Chapter 7: Māori rights and interests and enabling iwi and hapū involvement
Approximately 21 submissions commented on the ways in which iwi and hapū could be involved in the regime.
On this page
The discussion document indicated MBIE would work in close collaboration with iwi and hapū on how the regime enables Māori involvement in the development of offshore renewable energy infrastructure. The discussion document sought general feedback on what the Government should consider in the engagement process, legislative design choices that could enable Māori involvement and which Māori groups should be engaged in the policy process.
Much of the feedback received on these issues focused on the legislative design choices that should be considered and the perceived risks and benefits of these options.
7 detailed submissions from 15 different iwi and hapū were received, which provided feedback on the scope of their rights and interests as well as recommended policy options to meet obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Submissions from iwi unanimously called for their involvement over the full life of the development and regime to ensure the rights and interests of Māori are not unduly impacted in the various stages of developments. Submissions:
- Set out importance of ongoing input from mana moana to ensure developments progress appropriately, in the right locations, at the right scale and with the appropriate protections in place to manage any negative impacts.
- Noted that historically there have been “limited demonstrable positive impacts on the social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being of iwi and hapū from the exploitation of Māori natural resources which has placed iwi and hapū at a disadvantage in terms of engagement in these regulations and other alternative energy regulations as they develop.”
- Emphasised the importance of being able to exercise their own mana, rangatiratanga, kawa and tikanga in their engagement with offshore renewable energy developers and the Crown.
- Noted that there will be differing views between iwi and there will need to be mechanisms in place for each iwi to determine, for themselves, what is appropriate.
Submitters almost unanimously supported iwi and hapū involvement, with several submitters expressing support for direct involvement in decision-making and commercial arrangements. Some options proposed by submitters, predominantly iwi, include:
- Joint decision-making boards or partnership arrangements for permit decisions, monitoring and any legislative review processes.
- A clearly defined purpose statement that requires te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi to be upheld.
- Involving iwi in the drafting of legislation or regulations to ensure that these documents are articulated in a way that sufficiently addresses matters pertaining to te Tīriti o Waitangi.
- Allocating permit areas to iwi which can be traded with prospective developers.
- Developing guidelines for engagement with iwi and hapū - similar to the Best Practice Guidelines for Engagement with Māori developed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui for the petroleum industry.
- Formally recognising of the kaitiaki relationship Māori hold in legislation.
- Commercial agreements to facilitate partnerships, power purchase, environmental compensation, data sharing or services.
- Crown funding or cost-recovery through fees for resourcing costs incurred by iwi in their engagement with developers and involvement in decision-making processes, and
- Establishing technical working groups, memoranda of understanding or kaitiaki forum to enable collaboration and information sharing between affected iwi, permit holders and the Crown.
Submitters supported including an assessment of iwi involvement in project developments and economic opportunities for iwi in the permit criteria. 1 submission from iwi suggested that this assessment should consider contributions made to support iwi and hapū to fulfil their kaitiaki responsibilities, including support for restoration and enhancement work, programmes for taonga species, and cultural monitoring of the marine and coastal environment.
Many offshore renewable energy developers emphasised the importance of comprehensive engagement with iwi at the local level at the early stage of development. Feedback from non-iwi submitters identified ways to provide greater certainty to regulated parties and iwi in this regard. This included clearly delineating and identifying what Māori rights and interests are to avoid under-engagement or enabling inappropriate influence, and how conflicts of interest will be managed. A few submitters also noted that any process involving iwi and hapū in decision-making would need to be open and transparent, so developers are aware of how decisions are being made and what influence and weight the Crown gives to input from iwi and hapū.
Some submitters noted that while the initial focus on Taranaki and the Waikato is justified, iwi across New Zealand should be engaged (including South Auckland). Others noted that only impacted iwi should be engaged. A couple of submitters also raised the need to think about fisheries interests, including engaging with Te Ohu Kaimoana.