Speech: Thoughts on Maori and Local Government - Rahui Katene

Simpson Grierson Policymaker Series
Simpson Grierson, 194 Lambton Quay, Wellington
Tuesday 26 July 2011; 12.00
Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga and
Local Government Spokesperson for the Maori Party

Thoughts on Maori and Local Government : speaking notes

I have to admit, when I considered this seminar topic on local government, it appears that the two previous political presentations may have already stolen my thunder.

I understand you have had the privilege of listening to Hon Chris Finlayson sharing his thoughts on Treaty settlement progress and the Marine and Coastal Area Bill; and Christchurch MP Lianne Dalziel talking about turning disaster into opportunity. All these topics are equally applicable to local government – so I hope they prepared the terrain for this talk well!

Local Government is literally where the Treaty principles are transformed from aspiration to implementation; where we see opportunities for Maori to contribute to decision-making; where there can be shared projects and joint ventures which reflect an equitable and an honourable meeting of statutory responsibilities.

Six years ago, Chief Judge Joe Williams, the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal told Local Government New Zealand’s annual conference; and I quote:

“While so much of the so-called race debate is played out in national politics, it is at the local level that communities must resolve the real challenges of growing diversity. And they must do that not via media-driven sound-bites, but face to face. That is much harder. It is also far more likely to produce positive outcomes”.

It is, as Judge Williams summed up, where the rubber meets the road.

This then, is the challenge that I want to talk with you about today.

I want to be clear from the outset – the legislation – that is the Local Government Act 2002 – establishes every opportunity for positive outcomes, such as Judge Williams speaks of, to be achieved.

The 2002 Act recognizes and respects the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty by placing some specific obligations on Councils to facilitate participation by Maori in local decision-making processes.

There are, for example, specific requirements to councils to ensure they establish and maintain processes which enable Maori to contribute to decision-making. They set forward the challenge for local councils to consider ways in which they can foster the development of Maori capacity. They are charged with providing relevant information to Maori.

And most important of all, in the context of the very recently released WAI 262 report, local authorities must take into account the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

Far too often, however, the challenge and the opportunity inherent in these requirements, instead become reduced to disaster.

And I want to make these issues come to light, in the context of a relatively recent Tribunal report, WAI 796, which described the lack of understanding of tangata whenua issues on the part of local authorities - namely Taranaki Regional Council, South Taranaki District Council, and New Plymouth District Council in relation to oil exploitation ventures in Taranaki.



I want to focus specifically on one hapu, and the concept of wahi tapu.



What the Tribunal’s report revealed is that district councils rely heavily on the registration by tangata whenua of their waahi tapu. Where waahi tapu are not registered, the councils seem to take the position that they are not obliged to provide any protection.



Over a period of ten years, Otaraua hapū were required to deal with five different oil and gas companies, as well as the Department of Conservation, the Historic Places Trust, and various other Crown agencies and local authorities in their efforts to protect their wāhi tapu on Tikorangi Hill.


Otaraua have tried to participate in reviews relating to land use, wāhi tapu, and rural and urban resource management as well as engaging with the councils at iwi liaison hui. Claimants reflected that often they were spread so thinly that it was impossible for them to participate in every application or consent process that affected them.


Some time after 1998, New Plymouth District Council updated its district plan. Otaraua were unaware of the plan change and therefore mistakenly thought that Tikorangi Pā (which was not registered with the council) was still protected because it was in the vicinity of a registered blockhouse on Tikorangi Hill.

Otaraua only found out by way of their own monitoring that the gas company (Petrochem) wanted to drill a gas pipe through Tikorangi Hill a few days before the drilling was due to commence.

An archaeological expert was called in by the council to determine the exact location of the pā, however he did not find any evidence to suggest the existence of a pā. One Otaraua witness called this an attempt ‘to determine our wāhi tapu by someone else’s expertise’.

Feeling that they had exhausted all legal options available to them in relation to Tikorangi Otaraua decided to occupy the site ‘in a bid to provide protection that [they] could not get from anywhere else.’ They emphasised that in doing this, they ‘[did] not want to be seen as stopping progress. We simply seek a way forward for our wāhi tapu and taonga to be respected and protected in their own right.’

Ultimately the commission found that the pā did exist and that it was wāhi tapu, however a spatial extent of the area was defined.

I have gone into some depth about this one recent example because it illustrates the extent to which our hapu and iwi have to go to, in order to protect their cultural and traditional associations with their ancestral land – responsibilities that are supposedly enshrined in the statute.

Our whanau, hapu and iwi end up being set up in an adversarial context with each side having lawyers – or as happened in the case with Otaraua they become forced into a position where they felt like they had to break the law to be heard.

They are required to work within timeframes set by RMA processes and council plans, which do not take into consideration that tangata whenua are often going through all these technical, resource management processes on top of working and without the resourcing which their 'adversaries' have access to.

Iwi, who have a Treaty relationship with the Crown, end up with no clear path to engage as a partner with local government.

Now, this well may look as if I am only telling a story of doom and disaster; a lack of Māori enfranchisement within local government.

Fortunately there are some local authorities that engage with tangata whenua in positive ways, and Wellington City Council has certainly made some moves in the right direction.

Just over a month over, a report went before a committee of the City Council, recommending that mana whenua have a formal role in the management of the city’s town belt.

Predictably, Dr Don Brash spluttered his warcry, including the preposterous suggestion that working in partnership with Maori was akin to apartheid.

I hope the citizens of Wellington can see beyond his rhetoric, to understand the Council’s proposal as a possible avenue for moving past mere lip-service in working with mana whenua in the region, including options to use land to support Maori cultural and recreational activity.

So there’s a bit of hope on the horizon – and that’s what the Maori Party is really hoping to build on in the upcoming months as the country once again considers the shape of parliament it will vote in.

Our view is that if public participation is marginalised in local authority decision making, the utilisation of Treaty models of maintaining effective working relationships, as well as government aspirations of effective community engagement are undermined.

We want to see tangata whenua participation and involvement at local government level, including, importantly, in representation.

At the local government level, tangata whenua have been unfairly, inequitably and disproportionately under-represented across elected councils. In general, less than five percent of elected local councillors in any term of local government representation, have been Māori.

So our prevailing call is for tangata whenua to have adequate, comprehensive and mandatory representation at the local government decision-making table.

We have done this in a variety of ways.

We submitted a bill – the Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill – under the sponsorship of my colleague, Te Ururoa Flavell.

That bill would have required all territorial authorities and regional councils to establish Maori wards and constituencies; simultaneously removing voluntary provisions for Maori representation. The Bill was not supported, but the concept of Maori wards has continued to be debated at local level, which we are very proud about.

In possibly the most contentious of all the local government legislation that has hit the house this term, we successfully argued representation for mana whenua groups and mataawaka of Tamaki Makaurau in the Auckland Council reorganisation.

Admittedly our first preference – and prevailing preference – was for dedicated Maori seats in the governance structure; but we have been able to make the best of a bad situation by establishing a statutory Maori Advisory Board to assist the Auckland Council in making decisions, performing functions and exercising powers.

And thirdly, and closer to home, both with the Environment Canterbury and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery legislation, we have been able to achieve effective dedicated Maori representation, in consultation with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu.

Our experience over the last three years, therefore, has provided us with a unique opportunity to require robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua.

We have done this through:

· My capacity to promote a strong and independent Maori voice in my membership on the Local Government and Environment select committee;

· The opportunity to submit private members bill to stimulate the debate about how to establish effective strategies for engaging Maori communities as with Te Ururoa’s bill;

· The chance to advance Maori representation by being able to have influence in the appointments of Maori on to a vast range of committees, particularly in relation to environmental protection and resource management;

· And of course the opportunity to promote IWI – Influence With Integrity – in the range of supplementary order papers, and ministerial responses that have come out of our offices to best pursue Maori representation in local government.

Most important of all, the unique position we are in, our relationship with the National Party has meant that we have been able to safeguard the most essential legislative requirements – such as Section 8 of the Resource Management Act – or place pressure on the process of establishing new legislation, to ensure that Maori engagement with local government remains high on everyone’s agenda.