharetoa and the long-term management of the water within Lake Taupo and its tributaries, s.33 of the Resource Management Act is one of them. In our view, the transfer of the following functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board best fits and gives effect to what Lake Taupo, its tributaries and the local hapu and its wider community need. SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSAL 10. This submission supports the Waikato Regional Council transfer the following functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board.

(a) Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive). (b) Regional rivers: Monthly assessment on water quality at 16 regional rivers which are tributaries to Lake Taupō. (c) Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō. (d) Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment. (e) Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and Waitahanui). (f) Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō catchment.

11. We do not wish to make an oral submission in support of this written submission. FURTHER COMMENTS 12. Te Runanga o Te Rarawa acknowledges the mana and aspirations of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. 13. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organisational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfil the Proposed Transfer. 14. In the view of Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, the Proposed Transfer:

(a) Is being made to an iwi authority that: I. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the function, power, or duty; and II. has the relevant technical capability and expertise;

(b) Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its ratepayers including Ngāti Tūwharetoa members).

16. At a broader level, the Waitangi Tribunal has found in Ko Aotearoa Tenei (presided over by now Supreme Court Justice Sir Joseph Williams):1 Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so.

56

SUBMISSION 77 Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, Phillip Murray

There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. In any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION 16. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA where it is appropriate to do so. 17. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective.

SUBMISSION 78 Waikato-Tainui, Donna Flavell Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: He hoonore, he korooria, he maungaarongo ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngaa taangata katoa. Pai maarire. Waikato-Tainui acknowledges leadership of both Tuuwharetoa and the Waikato Regional Council on the proposal to transfer specific Lake Taupoo water quality and monitoring functions to Tuuwharetoa iwi. Waikato recognises that the transfer is the first of its kind in New Zealand and Waikato acknowledge you all for your bold and courageous decision to lead this narrative for New Zealand. In the 20 years since the enactment of the Resource Management Act, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so. Therefore, it is positive to see the Waikato Regional Council taking steps to using these tools in the RMA. Ngaa mihi nui ki a koutou. Waikato-Tainui acknowledges the mana and aspirations of Tuuwharetoa. They have a significant organisational experience and track-record of practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupoo Waters and is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfil the proposed transfer.

Our relationship with Tuuwharetoa is steeped in our whakapapa of Kiingitanga and our tuupuna awa:1 “I tiaki a Te Heuheu i te maataapuna o te awa o Waikato, i Tapuaeharuru, i te taha whakarunga o te maunga o Ruapehu. E kii ia ana e ngaa iwi o Waikato, ko “Te maataapuna wai o Tongariro” - hei whakanui i te maataapuna o te awa o Waikato, e rere ana maa ngaa wai o te moana o Taupoo, ki Te Taaheke Hukahuka. Mai i reira ka moohiotia ko te awa o Waikato, e rere ana i Te Taaheke Hukahuka puta atu ki te Puuaha o Waikato. Mai anoo ko ngaa whare ariki o Pootatau me Te Heuheu i honoa e te awa o Waikato.” “Te Heuheu safeguarded the source of the Waikato River at Tapuaeharuru on the south side of Mount Ruapehu. Waikato refers to “Te matapuna wai o Tongariro – the headwaters of the Tongariro” – in recognition of the source of the Waikato River flowing through the waters of Taupo te moana – the Lake, to Te Taheke Hukahuka – the Huka Falls. From here it becomes known as the Waikato River, which flows from Te Taheke Hukahuka to Te Puuaha o Waikato (the mouth). The historical relationship between the

57

SUBMISSION 78 Waikato-Tainui, Donna Flavell Houses of Pootatau and Te Heuheu is thus bound up with the Waikato River.” Waikato Tainui support the transfer of powers and functions to Tuuwharetoa and all the relevant resources that will be required by the Trust board to uphold and implement the necessary programmes to monitor and maintain the water quality of Lake Taupoo. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Pai maarire ki a koe i ngaa waa katoa

1 Clause 2.25 and 2.59, Waikato-Tainui Deed of Settlement in relation to the Waikato River

SUBMISSION 79 Whanganui Bay Marae Committee, Kiri Diamond Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Tēnā Koutou Katoa

This submission is made by the Whanganui Bay Marae Committee on behalf of our hapū of Ngāti Te

Maunga in support of the proposal from the Waikato Regional Council to transfer the four specified Lake

Taupō monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board under section 33 of the Resource

Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

We understand the four monitoring functions are as follows:

1. Summer Beach Bathing Monitoring (which we have been doing for the previous two years): Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites around Lake Taupo during the summer season (December to February).

2. Regional Rivers Monitoring: Monthly assessment on water quality at 16 regional rivers

which are tributaries to Lake Taupo.

3. Rainfall Monitoring: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupo.

4. Groundwater Monitoring: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and

October) at 40 sites in the Taupo catchment.

Do we welcome the opportunity to speak at the hearing? YES Kiri Diamond will represent and speak on behalf of our hapū and marae of Whanganui Bay. We support the ability for Ngati Te Maunga to be able to interact with their Kaitiakitanga through working on our hapū lands and waters and so this proposed transfer of functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board encourages benefits for education, employment opportunities and skills for our people of Tūwharetoa whānui. Ngati Te Maunga has developed a healthy relationship with Waikato Regional Council staff who have worked with whānau at Whanganui Bay to understand what functions WRC staff are carrying out when they come on to our whenua.

We as Ngati Te Maunga appreciate this relationship and encourage the Council to ensure that staff continues to have direct relationships with Mana Whenua at a hapū level wherever they are working, as it is at this level that tacit and local knowledge is held.

Nga mihi maioha nā mātou nei

58

SUBMISSION 80 Dene Thomas Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? No


Comments: I am opposed to the proposal of Maori taking over the water monitoring. It is just another natural resource that they wish to gain sovereignty over. This had been happening for many years now, but was accelerated under the Key Lead National Government, because he coalesced with the Maori party. They made huge gains because of this. The politicians call it joint management, but that’s disguise speak for joint sovereignty. Because that is what it is. Follow the money and you will find the motive. We see it happening right across the authority spectrum in this country. Even in the area of law enforcement. We have two separate departments in the Police. A Maori commissioner over it. Who seems to thing that the treaty over rides the law in this land. With the recent road blocks as an example. They were illegal, but the police did nothing about it. What did the Maori Assistant Commissioner say. It was just an extension of the treaty. This is now being applied to every area of law in this land. Folk Law has joined the real and the law is now floating on mysticism. I have had dealing with the head of the Maori Sovereignty group through the courts at Manukau. Where I saw district court judges bow down to those who would not acknowledge the authority of the courts of NZ. I spoke to this man, who I served in the police with and played rugby with, He told me their aim was to have all their own Government Departments, including police and courts. When I asked how that was going to be paid for,he smiled and said your are Dene. Because partnership, which the treaty is not, means we get 50% of the tax take. Who am I. Nobody special. I was 38 a front line police officer. I am married to a Maori. Have five children, 9 grand children and five great grand children. We lived in the bush, where my Dad felled trees with all Maori workers. I saw and knew very few Europeans during that time. Then at 14 years of age to 19 years of age, Gisborne. There most of my mates were Maori, for as you know there is a high Maori population there. I never saw any difference between us. My Father in law Seymour Lambert knew the Maori Culture backwards. Taught Maori at Uni. He received the British empire medal and many other awards. Was invited to join Rangi Walker and other radicals when he started his group. He listened to them. Told them they were mad racists and left. I took him to the meeting and will never forget what he said when he came out. For me you cannot have two Nations in one womb. We are moving very quickly towards this. So I oppose

what the council is doing.

SUBMISSION 81 Te Maru o Ngati Rangiwewehi lwi Authority, Joseph Tauheke Tuhakaraina Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: The proposal to transfer these monitoring functions to Ngati Tuwharetoa under s33 is totally supported. The advantages are set out in the Statement of Proposal He Tuaki Marohi. This action by Waikato Regional Council is applauded as a genuine move towards the partnership principle stated in the Principles of The Treaty of Waitangi. The transfer of these responsibilities to an lwi Authority, is a significant turning point for lwi involvement in kaitiakitanga responsibilities with Regional Council. Ngati Tuwharetoa and Waikato Regional Council are to be congratulated for this ground-breaking and excellent leadership example.

59

SUBMISSION 82 Tarimano Marae Trust, Dennis Thompson Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Ngati Tuwharetoa and Waikato Regional Council are to be congratulated for this ground-breaking and innovative leadership example. Tarimano Marae Trust has keen interest in the transfer of responsibilities as set out in the Statement of Proposal He Tauaki Marohi Proposal, and support the transfer of these monitoring functions to Ngati Tuwharetoa under s33 of the RMA. The excellent leadership shown by both Ngati Tuwharetoa and Regional Council in taking this step is to be celebrated as a hugely significant turning point for lwi involvement in kaitiakitanga responsibilities. The successful transition to a Ngati Tuwharetoa monitoring regime is to be celebrated. Combined with their whakapapa relationship to this taonga, the technical skills required with up to date training will undoubtedly bring an intergenerational lwi investment into the Ngati Tuwharetoa monitoring regime.

SUBMISSION 83 Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers, Colin Guyton, Jacqui Hahn and Luke Pepper Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers welcome the opportunity to submit

on the Proposed Transfer.

1.2. Federated Farmers of New Zealand is a primary sector organisation with a long and proud history

of representing the needs and interests of New Zealand farmers involved in a range of rural

businesses. Federated Farmers of New Zealand is a pan sector organisation that works with

farmers to ensure practical workable outcomes.

1.3. Federated Farmers of New Zealand aims to add value to its members’ farming businesses. Its key

strategic outcomes include the need for New Zealand to provide an economic and social

environment within which:

a. Federated Farmers’ members may operate their business in a fair and flexible

commercial environment;

b. Federated Farmers’ members, their families and their staff have access to services

essential to the needs of the rural community; and

c. Federated Farmers’ members adopt responsible management and environmental

practices.

1.4. Federated Farmers of New Zealand is the national body, with 24 provinces, each being a separate

incorporated society. Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers represent

members who are engaged in a wide range of land use activities within the boundaries of the Lake

Taupō Catchment.

1.5. Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers acknowledge any submissions that

have been lodged by individual members on the Proposed Transfer.

1.6. For simplicity, Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers will be referred to as

60

SUBMISSION 83 Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers, Colin Guyton, Jacqui Hahn and Luke Pepper

Federated Farmers throughout the submission.

2. SUBMISSION

2.1. Federated Farmers supports the proposed transfer of some of the monitoring functions

currently undertaken by the Waikato Regional Council (“Council”) within the Lake Taupō

catchment to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (“Trust Board”) via section 33 of the Resource

Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

2.2. Federated Farmers acknowledges the benefit of having a local group undertaking monitoring

functions and agrees that the Proposed Transfer is a more efficient way of carrying out the

monitoring functions set out in detail in the Statement of Proposal.

2.3. Federated Farmers is concerned that an appropriate tender process has not been undertaken

by Council and that there may be other parties better placed to undertake the monitoring

functions captured by the Proposed Transfer. While Federated Farmers does not intend to

oppose the Proposed Transfer on this basis, it submits that the Council should implement a fully

transparent tender process should it wish to transfer powers or functions under section 33 in

the future.

2.4. It is unclear from the Statement of Proposal as to who will meet the costs for undertaking these

monitoring functions, in particular whether the WRC will fund the Trust Board to undertake

its

functions or whether the Trust Board will absorb the costs. Federated Farmers seeks that this

information be made public as it will impact on the use of ratepayer money.

2.5. Federated Farmers agrees that the monitoring functions to be transferred should be limited to

those contained within the Statement of Proposal, being:


sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive);

b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers

which are tributaries to Lake Taupō;

c. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō;

d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater quality monitoring (April and October) at 40

sites in the Taupō catchment;


Waitahanui); and

f. Groundwater: six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

catchment.

2.6. Federated Farmers submits that the Trust Board must be transparent with the data collected

and be required to make all sample sites and monitoring data publicly available (as it would be

if the monitoring were undertaken by Council).

2.7. It is important to Federated Farmers that the Council retains a watching brief over the

monitoring functions that are transferred to the Trust Board to ensure quality control.

Federated Farmers agrees that the Proposed Transfer must be subject to the following quality

61

SUBMISSION 83 Rotorua/Taupō, Waikato and Ruapehu Federated Farmers, Colin Guyton, Jacqui Hahn and Luke Pepper

assurances overseen by Council:

a. The data must be provided in the same timeliness and manner as if Council had

collected it;

b. The samples must be collected at sites specified by Council;

c. The samples must be processed by the same laboratory as Council currently uses;

d. The samples must be quality assured and coded in-line with the National

Environmental Monitoring Standards.

2.8. Federated Farmers also agrees that it is important that the Council retain the power of transfer

and the right to revoke the monitoring functions at any time (by giving notice).

2.9. Federated Farmers does not wish to speak to Council about its feedback.

SUBMISSION 84 Office of the Māori Climate Commissioner, Donna Awatere Huata Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: This is the submission of the Office of the Māori Climate Commission to the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Introduction

We consider this small step to be a recognition by the Waikato Regional Council that Ngāti Tūwharetoa are the guardians of their environment for their tipuna and their uri. Their whakapapa, their atua, their kaitiakitanga gives them the responsibility to maintain the mauri of their rivers, lands, aquifers and mountains. They believe along with the rest of tangata whenua that all living and non living beings have their own sacred mauri. That cultural difference with the colonial concept is highlighted in water – which to Māori is a food and resource garden and to colonial culture treated as a recepticle for effluent. It’s not an accident that the majority of early Waitangi Tribunal claims were about averting desecration of the mauri of rivers and oceans through toxic discharges. We commend the Waikato Regional Council for the step toward recognising that Tūwharetoa are the rightful guardians of their Lake.

The Office of the Māori Climate Commissioner

The Office of the Māori Climate Commission (OMCC) was established because it is important that in a world beset by climate catastrophe, the Māori voice is heard and our mātauranga considered at the highest levels of decision making.

In terms of economic wealth, jobs, incomes and adaption Māori will be disproportionally worst impacted by Climate change. Accordingly,

➢ The OMCC has been tasked to provide independent Māori-focused research and advice that will contribute to Aotearoa meeting its obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement on greenhouse-gas-emissions.

➢ That research and advice will be based on mātauranga Māori, and will be available to Māori, to politicians, government agencies, media, other New Zealanders, and to the global community.

➢ OMCC will facilitate opportunities for Māori to learn about the burning planet and ways Māori can play their part in the campaign to cool the planet in Aotearoa and across the globe.

➢ OMCC will promote movements that heal the mauri of Papatuanuku, in particular the restoration of full canopy native forests, the restoration of the mauri of the wai and the achievement of te ohanga āmiomio, a circular economy that is fair and just.

➢ OMCC is currently working to build a World Indigenous Climate Commission that works to transform

62

SUBMISSION 84 Office of the Māori Climate Commissioner, Donna Awatere Huata

country practices contributing to climate catastrophe into practices rooted in local indigenous mātauranga.

Since its inception the Office has received widespread support from Māori in its important role of ensuring Māori has both a depth of understanding and a voice on this issue.

In late 2019, the following Māori leaders, namely Sir Toby Curtis, as the chairperson and Dame Areta Koopu, Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi, Mike Paku and Nicola Douglas were appointed to the Board of the OMCC. What marks this Commission as unique is that it is the only Commission appointed by and funded by Māori for Māori. We are accountable through the iwi Māori world to our people.

Proposal

Section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) enables a local authority to transfer any one or more of its RMA functions, powers or duties to another public authority, including an iwi authority, except for the power of transfer itself. The Waikato Regional Council is proposing to transfer the following monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:





• Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

Waitahanui).

• Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

catchment.

The Office of the Māori Climate Commission Position

The Office of the Māori Climate Commission supports the proposed transfer of powers because:





63

SUBMISSION 84 Office of the Māori Climate Commissioner, Donna Awatere Huata

Relief Sought

The Office of the Māori Climate Commission seeks that the proposed transfer of monitoring functions from Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board be confirmed. That adequate resourcing is also committed to support this transfer of powers to be successfully implemented.

SUBMISSION 85 Aotearoa Carbon Forestry Ltd, Wi Huata Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: This is the submission of Aotearoa Carbon Forestry Ltd to the proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I have worked the land all my life and am currently a horticulture and wine producer. I am the Chair and trustee of several Māori land trusts and have established Aotearoa Carbon Forestry Ltd, to assist Māori landowners participate in the carbon economy through planting regen forests (monoculture transitioning to native). I am also the Chair of the Bridge Pā Community Plan who are currently grappling with the fact practically the only landowners in the Hawkes Bay whose properties have no water, are Māori and mana whenua. We are faced with a Plan change that protects the big water barons of the Hawkes Bay, and protects those who have water consent. We are up against generations of white privilege and colonial superiority that truly believes that only Pakeha matter. I am putting in a submission on the proposed transfer having heard about it and am wanting to support your decision to even look at it. If you get it through that is a signal to all other Councils that mana whenua, that Māori matter and that the days of making decisions that benefit Pakeha at our expense are coming to an end. I read some of the submissions put in opposing this and have to say that you Pakeha need to sort your own people out so we Māori are not subjected to their hatred, their superiority and their racism. The ignorance and ugliness of their submissions a testimony to pig ignorance and a desperate attempt to keep from Māori what is ours. This is a small step – but a good one, and I applaud you for attempting to take it.

Proposal

Section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) enables a local authority to transfer any one or more of its RMA functions, powers or duties to another public authority, including an iwi authority, except for the power of transfer itself. The Waikato Regional Council is proposing to transfer the following monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:

• Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach

sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

• Regional rivers: Monthly assessment on water quality at 16 regional rivers which are

tributaries to Lake Taupō.

• Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake

Taupō.

64

SUBMISSION 85 Aotearoa Carbon Forestry Ltd, Wi Huata

• Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and

October) at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment.

• Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

Waitahanui).

• Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

catchment.

Aotearoa Carbon Forestry Position

Aotearoa Carbon Forestry supports the proposed transfer of powers because:




The proposed transfer is therefore a positive step forward in the management of Lake Taupō in particular and the recognition of the relationship of māori with their taonga waterbodies under the RMA in general.

Relief Sought

Aotearoa Carbon Forestry seeks that the proposed transfer of monitoring functions from Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board be confirmed.

That adequate resourcing is also committed to support this transfer of powers to be successfully implemented.

SUBMISSION 86 Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated, Toa Faneva Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: INTRODUCTION

1. Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated is the Mandated Iwi Authority, pursuant to the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, for the iwi of Ngapuhi / Ngati Kahu ki Whaingaroa.

SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSAL

2. This submission supports the Waikato Regional Council transfer the following functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board.

(a) Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach

sites in Lake Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

65

SUBMISSION 86 Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated, Toa Faneva

(b) Regional rivers: Monthly assessment on water quality at 16 regional rivers which are tributaries to Lake Taupō.

(c) Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō.

(d) Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and

October) at 40 sites in the Taupō catchment.

(e) Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and Waitahanui).

(f) Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

catchment. 3. We do not wish to make an oral submission in support of this written submission.

FURTHER COMMENTS

4. Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated acknowledges the mana and aspirations of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board.

5. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, with its organisational experience and track-record of

practicing kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfil the Proposed Transfer.

6. In the view of Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated, the Proposed Transfer:

(a) Is being made to an iwi authority that:

I. represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or


II. has the relevant technical capability and expertise;

(b) Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its ratepayers including Ngāti Tūwharetoa members).



Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several, in the case of section 33) to do so.

There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi.

To the extent such arguments reflect a lack of resourcing, that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds

66

SUBMISSION 86 Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated, Toa Faneva

of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor.

But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure to act. In any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

8. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council is open to using these tools in the RMA where it is appropriate to do so.

9. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from a planning and regulatory perspective.

10. Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Incorporated commends the Waikato Regional Council and

Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

1 Waitangi Tribunal (2013), p113

SUBMISSION 87 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Gabrielle Huria Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments:

1. TE WHAKARÄPOPOTOTANGA / SUMMARY OF POSITION

1.1 This submission records the position of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Te Rūnanga) in relation to the

Waikato Regional Council’s proposal to transfer specified lake Taupō monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Trust Board).

a. Te Rūnanga strongly recommends that the Waikato Regional Council approve in full the proposal to transfer specified water monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b. Te Rūnanga is of the view that the proposal meets the statutory requirements as set out in section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1.2 Te Rūnanga does not wish to be heard in relation to this submission.

2. TE RŪNANGA AND PAPATIPU RŪNANGA

2.1 Te Rūnanga is statutorily recognised as the representative tribal body of Ngāi Tahu whānui and was

established as a body corporate on 24 April 1996 under section 6 of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996.

2.2 Te Rūnanga encompasses eighteen Papatipu Rūnanga who uphold the mana whenua and mana

moana of their rohe.

2.3 Te Rūnanga asks that the Waikato Regional Council accord this response with the status and weight

of the tribal collective of Ngāi Tahu whānui comprising over 65,000 registered iwi members, in a takiwā comprising the majority of Te Waipounamu.

67

SUBMISSION 87 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Gabrielle Huria

2.4 This response is provided in support of the submission of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and its affiliated entities.

3. TE RŪNANGA RESPONSE

3.1 Lake Taupō-nui-ä-Tia and its tributaries are taonga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, embodying the mana and

rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.1

3.2 In mutual agreement with the Trust Board, the Waikato Regional Council have proposed the transfer

of specific water monitoring functions under section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA)

to the Trust Board.

3.3 As the Waitangi Tribunal observed in the Stage 2 Report on National Freshwater and Geothermal

Resources Claims (WAI 2358), section 33 was drafted in anticipation of its potential to transfer

powers and functions to iwi authorities.2 However, in the nineteen years since its inception,

section 33 has never been implemented in relation to iwi authorities.3 This proposal is the first of

its kind in Aotearoa. Te Rūnanga welcomes this proposal and acknowledges the work of all those

involved in its development.

3.4 Te Rūnanga is encouraged by the efforts of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Waikato Regional Council to

work in partnership to propose solutions for water management that reflect the parties’ shared

objective to restore and protect Taupō-nui- ä-Tia and its tributaries in a manner that mutually

enhances the respective duties held by Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the Trust Board and the Council.4 In the

experience of Te Rūnanga, intergenerational mātauranga held by mana whenua is vital to

understanding our waterways and how we can best care for them and our people.

3.5 Te Rūnanga also notes that providing for hapū involvement in the design of monitoring regimes is

a component of the of active partnership envisioned in the 2020 Taupō-nui- ā-Tia Action Plan.5

3.6 In view of Ngāti Tūwharetoa rangatiratanga over Lake Taupō-nui-ä-Tia and its tributaries, and the

Trust Board’s title to the Taupō Waters, Te Rūnanga strongly supports the proposed transfer of

monitoring functions to the Trust Board under section 33 of the RMA. This includes all of the

proposed transfers of function under consideration in the proposal document.

3.7 Te Rūnanga agrees with the proposal document, that other options considered by the Council

would not appropriately reflect the customary and custodial relationships that Ngāti Tūwharetoa

hold in relation to the Taupō Waters, in addition to the legal rights and fiduciary duties held by the

Trust Board.

3.8 Te Rūnanga is of the view that the proposed transfer of powers:


i. Represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the function, power, or duty; and

ii. Has the relevant technical capability and expertise;


ratepayers including Ngāti Tūwharetoa members).

68

SUBMISSION 87 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Gabrielle Huria

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Te Rūnanga strongly recommends that the Waikato Regional Council approve in full the proposal to

transfer specified water monitoring functions to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board under section

33 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1 Deed between Her Majesty the Queen and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (10 September 2007), 1.1-1.2.

2 Waitangi Tribunal, The Stage 2 Report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claims (WAI 2358), at 67.

3 The Tribunal explored various reasons that help to explain the non-utilisation of section 33. During the pre-settlement phase, iwi representational authority was unclear and the complementary legislation, the Rūnanga Iwi Act 1990, was repealed in 1991. The Crown issued no incentives for councils, troubled relationships and lack of trust have posed difficulties, and the conditional nature of its implementation (fulfilling the statutory requirements) continues to present barriers to its effective utilisation (including the use of a public submissions process): WAI 2358 report above, at 68-69. Te Rūnanga also notes the WAI 262 report which made several recommendations to address the issues surrounding section 33 transfers.

4 Waikato Regional Council, He Tauākï Marohi /Statement of Proposal: Proposal to Transfer Specified Lake Taupō Monitoring Functions to an Iwi Authority (2020), at 4.

5 2020 Taupō-nui-ā-Tia Action Plan, at 20.

SUBMISSION 88 Pekehaua Puna Reserve Trust, Louis Bidois Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: Pekehaua Puna Reserve Trust manages Taniwha Springs in the rohe of Ngati Rangiwewehi no Te Arawa. The Trust is very supportive of the proposal to transfer these monitoring functions under s33 to Ngata Tuwharetoa. Pekehaua Puna Reserve Trust has keen interest in the transfer of responsibilities as set out in the State of Proposal He Tauaki Marohi Proposal. The excellent leadership demonstrated by Waikato Regional Council and Ngati Tuwharetoa in taking this step is to be celebrated as hugely significant for a number of reasons, and particularly for Iwi involvement as kaitiakitanga responsibilities of significant taonga such as Lake Taupo situate in the Taupo catchment. The successful transition to Ngati Tuwharetoa monitoring regime is to be celebrated, and it is something our Ngati Rangiwewehi people aspire to achieved. Undoubtedly, with their whakapapa relationship to this significant taonga, coupled with the technical skills required and hands on, ongoing and up to date training will ensure the intergenerational Iwi investment int the Ngata Tuwharetoa monitoring regime. Nga mihi maioha, nga mihi mahana.

SUBMISSION 89 Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, George Asher



Comments:

1. Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa support the transfer of monitoring functions proposed by the

69


Waikato Regional Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board under Section 33 of the Resource

Management Act, 1991.

1.1. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in


1.2. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which


1.3. Rainfall: Six weekly rainfall monitoring at a single site on the western side of Lake Taupō.

1.4. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at

40 sites in the Taupō catchment.

1.5. Groundwater: Biannual groundwater quality monitoring at two schools (Kuratau and

Waitahanui).

1.6. Groundwater: Six weekly groundwater level measurements at 62 sites in the Taupō

Catchment.

2. Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa

2.1. Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa (“TKNT”) was established by a Deed of Trust in 2017

following mandating hui of Ngāti Tūwharetoa held throughout New Zealand in 2016. The

mandate confirmed that the post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) was to act as the iwi

authority for Ngāti Tūwharetoa. As that ‘PSGE’, TKNT is represented by 26 members and an

equal number of alternate members elected by the 26 hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

2.2. The role of hapū representatives is (Trust Deed para 3.5)

2.2.1. To advocate for the needs and priorities of the Hapu they represent;

2.2.2. To represent the interests of all members of Ngāti Tuwharetoa and all Hapu of

Ngāti Tuwharetoa irrespective of whānau and hapū affiliations as encapsulated in the

phrase – “Ko Tūwharetoa te iwi, Ko Tūwharetoa te hapū”.

3. Role and purpose of TKNT

3.2 The general role and purpose of TKNT is to receive, manage, hold and administer the Trust’s

assets on behalf of and for the benefit of the present and future members of Ngāti

Tūwharetoa. Its specific purposes include:

3.2.1 To protect and support te Arikitanga;

3.2.2 To protect and enhance the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the

exercise of kaitiakitanga over the taonga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa;

3.2.3 To protect and uphold the kawa, tikanga, whakapapa, mātauranga and reo of Ngāti

Tūwharetoa;

3.2.4 To support the Hapū by recognising and enhancing their mana motuhake, by

empowering Hapū to be effective decision makers and kaitiaki, and by supporting Hapū

to revitalise their whānau, marae, mātauranga and reo;

3.2.5 To provide a forum for tribal debate and discussion, and for Hapū to act collectively - ko

Tūwharetoa te iwi, ko Tūwharetoa te hapū;

3.2.6 To promote and advance the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Ngāti

70


Tūwharetoa, our Hapū and people, including implementing Te Kapua Whakapipi, the

blueprint for Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s future;

3.2.7 To act as the representative of Ngāti Tuwharetoa in dealing with the Crown, local

authorities, other iwi and other external agencies;

3.2.8 To undertake commercial activities to support the purposes of the Trust;

3.2.9 To implement the cultural redress provided for in the Deed of Settlement 2017

(Settlement Deed) and the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Act 2018 (2018 Act).

These undertakings include:

a) appointment of members to Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa (who are charged with the

preparation and implementation of Te Kaupapa Kaitiaki);

b) supporting the establishment of the Western Bay Taupō-nui-a-Tia Agreement;

c) administering Te Piringa partnership with the Department of Conservation;

d) establishing a whare taonga for Ngāti Tūwharetoa;

e) appointing trustees to the Tongariro Trout Hatchery and Freshwater Ecology

Centre Trust;

f) transfer cultural redress sites (vested in the Trust pursuant to the Settlement Act);

g) To hold the redress for the Wai 21 claim (for the purpose of restoring the mauri of

Te Wai U spring).

4. Suitability of the TMTB to carry out freshwater monitoring functions

4.1 TKNT believe that the deteriorating well-being of the Taupō Catchment waterbodies, their

associated habitats and ecosystems and the condition of indigenous species within them,

warrant urgent and serious attention especially in the design and application of monitoring The

impacts of human activity and the changes taking place.

4.2 TKNT believe that the Ngāti Tūwharetoa should carry out these functions in recognition of their

special relationship with the waterbodies and habitats of the Taupō Catchment and their

intimate relationship and insights as the customary kaitiaki of the natural, spiritual, cultural and

environmental taonga within the Taupō Catchment.

4.3 The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board has been established since 1926. Since then, it has fulfilled

the role of tribal council for Ngāti Tūwharetoa through leadership in many significant initiatives.

Its role is confirmed by provisions of the 1955 Māori Trust Boards Act. The Trust Board is

positioned to take up the urgent function of monitoring. It has trained staff with the skills to

execute monitoring functions and understand the kawa,

tikanga, values and mātauranga relating to the proper

operationalisation of these functions in respect of Nga taonga o Ngāti

Tūwharetoa.

4.4 The Trust Board has direct responsibility for Taupō waters. A negotiated agreement in 1992,

between the Trust Board and the Minister of Conservation, ‘Taupō waters’ was “vested in trust

for the members of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa hapū who adjoin such rivers and streams…”(Para 2.3).

The Trust Board was named as the “kaitiaki o nga hapū o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Blocks (Schedule 1,

NZ Gazette 1999 page 4242). The 2007 Deed revoked and replaced the 1992 Agreement and

maintained the vesting provisions and intentions of the 1992 Deed. Title to the lands that

71


constitute Taupo waters was vested as Maori freehold land in the Trust Board. The vesting

entitles the Trust Board to assume all the responsibilities and restrictions of a landowner,

subject to the provisions of the 2007 Deed and relevant NZ statutes including the RMA Act. The

beds comprising Taupō waters that are vested in the Trust Board include certain portions of the

beds of the Waihora, Waihaha, Whanganui, Whareroa, Kuratau, Poutu, Waimarino, Tauranga-

Taupō, Tongariro, Waipehi, Waiotaka, Hinemaiaia and Waitahanui Rivers and the Waikato River

to the Rock of Tia, inclusive of the Huka Falls. Taupō waters does not include the water over the

land.

4.5 The Trust Board and WRC maintain Joint Management Agreement (JMA) which includes various

provisions and agreements relating to Taupō waters. Discussions relating to section 33 RMA

were understood to be commenced through this JMA.

4.6 The Trust Board has carried out resource management functions for many years. It was

instrumental in facilitating the clean-up of the accidental discharge of wastewater into Lake

Taupō in July, 2019. The initiatives included active liaison and information sharing with affected

hapū and community members, joint decision-making to establish E-coli monitors along the

Taupo waterfront and the Waikato River and the reporting of results and relevant information

on uses until contamination had abated. The Rāhui imposed during the ‘healing’ of our ancestor

and the ongoing liaison with hapu was indicative of the assurance to maintain Ngati Tuwharetoa

kawa, tikanga and mātauranga.

4.7 TKNT emphasise the importance of all parties to this transfer arrangement respecting and

providing for hapū as the institution within Ngāti Tūwharetoa who maintain kaitiakitanga and

mana whenua at place. In this regard the kawa, tikanga, mātauranga, values and principles of

respective hapū and their relationship with waterbodies and related taonga must be given

expression within the monitoring processes and purposes undertaken by the parties to this

monitoring agreement.

5. Ngāti Tūwharetoa relationship with the waters within the Area of Interest of Ngāti

Tūwharetoa (Refer Map 1: Appendix 1)

5.1 Freshwater and the freshwater bodies of the Central North Island and the Taupō Catchment are

intrinsically embodied in Ngāti Tūwharetoa whakapapa (genealogy), whanaungatanga (kinship

relationship to everything that exists in this world) and ideology. As entities within our

whakapapa, rivers, streams, springs and lakes are living entities that retain the essential

attributes of mauri (life essence), mana (integrity and honour) and wairua (spiritual essence). As

inextricable members of our kinship we share special and intimate relationships and values with

freshwater and water bodies throughout our Rohe (Ngāti Tūwharetoa Area of Interest). These

relationships give rise to specific responsibilities that are often reciprocal and obligatory.

5.2 For over 600 years, the interchange of activities, observations, experiences, accumulated

knowledge, experimentation, has enabled mana whenua to evolve sustainable and integrated

management systems to enable adaption and resilience and achieve a balance between their

well-being and the well-being of the waterbodies, their species, habitats and ecosystems. This

system is referred to as kaitiakitanga.

5.3 Our whakapapa confirms that water is sourced from the sacred pool of Io, from ‘Te Waipuna

Ariki’, the fountain of all life, potential and growth. We are reminded that these waters

represented the accumulation of eternal love and the tears of separation of Ranginui (Sky

Father) and Papatūānuku (Earth Mother) as their children sought to reach their full potential

as Tamariki Atua. From this well spring of deepest emotion was born the principles of love, life

72


giving, nurturing and caring that we imbue within the many forms of our waters.

5.4 The rivers, streams, springs, lakes and many wetlands within the Area of Interest of Ngati

Tuwharetoa are sourced from the summits and slopes of the Kahui Maunga of Tongariro,

Tauhara, Pihanga, Kaimanawa, Kakaramea, Waituhi, Hauhungaroa, Pureora and many other

ranges. Our sacred maunga, Tongariro, is the wellspring source of the waters of the Waikato-

Iti that flow into the Tongariro River thence into Te Manawa o Te Ika a Maui (the Heart of the

great fish of Maui) known by Ngāti Tūwharetoa as Te Kopua Kanapanapa o Taupō-Nui-a-Tia

(literally ‘the Shimmering Womb of Te Ika a Maui’).

5.5 Over many millennia, these waters have flowed through our ancestral lands and beyond – ki uta

ki tai (from mountain to sea). Ngāti Tūwharetoa have strived to maintain kaitiakitanga in

respect of its water bodies for over 600 years of continuous occupation of the lands within its

Rohe. The well-springs or headwaters of many important rivers are located within the Rohe and

retain significance for Ngati Tuwharetoa. The Rangitikei River flows from the Kaimanawa

Ranges, past Taihape, Mangaweka, Hunterville, Marton, and Bulls. It is a taonga of Ngati

Tuwharetoa and Ngati Waewae maintain kaitiakitanga over the vast expanse of this awa. As

kaitiaki Ngati Tuwharetoa hapu ensure that the mauri, mana and wairua of all waters is

maintained at all times and for the benefit of all communities within and beyond its Rohe.

5.6 For Ngāti Tuwharetoa the cultural and spiritual context of our freshwater values is an integral

and special characteristic that must be embodied within the vision, objectives and desired

outcomes and values of decision-influencing mechanisms and tools including monitoring

functions. Ngāti Tūwharetoa values, however, are not limited by its social and cultural context.

Equal importance is placed on the need to sustainably use natural resources with the proviso

that there is reliable knowledge of the long term, cumulative impact of doing so.

6. Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement

6.1 Ngāti Tūwharetoa have over 80 years of experiencing and suffering the adverse impacts of

unsustainable, mismanagement of the freshwater resource and water bodies of the Central

North Island. These experiences have spurred Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s desire to seek better

frameworks and mechanisms that will deliver the desired outcomes Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

6.2 For the past 30 years Ngāti Tūwharetoa has been engaged in seeking resolution of breaches by

the Crown of the Treaty of Waitangi. The destruction of water bodies and the

failure to protect these taonga and their indigenous food resources including the failure to

protect the mauri, mana and wairua of freshwater featured in many of these breach activities.

The Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Act 2018 represents the culmination of this claims

process. It provides a framework and mechanisms to enable Ngāti Tūwharetoa to partner with

local authorities to ensure that the vision, objectives, desired outcomes and values of Ngāti

Tūwharetoa are provided for in future planning and decision-making.

7. Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa (not to be confused with the abovementioned characterisation of

Taupō-Nui-a-Tia). Appendix 1: Map 1

7.1 Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa is a statutory entity established by the Claims Settlement Act 2018. It is

a statutory standing committee comprised of TKNT (4 members), WRC (2 members) and TDC

(2 members) to ensure that Ngāti Tūwharetoa kawa, tikanga, mātauranga, principles and

values are embodied within future decision-making relating to the well- being of the Taupō

Catchment. The Committee has been established. Its purpose is:

7.1.1 to restore, protect, and enhance the environmental, cultural, and spiritual health and

well-being of the Taupo Catchment for the benefit of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and all people

73


in the Taupo Catchment (including future generations); and

7.1.2 to provide strategic leadership on the sustainable and integrated management of the

Taupo Catchment for the benefit of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and all people in the Taupo

Catchment (including future generations); and

7.1.3 to enable Ngāti Tūwharetoa to exercise mana and kaitiakitanga over the Taupo

Catchment, in partnership with the local authorities; and

7.1.4 to give effect to the vision in Te Kaupapa Kaitiaki. (Te Kaupapa kaitiaki is the Plan to

be prepared and approved by Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa).

7.1.5 Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa must respect Ngāti Tūwharetoa tikanga and provide for the

relationship of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and their culture and traditions with their ancestral

lands, water, geothermal resources, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga.

7.1.6 The vision, objectives, desired outcomes, and values of Te Kaupapa Kaitiaki must be

recognised and provided for each time local authorities including the Waikato Regional

Council and Taupo District Council prepares RMA planning documents or reviews or

varies an RMA planning document. A local authority when preparing or approving a

long-term plan or an annual plan must have particular regard to Te Kaupapa Kaitiaki.

7.1.7 The Environmental Protection Authority or a local authority, must have particular

regard to Te Kaupapa Kaitiaki (S.182, s.184), when deciding or processing an

application for resource consent or a review of the conditions for that consent.

8. Te Piringa (Appendix 2: Map 2)

8.1 Under the Claims Settlement Act 2018, a positive, collaborative and enduring partnership was

established between the Crown, through the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General

of Conservation, and Ngati Tuwharetoa, through Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Tuwharetoa. This

partnership is called Te Piringa. Its purpose is to recognise and provide for Ngati Tuwharetoa

mana whakahaere, tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in the

governance and management of land managed by the Department of

Conservation (Te Korowai Kaitiaki).

8.2 Te Piringa enables Ngati Tuwharetoa to co-govern and co-manage the natural resources of the

extensive land areas, the water bodies, ecosystems and habitats that comprise of Te Korowai

Kaitiaki. It provides a framework and mechanisms to exercise kaitiakitanga and enables Ngāti

Tūwharetoa to co-author the Conservation Management Strategy and to give effect to the

principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.

8.3 The Settlement Act 2018 also establishes the “Taupōmoana Western Bay Forum”. (Appendix

3: Map 3). The Forum comprises 10 Hapū of Te Tai Hauauru of the Western Bay Area. Under

this arrangement the Western Bay Forum and the Director- General of Conservation will enter

into a management agreement in relation for the Western Bay to give effect to the purposes

of the relationship. (Refer Appendix 3: Map of Taupōmoana Western Bay)

8.4 The abovementioned frameworks provided within the Claims Settlement Act go beyond

addressing past grievances which suppressed Iwi/hapū/and whānau relationships with their

culture, customs, lands, water bodies and related taonga tuku iho. They represent a new dawn

in the development of partnerships and long term relationships intent on progressing

engagement, understanding of diverse values and the promotion of significant changes through

the exchange of knowledge and the adoption of new and better ways of achieving outcomes.

74


9. Relevance of the Section 33 transfer within the Claims Settlement Act 2018

9.1 The Section 3 transfer of functions from the WRC to the TMTB represents a significant

transformation within our RMA and resource management systems and aligns with the

abovementioned framework s of the Claims Settlement Act 2018.

9.2 The transfer of functions to TMTB reflects a central purpose of TKNT – “to protect and enhance

the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the exercise of kaitiakitanga over the

taonga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa”.

9.3 It also aligns with the purposes of Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa – “to enable Ngāti Tūwharetoa to

exercise mana and kaitiakitanga over the Taupo Catchment in partnership with the local

authorities”. Of note also is that the transfer will enable the design and implementation of a ‘fit

for purpose’ monitoring function that will be directed to “restore, protect and enhance the

environment, cultural and spiritual health and well-being of the Taupo Catchment for the

benefit of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and all people in the Taupō Catchment including future

generations” as outlined under the purposes of Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa.

9.4 TKNT in recognition of the significant commitment of WRC and the Trust Board to further the

interests of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, support the transfer of water monitoring functions. In

recognition of the considerable time period, resources, and personal commitment and

endeavours that Ngāti Tūwharetoa and its hapū have expended in developing the Ngāti

Tūwharetoa settlement frameworks and models, TKNT confirm its reasonable expectation that

WRC and the Trust Board actively engage with and share information with the hapū of Ngāti

Tūwharetoa, together with TKNT to ensure alignment with and implementation of the purposes

of Te Kōpu ā Kānapanapa, Te Piringa and the Western Bay Taupōnuiatia Forum.

9.5 TKNT, therefore, confirms that the transfer of freshwater monitoring functions represents a

change that is long overdue, that will benefit Te Taiao o te Rohe o Ngāti Tuwharetoa, the whole

community as well as Ngāti Tūwharetoa. For these reasons it should be embraced and

celebrated.

Refer to Appendix on the following page.

75


Appendix 1: Map 1 Lake Taupō Catchment

Lake Taupō Catchment

76


Appendix 2: Map 2 Te Korowai Kaitiaki

77


Appendix 3: Map 3 Western Bay Area

SUBMISSION 90 Raukawa Charitable Trust, Vanessa Eparaima Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments: INTRODUCTION

1. The Raukawa Settlement Trust (RST) represents 16 marae and was formed in 2009, as the Post

Settlement Governance Entity for Raukawa. RST has delegated responsibility for the management of

environmental and resource management activities to the Raukawa Charitable Trust.

2. This submission is made by Raukawa Charitable Trust (Raukawa) on the proposal to transfer specified

Lake Taupō monitoring functions to Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (the Proposed Transfer) under

section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

3. In short, Raukawa generally support the Proposed Transfer.

4. We wish to make an oral submission in support of this written submission. RAUKAWA

5. Raukawa is a large iwi associated with a significant area of the central north island that is rich in

natural and cultural heritage. The Raukawa takiwā is represented by four traditional rohe: Te Pae O

Raukawa, Wharepūhunga, Maungatautari and Te Kaokaoroa O Pātetere. Today marae within the

Maungatautari area represent their own interests.

6. The Raukawa takiwā is from Te Wairere, Horohoro, and Pōhaturoa. At Ongāroto is the house of the

78

SUBMISSION 90 Raukawa Charitable Trust, Vanessa Eparaima

ancestor Whāita. From Nukuhau to Taupō-nui-a-Tia, to Hurakia on the Hauhungaroa Range. From

Titiraupenga mountain, the horizon is the boundary of the district of Raukawa. To the mountain

Wharepūhunga and the marae at Arowhena. To the ranges of Whakamaru. The view extends to the

region of Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere. To Maungatautari. The view extends beyond Wharepūhunga to

the ancestor Hoturoa to the marae at Pārāwera.

7. Te Pae o Raukawa is viewed as one of the rohe or districts of Raukawa. Te Pae o Raukawa includes a

substantial area of land running from the Tokoroa and Whakamaru, Maungaiti area in the north, across

to Maeroa and through the Pouakani lands, and south to the lands bordering the north- western

shores of Lake Taupō, including Tātua and Whangamatā, Te Tihoi, Waihāhā, and Hauhungaroa. To the

east, Te Pae o Raukawa extends across the Ōhākurī, Horohoro, Ōrākei Korako, and Tahorakuri areas.

8. Raukawa do not derogate the interests of other iwi within the area but wish to record that the

Western Bays area and the water quality monitoring sites within it are within the Raukawa Area of

Association over which Raukawa exercises kaitiakitanga for the purposes of the Resource

Management Act 1991 (based on the Area of Association agreed between Raukawa and the Crown in

the Deed of Settlement signed on 2 June 2012) (see Figure 1 below). Raukawa has a statutory

acknowledgement over the area at Kawakawa Bay (as shown on Figure 2 below) where two of the

groundwater monitoring sites are located.

Figure 1 Raukawa Statutory Acknowledgements are marked in red. The dark blue area is the Raukawa takiwā and the

light blue area is the Raukawa Area of Association (Raukawa Environmental Management Plan, p. 199).

79


Figure 2 Te Kohera-Kawakawa Bay Statutory Acknowledgement Area as shown on deed map OTS-113-35 (Source:

Raukawa Deed of Settlement Attachments, p. 10).

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSFER

9. The Raukawa Environmental Management Plan - Te Rautaki Taiao a Raukawa 2015 - identifies poor

environmental reporting and monitoring as one of the key pressures being faced. Raukawa see water

as a taonga that we have a duty to respect, protect and restore. This places the expectation that each

generation leaves our waterbodies in a healthy and balanced state for future generations. Our rivers,

groundwater, lakes and wetlands have provided our people with food, spiritual nourishment,

cleansing, modes of transport and communication as well as medicinal, building and weaving

materials. As such, we see water quality monitoring as a fundamentally important function to

understand and improve water quality.

10. Raukawa supports the Proposed Transfer of the following functions from the Waikato Regional

Council to the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board:

a. Summer bathing: Weekly collection of water samples at five summer bathing beach sites in Lake

Taupō during the summer season (December to February inclusive).

b. Regional rivers: Monthly assessment of water quality at 12 sites on 11 regional rivers which are

tributaries to Lake Taupō.


80


d. Groundwater: Six monthly groundwater level and quality monitoring (April and October) at 40 sites

in the Taupō catchment. It is noted that two groundwater monitoring sites are located

immediately north of the Kawakawa Bay Statutory Acknowledgement Area as shown in Figure 3

below.

Figure 3 WRC statement of proposal. Groundwater monitoring sites near the Kawakawa Bay statutory

acknowledgement area are indicated by a blue circle.




kaitiakitanga over Taupō Waters, is well placed to undertake the work required to fulfill the Proposed

Transfer.

12. It is the view of Raukawa that the Proposed Transfer:

g. Is being made to an iwi authority that:




h. Will result in efficiencies particularly for the Waikato Regional Council (and therefore its

ratepayers).



Both powers are significant and intended to be so. Yet in the 20 years since the enactment of

the RMA, these provisions have never been invoked in favour of iwi, despite attempts (several,

in the case of section 33) to do so. There appears to be nothing that iwi can do to achieve their

use. Given the thoroughgoing infusion of Māori values into Part 2 of the Act, this must be seen

as major gap in the Act’s credibility. Central and local government have argued in various forums

81


that there are reasons for this, including a lack of capacity on the part of iwi. To the extent such

arguments reflect a lack of resourcing that certainly has been the case. The cumbersome process

local authorities must go through to transfer powers – which in the case of section 33 involves

complex consultation processes usually reserved for the most significant council decisions, and

the meeting of certain conditions such as that the transfer of powers is desirable on the grounds

of ‘efficiency’ – is surely also a factor. But those factors are not true reasons justifying a failure

to act. In any case, we emphatically reject any assertion that iwi and hapū lack the ability to

translate centuries of kaitiakitanga of the environment into an RMA context. [Emphasis added]

14. It is pleasing to see the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) is open to using these tools in the RMA where

it is appropriate to do so. In this case, the Proposed Transfer fits squarely within the Tūwharetoa

Māori Trust Board’s role and current work programme. In that regard, there will be efficiencies from

a planning and regulatory perspective. Raukawa commends the WRC and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust

Board for their leadership on this kaupapa.

REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION

15. Whilst Raukawa do not wish to detract from the Proposed Transfer of functions to the Tūwharetoa

Māori Trust Board in regards to the monitoring of water quality in the Lake Taupō catchment, we wish

to ensure that our association and kaitiakitanga role is acknowledged, be this in the transfer document

or other appropriate documentation as discussed and agreed with Raukawa.

16. We also seek an opportunity, at the appropriate time, to join with the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board

to share our kaitiaki responsibilities, as a reflection of our shared whakapapa connections and

common hapū within the Kawakawa Bay area.

17. In addition, we also seek confirmation that monitoring results will be proactively provided to

Raukawa.


SUBMISSION 91 Sarah-Jane Cuthers Do you support Council transferring functions to the Trust Board? Yes


Comments:

82

SUBMISSION 91 Sarah-Jane Cuthers

SUBMISSION: PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER POWER AND FUNCTIONS TO AN IWI AUTHORITY

Kei te pumau tonu te ha o Tūwharetoa, kei te pumau tonu te ahi tamou Kei te pumau tonu te ahi tamou, kei te pumau tonu te ha o Tūwharetoa.

As long as there is breath left in Ngati Tūwharetoa so too will burn our sacred flame of occupation.

As long as our sacred flame burns so too will there be breath in Ngati Tūwharetoa.

SUBMISSION: PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER POWER AND FUNCTIONS TO AN IWI AUTHORITY

This submission is produced by Sarah-Jane Cuthers of Ngāti Parekaawa and is endorsed by Kia Paranihi, Ngāti Parekaawa hapū trustee, Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, 6 July 2020.

INDEX:

1. Introduction

2. Ngāti Tūwharetoa

3. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board

4. Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa

5. The Resource Management Act 1991

6. The Local Government Act 2002

7. Submission: Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa – Action for healthy

waterways: National Direction for our Essential Freshwater – George Asher

8. Analysis of the Proposal

9. Recommendations

83


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In March 2020 the Waikato Regional Council (Council) proposed to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to an iwi authority, the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (Trust Board).

1.2 The statement proposes to transfer specific water quality monitoring functions powers or duties under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to the Trust Board.

1.3 To be specific, the Trust Board will collect, assess, monitor and measure water samples from

Lake Taupō, regional rivers and primary schools.

1.4 Ownership of the collected data will remain with the Council.

1.5 The Trust Board do not make decisions regarding the samples.

1.6 While these conditions do not reflect a true partnership between iwi and the Crown, the Trust Board have the capability to perform the monitoring. As a first step to understanding the current condition of our taonga, this proposal is supported.

2 NGĀTI TŪWHARETOA

2.1 Ngāti Tūwharetoa are descended from Ngatoroirangi through the eponymous ancestor

Tūwharetoa, and from Tia. Ngāti Tūwharetoa homelands have long been established in the Taupo district. Lake Taupo and Tongariro maunga lie at the heart of Ngati Tūwharetoa's rohe.

2.2 Ngāti Tūwharetoa hold manawhenua and kaitiakitanga over the central plateau rohe and are also the legal owners of the bed of Lake Taupo-nui-ā-Tia and its tributaries, collectively known as Taupo Waters.1

2.3 Ngā hapū o Ngāti Tūwharetoa have an intrinsic duty to ensure that the mauri and therefore the

physical and spiritual health of the environment is maintained and protected at all times.

3 THE TŪWHARETOA MĀORI TRUST BOARD (Trust Board)

3.1 The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board by Deed of Settlement has ownership of Taupō Waters. This means that the Trust Board holds legal title as trustee and acts as kaitiaki on behalf of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

4 TE KŌTAHITANGA O NGĀTI TŪWHARETOA (Te Kotahitanga)

4.1 Te Kotahitanga is the mandated post-settlement representative of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and includes 26 Ngāti Tūwharetoa hapū.

4.2 Te Kotahitanga is directed by it’s hapū, collectively or individually, to uphold, promote, and advocate tikanga and kawa in all decision-making related to the environmental, cultural and spiritual well-being of taonga tuku iho of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. 2

4.3 In establishing Te Kotahitanga, Ngāti Tūwharetoa recognize and promote the tino rangatiratanga of hapū.

5 THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 (RMA)

84


5.1 Section 6 of the RMA states (in part):

Matters of national importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga


Other matters

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to (1) kaitiakitanga

5.3 Section 8 of the RMA states:

Treaty of Waitangi

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).


Transfer of Powers

(1) A local authority may transfer any 1 of its functions, powers, or duties under this Act,

except this power of transfer, to another public authority in accordance with this section.

(4) A local authority shall not transfer any of its functions, powers, or duties under this section unless—

(a) it has used the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local

Government Act 2002;

6 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002

6.1 Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 states (in part):

Special consultative procedure

(1) Where this Act or any other enactment requires a local authority to use or adopt the special consultative procedure, that local authority must—

(a) prepare and adopt— (i) a statement of proposal;

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM172328&DLM172328

85


7 SUBMISSION: TE KOTAHITANGA O NGĀTI TŪWHARETOA - ACTION FOR HEALTHY WATERWAYS: NATIONAL DIRECTION FOR OUR ESSENTIAL FRESHWATER – George Asher

7.1 Originally submitted to the Ministry for the Environment in 2019 by George Asher (Te Poari

Mahi, Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Tūwharetoa) the TKNT Freshwater submission not only captures the key elements that uphold the requirements for effective environmental management in the Ngāti Tūwharetoa rohe, but also explains in great depth “Nga Pou e toru”, the three pillars of the Ngati Tūwharetoa claims settlement. To summarise:

Te Pou Tuatahi: Tongariro te maunga. This pou signifies that Tongariro is the sacred mountain of Ngati Tūwharetoa and also represents the permanent and sacred connection of hapū and whanau with Ranginui (Sky father) and Papatuanuku (Earth mother) as well as all ancestral guardians and the natural, physical and metaphysical phenomena within these realms. Te Pou Tuarua: Te Mātāpuna o te wai, te ahi tamou. This pou signifies the importance of vital, life-giving water – from the guardianship of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, waters flow to all other destinations in the North Island. Te Ahi tamou signifies the legacy of Ngatoroirangi who called forth the geothermal fires from Hawaiki, and confirms the geothermal resource as a special taonga to be nurtured and protected by Ngati Tūwharetoa. Te Pou Tuatoru: Tūwharetoa te iwi, Tūwharetoa te hapū. This pou significes that the strength of Ngāti Tūwharetoa is in the physical, moral and spiritual strength of its hapū.

7.2 The TKNT Freshwater submission also provides comprehensive recommendations, specifically:

7.2.1 Recommendation 1.1.1 – That the Government acknowledge the unique status of Te

Kotahitanga as representing the 26 hapū of Ngati Tūwharetoa and thereby establishing within the rohe an authority that is mandated by all hapū to uphold their kawa and tikanga.

7.2.2 Recommendation 1.1.4 – That Government support the right of Ngati Tūwharetoa hapū to actively and meaningfully engage in decision-making at all levels.

7.2.3 Recommendation 4.10 – That Government support and assist Te Kotahitanga to collaborate with all agencies to reconcile the compex and confusing overlap of interests to achieve an outcome which demonstrates that hapū are actively involved in decision-making, that their tikanga and kawa is respected and clearly reflected in the policies, regulations, plans and implementation of programmes.

7.2.4 Recommendation 10.2 – We propose that Government develop appropriate and effective attributes to specify iwi/hapū values integral to the ecosystem health and wellbeing of water bodies in the rohe of Ngati Tūwharetoa.

8 PROPOSAL ANALYSIS

8.1 The RMA specifically recognises both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and kaitiakitanga.

8.2 The RMA also identifies, as matters of national importance, the relationship of Māori with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga, and the protection of customary

86


rights.

8.3 The proposal uses Section 33 of the RMA as a way to “acknowledge” the mana and cultural aspirations of the Trust Board, but it is not enough to “acknowledge” customary and custodial tino rangatiratanga. It must be provided for, as per Article II of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

8.4 The proposal does not identify values related to the mauri, mana, and wairua of freshwater therefore we deeply question whether the Council truly understand what the mana and cultural aspirations of Ngāti Tūwharetoa are.

8.5 Furthermore, Te Kotahitanga are excluded from this proposal. As an entity directly responsible for matters relating to the Resource Management Act, freshwater management, and being made up of 26 hapū representatives, Te Kotahitanga is the true voice of the hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and must be included in any proposals and agreements alongside the Trust Board.

8.6 In light of the establishment and participation by both the Waikato Regional Council and the Taupo District Council with Ngāti Tūwharetoa representatives on Te Kopu a Kanapanapa, we find ourselves deeply questioning the sincerety of Councils’ commitment in working toward the objectives of that body which are intended to achieve the enhanced well-being of the Lake Taupō catchment area.

8.7 Nevertheless, we support Council proceeding with the proposal as a means of better understanding the principles of partnership in action.

8.8 A “transfer agreement will be developed outlining the terms and conditions of transfer”, however there is no indication that iwi authorities (Trust Board, Te Kotahitanga) will participate in the development of these terms and conditions.

8.9 The Proposal is clear that Council will remain responsible for these functions, the ownership of the data will remain with Council and the Trust Board will not be making decisions.

8.10 On that basis we hope the Proposal is more than a token gesture that only has the appearance of a partnership.

8.11 Page 8 of the Proposal describes the many benefits this transfer of functions will bring to the Trust Board, such as “fast response times if equipment is faulty and quicker responses to major incidents”. We look forward to regular reporting on improved response times.

8.12 Another benefit to the Trust Board described is that the Proposal gives the opportunity for “capacity building” and therefore provides the opportunity for the Trust Board to be involved in “tracking the quality of these water bodies over time”. However, the ownership of the data remains with Council and there is little detail provided around how this data will be managed/shared in the long-term.

8.13 Included under benefits to the Trust Board is that Council staff will not have to travel to Taupō, therefore saving travel time and fuel costs. The proposal states that this extra staff time can be redirected into other projects such as “increasing council capacity to address impending work..” We trust that the impending work directly relates to the health of Taupō waterways.

8.14 The final benefit on page 8 of the Proposal is “relationship building and enhancing” as it gives the opportunity for the Trust Board and the Council to work together to achieve the “mutual

87


goal of clean waterways.”

8.15 It is concerning that the divine legacy and whakapapa obligation we as Ngati Tūwharetoa have as kaitiaki is minimalised to a “goal of clean waterways”. Again, this highlights a lack of cultural understanding the Council have around the significance of the mauri, mana and wairua of our water.

8.16 It is difficult to see how this Proposal can be described as an opportunity to “work together” when the Trust Board are unable to make decisions.

8.17 To reiterate point 8.5, Te Kotahitanga are not included in the Proposal therefore hapū do not have a voice.

9 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 That the Proposal to transfer specified Lake Taupō monitoring functions to an iwi authority under section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991 should be supported as a first step in understanding the condition of our taonga.

1 Taupō Waters include the bed, water column and air space of Lake Taupō and designated portions of the Waihora, Waihaha, Whanganui, Whareroa, Kuratau, Poutu, Waimarino, Tauranga-Taupō, Tongariro, Waipehi, Waiotaka, Hinemaiaia and Waitahanui Rivers, and the Waikato River to Te Toka a Tia, inclusive of the Huka Falls. For the sake of clarity, Taupō Waters does not include the water over that area.

2 Submission: Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa - Action for Healthy Waterways: National Direction for our Essential Freshwater – George Asher.

section 33 rma transfer of functions to tuwharetoa … › assets › wrc › wrc-2019 › ... · 2...

Documents