Agenda of Te Oneroa-A-Tōhē Board

Te Oneroa-A-Tōhē Board item: 4.1

9 November 2018

TITLE:	Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board: Iwi position on future operations
ID:	A1125374
From:	Haami Piripi, Chairman, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board

Executive summary

The purpose of this report is to present a paper from the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board Chairperson, Haami Piripi, on the ongoing operations of the Board. This paper should be read in conjunction with item 4.2 of this agenda, ‘Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board: future operations’.

Recommendation(s)

1. That the report ‘Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board: Iwi position on future operations ’ by Haami Piripi, Chaiman, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board and dated 5 November 2018, be received.

Background

The board was established by way of the Te Hiku Settlement Legislation and involves what can be described as a unique combination of local government and iwi entities which each have responsibilities for aspects of the exisiting beach management regime. The board’s area of responsibility extends out twelve miles and covers almost the entire length of the beach.

The position of board chairperson will, under legislation, always be held by an iwi representative.

The delegation to local body representatives by central government is also a national “first” and reflects an acknowledgement of local importance.

The interweaving of local government legislation and regulation with the practice of kaitiakitanga is itself a special solution which is proven to add value and improve outcomes.

In addition provision is made for the development of more trained and qualified local Māori environmental commissioners. A serious inadequacy would be addressed if the board were to achieve its objectives fully leading to the development of an increasing number of iwi environmental practitioners who would begin to design and influence the management regime for the coastal strip.

Conversely if the board should fail, chaos would continue to reign with potential for more annual tragedies and continuing environmental degradation.

In summary the over-riding principle guiding the board is the effective managment of the the beach. The board is the vessel which connects all the respective roles into a synergised management regime.

Much faith was invested by all parties when each entity signed its agreement under settlement.

For each of the iwi, the agreement included payment of a separate cultural rejuvenation fund.

Each of the iwi has received payment. In the case of Te Rarawa they have begun to utilise the fund to erect signs, fence off dunes and locate carved “pou” along the coast. The community wide response and support for these activites has been very positive.

The operation of a secretariat via the standing committee process was intended to harness the organisational capacity of both local government and particpating iwi authories and allocate organisational support to the operation of the board.

The result has had its ups and downs for iwi and as a historical victim of process the experience still requires some getting used to.

Report

The issue of ownership by iwi of the beach remains a live legal option preserved by the Te Hiku Settlement legislation. In my view the quality of any management regime will have a significant influence on whether that legal action will eventually be triggered by iwi. The two applicant iwi in 1956 were Te Aupouri and Te Rarawa whose mana over the entire beach was articulated in hearings and subsequent appeals.

It should be of no surprise therefore that these two iwi remain equally committed in 2018 to upholding the mana whenua of the beach as our most important priority.

But, the issue that has plagued the board right from the start has been the non participation of the other three iwi who have an interest in the beach. Two of them signed the deed, ratified the legislation and received the funding; since that time their standing apologies have been accepted by the board.

This has hindered the progress of the board and has drawn attention away from its fundamental mission to protect and preserve all aspects of the beach with proactive and high quality standards of practice.

In governance terminology the board continues to have the numbers for a regular quorum. Moreover there is no regulation, instruction, or even suggestion that the board requires all iwi to participate at all times.

Notwithstanding that, the continuing submission of any apology by each of the two iwi clearly fulfills the proceedural obligation required to be met.

I am unable to understand why this has become an issue worthy of intense discussion and a threat to the viability of the board. The decision to put the management plan into abeyance is a good example of how the issue emerged and has had an impact on the functionality of the board. And, in emperical terms it remains for me a non issue which was or should be neutralised by our ability to attain a quorum.

That the board is able to perform its statutory functions with the strong continuing support of two of the iwi participants should, in my view, be sufficient to allow the board to achieve its function of developing a beach management plan. Any draft plan developed by the board will be open for public consultation and this will provide an opportunity for members of those iwi organisations that have chosen not to participate to have their say.

Why council representives would immerse themselves in iwi politics to the point of jeopardising the survival of the board is perplexing.

For Council appointees to the board to now suggest they might withdraw, or that the process is not sufficiently robust, runs contrary to the trust and indeed mandate placed on them by central government. Their mandated mission is to manage the beach not unite the iwi.

What I am saying is not something new. Both active iwi delegates have provided advice which was to continue as we have, but in a more determined manner. Each of us has continued to keep our own iwi fully briefed and we meet with the chairs of the other iwi every other week. In other words we know what we are talking about and are in the best position and most qualified to provide direction.

I am disappointed that neither the remainder of the board or our technicians have taken enough cognisance of our perspective, resulting in a continued threat to our viabilty based on a fear of the unknown. For our part iwi remain in constant communication with each other and in complete agreement about the path ahead.

While it is true that we have yet to convene iwi hui, the judgement about time and place can only be made by us. Board members might not fully appreciate the time and effort that we have put into the question of iwi unity and the navigation of a path toward a solution. We do appreciate the importance of the matter but neither of us or our iwi entities consider this to be of enough gravity to halt the board’s progress.

Existing issues affecting peoples’ enjoyment and the protection of the ecology on the beach are not just Māori or culturally derived. Health and Safety is one I have already raised but there are others and it really suprises me that this duty to mitigate risk to the general public is being considered for abandonment in the pursuit of iwi unity. It seems to me that this is a loss of focus which at its worst could lead to a deriliction of duty and a tragedy for the Far North and our beach communities.

We have each been tasked with a job to blaze a trail of collaboration, co-operation and innovation. We are to implement a new approach to Coastal Marine Management which is ahead of its time in terms of what is to come through the forthcoming Marine and Coastal Area Act negotiation process.

This forerunner may be indicative of what is yet to come and deserves every bit of effort we can give it to ensure our success for the beach.

Te Rarawa and Te Aupouri are up for it and are seeking support.

Finally, I can report that we are making progress on the unity of the iwi and have agreed a process to determine our combined iwi environmental plan and priorities. We have also ressurected a mana whenua process which we will soon begin to help make site by site determinations about mana whenua interests. Neither Te Aupouri or Te Rarawa are concerned about iwi boundaries at this stage, we are much more concerned about the beach.

I expect that Ngati Kuri will soon return to the board meetings and I have been reassured of this by their chairperson. In the case of Ngai Takoto the “Te Kupenga iwi collective” will provide the incentive for collaboration through joint interests and shared perspectives.

Chairman’s Recommendation

1. That the Board pursue Recommendations 2. and 3. (option 2) as recommended in the agenda item 4.2 of this agenda, “Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board: future operations” dated 5 November 2018.

Attachments

Nil

Authorised by Group Manager

Name:	Jonathan Gibbard
Title:	Group Manager - Governance and Engagement
Date:	5 November 2018

Te Oneroa-A-Tōhē Board item: 4.2

9 November 2018

TITLE:	Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board: future operations
ID:	A1118479
From:	Technical Advisory Group

Executive summary

Since its inception, a number of issues have hampered the successful operation of
Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board (the Board) which includes the development of a beach management plan (BMP). These issues and delays were exacerbated when, in October 2017, two standing apologies were received (Ngāti Kuri Trust Board and Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto).

These ongoing delays also led to significant impacts on the Board’s contractual obligations to the consultant engaged to develop the BMP. Leading to the contract being placed into abeyance and eventually cancelation.

This paper seeks to provide the Board with advice on its current situation and options for the future for the Boards consideration.

Recommendation(s)

1. That the report ‘Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board: future operations ’ by the Technical Advisory Group and dated 5 November 2018, be received.

2. That Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board resolve to continue operating and develop a beach management plan, noting the standing apologies of Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto and Ngāti Kuri Trust Board, and

3. That staff prepare a revised draft project plan for completing a beach management plan for Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Boards consideration in November.

4. That Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board resolves to hold it next formal meeting on ____December 2018.

5. That Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board be placed into adjournment until such time as Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto and Ngāti Kuri Trust Board rescind their standing apology and re-engage fully as a member of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board, and

6. That a letter be sent to the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiation, Hon Andrew Little, advising that Te Oneroa-a- Tōhē Board has been put into adjournment,

Background

Te Oneroa a Tōhē Board is established as a Statutory Body via the Te Hiku Iwi Claims Settlement Acts and currently consists of one representative from each Te Hiku Iwi^{^[1]} and two from both the Northland Regional Council (NRC) and Far North District Council (FNDC).

The representatives are selected by their respective governing bodies (i.e.) the appointers are:

· Ngāti Kuri Trust Board

· Te Rῡnanga Nui o Te Aupouri

· Te Rῡnanga o NgāiTakoto

· Te Rῡnanga o Te Rarawa

· Northland Regional Council; and

· Far North District Council.

The Board (enacted via Treaty settlement) is established via the Local Government Act 2002 and is a permanent joint committee of council(s) and cannot be discharged without the agreement of all the appointers^{^[2]} (Section 63(2)(b) Ngāti Kuri Claims Settlement Act 2015).

The Board’s purpose is to provide governance and direction to protect and enhance the environmental, economic, social, spiritual and cultural wellbeing of the beach management area for present and future generations. In order to do so, the Board is tasked with preparing and approving a beach management plan.

Due to a range of issues the Board has struggled to get traction on the development of a beach management plan. This was made more difficult when, in 2017, both Ngāti Kuri Trust Board and Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto tabled standing apologies, leaving only two of four iwi for whom the settlement is for participating in Board operations. The consequence of these events led to the suspension of meetings while the Board sought to engage with Ngāti Kuri and NgāiTakoto. Following further delays the Board resolved to cancel the contract for service (that they had engaged in for a consultant to develop the beach management plan).

Although the Board last met in May this year - having previously resolved to move into adjournment in January - to the best of our knowledge, the Technical Advisory Group can report the following:

· Ngāti Kuri Trust Board and Te Rūnanga NgāiTakoto have not formally notified the Board of any changes, therefore their standing apologies remain.

· Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa and Te Rūnanga Nui o Te Aupouri want to proceed with the Board and development of a beach management plan.

· Northland Regional Council (NRC) remains committed to the Board, however, wants to ensure that there is a robust process of decision-making for the Board. Not having full iwi representation is problematic and NRC supports the Board remaining in adjournment until such time as Ngāti Kuri Trust Board and Te Rūnanga NgāiTakoto formally return to the table.

· Far North District Councils (FNDC) position is similar to NRC’s but with increasing frustration that the Board is unable to collectively develop a beach management plan. This frustration is leading to its representatives wanting FNDC to reconsider its involvement and resourcing due to a lack of progress.

Analysis and considerations:

Disestablishing the Board

Settlement legislation identifies that the first opportunity to formally review the progress of the Board in fulfilling its purpose is three years after its inaugural meeting (i.e.) February 2019 and following that review the appointers may take recommendations to the Board.

The settlement legislation also clearly states that the Board cannot be dissolved unless all appointers agree and, as reported earlier in this paper, the appointers are the four iwi and both councils.

Any decision to dissolve the Board would need to be as a result of a recommendation to the Board and resolution where all members agree.

Whether all governance entities will agree to the Board being dissolved will be a critical decision to be carefully considered, bearing in mind that there will be legislative, strategic and political implications and risk associated with such a decision.

Continuing to progress the BMP

The development (and implementation) of a beach management plan enables the Board to influence and have input into relevant decision-making processes of councils and Ministry of Primary Industries.

More importantly the process, through the journey, has the possibility of shaping a new collective social conscience to aid in the ongoing management of the beach through understanding of the cultural significance of the Beach pertinent to Te Hiku iwi.

It should also be noted that there are risks associated with the Board continuing to develop a beach management plan without the participation of Ngāti Kuri and NgaiTakoto. The most significant issue being that only two of the four settlement iwi are part of the decision-making process. While the Board could develop a plan, ensuring Ngāti Kuri and NgaiTakoto whānau are engaged in the process, that does not include them in their capacity as governance / decision-makers. Not having Ngāti Kuri and NgaiTakoto at the governance table participating and shaping the strategic direction of the plan poses a significant risk to the robustness and eventual buy-in to the plan and the outcomes it seeks.

Alternative option

In the absence of a beach management plan, there are alternatives that hapū and iwi could seek to progress to improve the management of the beach, for example:

· Iwi and hapū can develop environmental management plans (EMP) that provide direction on hapū and iwi aspirations for the beach. Both Ngāti Kuri and NgaiTakoto have completed such plans. These plans do however have a lesser weighting and therefore influence under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) than what the Beach Management Plan would have.

· Iwi and hapū could seek to progress specific speed restriction bylaws with FNDC (as the road controlling authority for the Beach) to improve safety for all beach users.

· Iwi and hapū could engage with FNDC on the placement of signage along the Beach.

Considerations

1. Options

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

That the Board formalise its adjournment which includes suspending the development of a beach management plan until such time as all settlement iwi are participating on the Board.

Allows time for iwi issues and positions to be addressed and for all settlement iwi to return to the governance table.

Funding will not be expended during this period of hiatus.

The purpose of the Board as set out in legislation will not be advanced in the interim.

Influence over the management of the beach will not be achieved in the interim.

That the Board continue to operate and develop a beach management plan.

The purpose, as set out in legislation, will be advanced in a timelier manner.

With only 50% of the Treaty settlement parties participating in the formal processes of developing a beach management plan, the views of Ngāti Kuri and NgāiTakoto will not be represented at the decision-making table.

The formal consultation process (required) could see Ngāti Kuri and NgāiTakoto iwi authorities providing submissions in opposition to the beach management plan. The same could apply when councils undertake processes to implement the beach management plan.

There is also the potential for internal conflict if Ngāti Kuri and NgaiTakoto hapῡ are engaged in the development of the plan and support it but it is not supported by their iwi authority.

Technical Advisory Group recommendations are:

· Iwi staff recommend that the Board continue to operate, noting the apologies of Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto or Ngāti Kuri Trust Board, and develop a beach management plan. Those common and generic issues across the management area could be assessed and addressed in a timely manner. A process could also be developed and followed that allows for the seamless integration of Ngāti Kuri and NgāiTakoto whakaaro when they are ready to re-engage with and participate in the Board.

· Council staff recommend that the Board go into adjournment and cease operation until such time that either Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto or Ngāti Kuri Trust Board re-engage with the Board, and advise Minister Little of the Board’s actions. The Te Hiku settlement involves four iwi of Te Hiku and therefore the four settlement iwi of Te Hiku should actively be participating on the Board. There are significant risks to the success of the Board and the beach management plan with two of the four iwi who negotiated the settlement not being actively present on the Board.

Should the Board decide to proceed, it’s recommended that the Technical Advisory Group be asked to bring back a revised project plan and options on how best to resource and progress the development of the beach management plan to a Board meeting in November 2018.

2. Significance and engagement

In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of moderate significance when assessed against council’s significance and engagement policy because it is provided for in legislation and council’s Long-Term Plan and is part of day to day activities. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that a decision can be made in relation to this matter without undertaking further public consultation or engagement

3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance

If the Board resolves to discharge the Board and this is not a unanimous decision of all Board appointers then the Board’s decision will be inconsistent with the settlement legislation.

If the Board resolves to continue to operate and it has a quorum, then its decision will be compliant with the settlement legislation.

If the Board resolves to adjourn the Board until such time as all iwi are participating on the Board then its decision will be compliant with the settlement legislation. Recognising that the two year legislative timeframe to develope the beach management plan will not be achieved even if the Board decides to proceed.

There are no policy risks as the Board does not have policy other than its allowance policy.

Risks have been identified in the body of the report and in the options table.

Further considerations

4. Community views

Community views have not been sought and are not required in regards to this decision.

5. Māori impact statement

Māori have not been engaged for the purpose of informing this report. However, both decisions have far reaching impacts for Māori of Te Hiku.

Developing a plan would allow Māori to have greater input into the future management and governance of the beach and the development of tangible outcomes.

The opposite would apply if the Board ceases to operate and does not develop a plan.

6. Financial implications

If the Board is put into abeyance there are no financial implications. If the Board continues, then the remaining funds associated with the Board will be expended in line with the allowances policy and decisions of the Board.

7. Implementation issues

If the Board resolves to continue, it will need to consider resourcing (given the cancelation of previous contractor resources) and a revised process for developing the beach management plan.

Authorised by Group Manager

Name:	Jonathan Gibbard
Title:	Group Manager - Governance and Engagement
Date:	5 November 2018

[1] Whilst Ngāti Kahu does not currently participate, there are opportunities and mechanisms for their input and participation.

[2] Ngāti Kuri, NgaiTakoto, Te Rarawa, Te Aupouri, Far North District Council and Northland Regional Council

Northland Regional Council, Councillor Mike Finlayson	Northland Regional Council, Councillor Paul Dimery	Deputy Chair, Far North District Council, Mate Radich
Te Rūnanga o Ngati Kuri, Graeme Neho	Te Rūnanga Nui o Te Aupouri Trust, Waitai Peterei	Te Rūnanga o NgaiTakoto, Rangitane Marsden
Far North District Council Mayor, John Carter	Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine, Jaycee Tipene-Thomas

Item No.	Item Issue	Reasons/Grounds
5.1	Confirmation of Confidential Minutes - 25 May 2018	The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, as stated in the open section of the meeting -.

TITLE:	Confirmation of Minutes - 25 May Extraordinary Minutes
ID:	A1125918
From:	Sally Bowron, Governance and Engagement Team Admin/PA

TITLE:	Financial report of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Trust Board
ID:	A1125881
From:	Rachel Ropiha, Kaiarahi - Kaupapa Māori