Agenda of Rangitāiki River Forum - Friday, 15 November 2024

In Attendance: BOPRC: Chris Ingle – General Manager Integrated Catchments, Fiona Wood – Land Management Coordinator, Kerry Brown – Kaitohutohu Taiao Matua (Senior Advisor), Michelle Lee – Planner (Water Policy), Gina Mohi – Pūtaiao Mātauranga, AJ Prinsloo – Finance Manager, Hasi Silva – Senior Management Account, Shari Kameta – Committee Advisor

Hineuru Iwi Trust: Janice Wall (Trustee)

Jane Waldon – Co-Governance Secretariat (Director, Parearau Ltd)

Presenters: as listed in the minutes

Externals: Craig Rowe - Pioneer Energy

Ngā Hōnea

Apologies: Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti (Bay of Plenty Regional Council), Katishe McCauley (Ngāti Tūwharetoa (BOP) Settlement Trust), Koriiana Hooker (Hineuru Iwi Trust), Miro Araroa and Mihipeka Sisley (Alternate) (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa), Cr Tuwhakairiora O'Brien (Whakatāne District Council)

1. Karakia Whakatuwhera
Opening Karakia

A karakia and mihi was provided by Te Taute Taiepa that acknowledged the recent passing of Kīngi Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII, as well as the passing of respected Kōhanga leader Titoki Black (Ruātoki) and Regional Council staff member Rick Kneebel (Ōpōtiki).

2. Ngā Hōnea
Apologies

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Accepts the apologies from: Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti, Koriiana Hooker, Katishe McCauley, Cr Tuwhakairiora O'Brien, Miro Araroa and Mihipeka Sisley tendered at the meeting.

Campbell/James

CARRIED

3. Wāhanga Tūmatanui
Public Forum

3.1

Department of Conservation - Rangitaiki Wetland Day - 7 September 2024

Presentation - Rangitāiki Wetland Day: Objective ID A4752631

Tabled Document 1 - Wetland Day Brochure: Objective ID A4768776

Presented by: Freddy Carr, Community Ranger

Key Points:

· Department of Conservation (DOC) in collaboration with the BOPRC and Fish & Game New Zealand were holding a Rangitāiki Wetlands Day on Saturday 7 September at the Awakaponga Hall

· The event would provide information on how to restore wetlands with the aim of reaching out to farmers, landowners, trust blocks, schools and marae

· Wetland experts would be on site to provide site specific information and details about what funding/resource support was available

· DOC was working with BOPRC Communications team to advertise the event, which had received a lot of interest.

In Response to Questions:

· Mātauranga knowledge/expertise on past practices and how wetlands were used by Maori in the past, would not be incorporated into the event, however wished to consider this in future.

Key Points - Members:

· Feedback had been received from some ratepayers about BOPRC staff delivering event brochures; concerned about the cost effectiveness of this

· Noted there was a current rat infestation issue on the Rangitāiki Plains

· Requested that the Forum’s partner organisations be made aware of the event and any future events to help advertise on their media platforms

· Saw the event as a stepping stone to incorporate Mātauranga knowledge to broaden cultural aspects to benefit the community

· Thanked DOC and BOPRC for creating and supporting the event.

4. Ngā Take Tōmuri
Items not on the Agenda

The following item was noted for discussion later under Agenda item 11.

· Receipt of PhD research correspondence

5. Raupapa o Ngā Take
Order of Business

To accommodate the early departure of the reporting officer the following items would be received after Item 7.1, Minutes to be Confirmed:

· Agenda item 10.4, Rangitāiki Catchment Programme Annual Report 2023/24

· Agenda item 10.5, Rangitāiki Catchment Programme Annual Plan 2024/24

· Agenda item 10.6, Rangitāiki Catchment Programme Dashboard Report

6. Whakapuakanga o Ngā Take Whai Taha-Rua
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

10:45am – Whakaeke Ritete and Cr Yvonne Westerman entered the meeting.

7. Ngā Meneti
Minutes

Kia Whakaūngia Ngā Meneti
Minutes to be Confirmed

7.1

Rangitāiki River Forum Minutes - 7 June 2024

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Confirms the Rangitāiki River Forum Minutes - 7 June 2024 are a true and correct record.

Campbell/Kalman

CARRIED

8. Ngā Pūrongo
Reports

Hei Pānui Anake
Information Only

8.1

Rangitāiki Catchment Programme: Annual Report 2023/2024

Presented by: Charles Harley – Team Leader, Coastal Catchments

Took the Annual Report 2023/24 and Agenda items 10.5, Annual Plan 2024/25 and 10.6, July-August 2024 Dashboard as read.

Key Points:

· Highlighted the native planting and weed control work undertaken along the Horomanga river by BOPRC’s Rivers & Drainage team in conjunction with the Galatea School

· Noted vehicle interactions at the Rangitāiki river mouth as an ongoing issue

· Acknowledged Programme Coordinator Integrated Catchments Fiona Wood who had coordinated the annual reports and dashboard.

· In addition to the report, regarding the issue of migratory tuna being caught near the Fonterra Edgecumbe wastewater treatment plant discharge site (refer minute item 6.6 and resolution 1b, page 4 of the Forum minutes 15 March 2024), signage had been completed and was now with the Omataroa Kaitiaki Trust to install on Whakatane District Council’s land adjacent to Fonterra’s site.

In Response to Questions:

· Lake Aniwaniwa aquatic weed control was on hold due to the exploration of alternative control methods sought by Ngāti Manawa. While NIWA had provided some alternative options, they were more costly and exceeded the budget. The next step to consider was to address the matter within the consent renewal process in 2026.

Key Points – Members:

· Wished to acknowledge the Bay Trust for extending their funding criteria to support environmental outcomes and the Rangitāiki Wetland project

· Commended the native planting and installation of tuna ponds carried out on the Horomanga river, with special acknowledgement to the Rivers & Drainage team for their work and communication which had been exceptional.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Provide details on the eastern drain stopbank raising on Powdrell Road.

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Rangitāiki Catchment Programme: Annual Report 2023/2024;

2 Sends a letter of acknowledgement and thanks to the Bay Trust for their funding support, to be signed by the Chair on behalf of the Forum.

Winters/Taiepa

CARRIED

8.2

Rangitāiki Catchment Programme: Annual Work Plan 2024/2025

Presented by: Charles Harley – Team Leader, Coastal Catchments

In Response to Questions:

· Regarding Rangitāiki-Tarawera fish passage - a dedicated Fish Passage Officer was working closely with Rivers & Drainage staff on the Rangitaiki Plains, and a contractor was assessing barriers and how to incorporate fish passage into asset maintenance and replacement programmes. As a first step, would look at configuration of gravity flap gates

· There were approximately 37 private pump schemes on the Rangitāiki Plains which BOPRC administered the rates for, and three other pump stations that were owned by the BOPRC.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Provide an update on unconsented pump schemes on the Rangitāiki Plains.

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Rangitāiki Catchment Programme: Annual Work Plan 2024/2025.

Taiepa/James

CARRIED

8.3

July - August 2024 Rangitāiki Catchment Programme Dashboard

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, July - August 2024 Rangitāiki Catchment Programme Dashboard.

Taiepa/James

CARRIED

9. Nga Whakamarama a Nga Ropu
Update from Partners

9.1 Hineuru Iwi Trust

· No update to report.

9.2 Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa

· Rangatahi of Tauhara hapū had been working in the old native nursery located in the upper Rangitāiki river catchment over the last year. Wished to present to the next Forum meeting on the activity which was supported by the Forum Chair, noting opportunity for other Forum partner organisation groups to do the same

· A lot of work was being undertaken in regard to whenua returned from Treaty Settlement redress.

9.3 Taupō District Council (TDC)

· Had made submissions to the following Bills:

o Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and after a series of workshops TDC had signed a (non-binding) Heads of Agreement between the 10 participating councils within the Waikato Joint Forum

o Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – submitted concerns regarding the exclusion of Te Mana o Te Wai obligations from resource consenting and subsequent time constraints with support noted for the three year suspension for the identification of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) in the district plan

· TDC’s Long Term Plan 2024-2034 would be adopted on 30 September 2024. Consultation had run from 4 June to 8 July 2024. 1418 submissions had been received with about half relating to kerbside collection

· Other key matters included: Turangi and Taupō wastewater management options, Motutere Recreation Reserve Management Plan, Northern Access Transport Solution proposal for construction 2029/30; and the decision on 27 August 2024 to retain Te Papa Marearea Māori Ward.

9.4 Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare

· Discussions were taking place concerning the 2024 proposed amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991

· Noted a matter for discussion at the end of the agenda regarding the receipt of PhD research correspondence.

9.5 Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa

· Liaising with Whakatane District Council (WDC) on Three Waters matters, refuse site and spatial planning. WDC were scheduled to visit Murupara and Minginui next week. Noted that the communities were working together with WDC to find solutions, in particular for drinking water supply

· Iwi partners were dealing with various Government departments and councils for improvement in current and future consenting

· Plans were to hold a day for WDC, Taumata Arowai and the Rūnanga to present to the community on key matters.

9.6 Whakatane District Council (WDC)

· WDC’s Long Term Plan 2024-2034 was adopted in early August, which the outcome was a rates increase

· Steve Purdia, General Manager Strategy & Transformation had been appointed as the new Chief Executive and would take up the role on 9 September 2024

· Property had been purchased at Awakaponga to take Matatā wastewater system.

· Noted there was potential for Edgecumbe’s wastewater to be upgraded also.

· Looked forward to visiting Murupara and Minginui on Monday.

9.7 Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC)

· BOPRC had adopted its Long Term Plan 2024-2034, also noting a rate rise

· Would be interested in BOPRC involvement in Three Waters discussions with WDC and Ngāti Manawa to support outcomes where possible, which was acknowledged by the Forum Chair

· A key issue of concern was the changes proposed by the Resource Management Amendment Bill regarding freshwater management.

10. Whakahoutanga Kōrero
Verbal Updates

10.1

Resource Consents Update

Presented by: Ella Tennant, Consents Manager

Key Points:

· Clarified that the consent granted for debris removal in Lake Aniwhenua Delta had not gone through the fast track process and that the consent had been notified and a hearing held

· There were no updates to report on individual resource consents, however a lot was happening in Central Government that affected consenting

· Fast Track Approvals Bill:

o The Government had announced that the hearing panel would make the final decision on applications; however, there was no obligation to hold hearings or for the panel to consult

o The list of projects to be included in the Bill had not been released, but there were approximately 384 projects that had applied

o Once the Bill came into law, it would be crucial for interested parties to engage early with applicants noting the very short timeframe and little opportunity to input beyond that point, i.e. no hearing held and no right of appeal, except for points of law

o In the interim, fast track consents were still being processed in the region by the Environmental Protection Agency

· Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill #1:

o Removed Te Mana o Te Wai obligations from resource consenting

o Repealed low slope land from stock exclusion regulations

o Provided extra time for district councils to identify Significant Natural Areas in district plans

o Speed up the process for introducing and changing national directions. Noted concern with this due to the number of national policy changes that were being made

o Changes to National Policy Statement (NPS) to allow for coal mining

· Resource Management Bill – Second Amendment:

o Was expected to be released in September 2024

o Proposed faster consenting for renewable energy (i.e. solar and hydro power) and wood processing

o Changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land which would impact district councils

· A lot of legislative change was also occurring within the Coastal area:

o The 20-year extension to marine farm consent duration had passed its third reading. Coastal marine title applicants would be party to any review of conditions process that was issued

o Currently under development:

§ New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) review to better enable infrastructure in marine aquaculture

§ Changes to the National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture regarding replacement applications and to make variations to conditions easier for marine farms

§ Changes to interaction between the Resource Management Act and Fisheries Act, which was relevant to the Motiti Protection Area

§ Local Waters Done Well – Taumata Arowai were developing a National Standard for Municipal Wastewater and Stormwater

· A number of municipal wastewater and water consents were due to expire in 2026.

In Response to Questions:

· Regarding funding availability for wastewater upgrades, the Government was increasing the cap on borrowing which would ultimately be a cost to ratepayers

· Regarding the consent granted for Aniwaniwa gravel extraction, a pre-hearing meeting was held to discuss issues brought by Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird and Fish & Game, which were resolved with conditions of consent.

11:40 am – Cr Kat Macmillan entered the meeting.

11. Ngā Pūrongo
Reports (Continued)

11.1

Chairperson's Report

Presented by: Chair Terewai Kalman

Key Points:

· The hui held between Iwi members and Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) had been well received. Further hui with individual iwi were planned, with an update provided to a future Forum meeting next year.

· Work with Waiotahi Contractors was going well with liaison/support from BOPRC to obtain consent for water take

· A lot of engagement taking place between Ngati Manawa and WDC regarding co-design of Murupara wastewater treatment plant. Iwi were opposed to discharging into the rivers and would work with WDC on potential location and hold further talks with iwi

· Had invited Pioneer Energy to provide an update to the Forum later in the year to engage on future opportunities

· An illegal water take had been identified in Galatea, estimating 69 billion litres of water had been taken from the over-allocated catchment. A follow-up discussion would be held with the BOPRC and the landowner

· Thanked BOPRC and WDC for tree removal, planting and communications being undertaken at culturally significant wetland sites, along with the update on river work provided by BOPRC, which had been well received.

Key Points - Members:

· Regarding BOPRC’s Long Term Plan secretariat funding – a workshop was being held on funding policy development and how it interfaces with other community initiative funding before the Secretariat Fund was implemented.

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Chairperson's Report.

Crawford/Taiepa

CARRIED

11.2

Te Ara Whānui o Rangitaiki River Document Review - Initial discussion

Presented by: Nassah Rolleston-Steed – Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning (on behalf of Stephen Lamb – Natural Resources Policy Manager)

Key Points:

· Te Ara Whānui o Rangitaiki River Document was adopted in December 2014 and would be due for its 10 year review in December 2024

· Wished to gauge how the Forum would like to progress the review

· Matters to consider: ensure the document was fit for purpose, identify any gaps, pace/scale of the review, i.e. a comprehensive rework or light touch

· The legislation did not prescribe how the review was to be undertaken

· BOPRC’s technical resources/support were somewhat limited due to priority placed on implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM)

· Any changes made to the River Document’s policy framework would require consultation/engagement with community/stakeholders

· Next steps proposed by staff were to formally seek feedback from members (via email) to comment/input on the review process. The feedback would inform a draft plan of how to progress the review, to report to the Forum’s next meeting.

Key Points - Members:

· Wished to see Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare take a lead on the review

· Acknowledged the input of the late Bill Kerrison into the document

· The review should not wait for NPS-FM direction, as the Treaty Settlement legislation was agreed with by the Crown and had mana in its own right

· The review would provide an opportunity for iwi who had joined the Forum (after the River Document’s adoption) to input

· Would like the opportunity for a hikoi along the river and to its source

· Requested further discussion before the next meeting to discuss the type of review, before seeking feedback from individual members.

Key Points - Staff:

· Depending on the scale and type of review would have resource and cost implications

· Noted that WDC had a small budget set aside for the Forum and queried how other Forum partners may be able to contribute

· Kataraina O’Brien, General Manager Strategic Engagement would be supporting planning staff with the review

· Staff would ensure alignment between the NPS-FM implementation and the River Document review

· The review would also provide an opportunity to look at what other co-governance arrangements were doing, e.g. implementation action plans.

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Te Ara Whānui o Rangitaiki River Document Review - Initial discussion;

2 Request staff to schedule a workshop for the Forum before the next Forum meeting, before seeking feedback from individual members.

Taiepa/Kalman

CARRIED

11.3

Outcome of Te Mahere Tūroa | Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034

Presented by: Kataraina O’Brien - General Manager Strategic Engagement

Key Points:

· The Regional Co-Governance Secretariat Fund and a Māori Initiatives Fund had been secured, and policy were currently being developed for allocation of the funds

· Funding to support the development and review of iwi/hapū management plans had increased

· A Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti Policy and Social Procurement Policy would be developed in Years 2 and 3 of the Long Term Plan.

Resolved

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Outcome of Te Mahere Tūroa | Long Term Plan 2024 - 2034.

James/Taiepa

CARRIED

12. Ngā Take Tōmuri Hei Whakaaroaro
Consideration of Items not on the Agenda

12.1

Receipt of PhD Research Correspondence

Presented By: Te Taute Taiepa, Forum Deputy Chair

Key Points:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare had received correspondence from a University of Auckland PhD candidate who was undertaking a PhD research project in the Tarawera, Rangitāiki and Whakatāne river catchments on how tectonic and human impacts influence rivers movements

· The correspondence advised that BOPRC was supporting the PhD research

· Considered it appropriate for the Forum to be informed of research projects or new activities that were being undertaken in the catchment with support of its Forum partners.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Requested further information regarding the PhD research project.

13. Karakia Kati
Closing Karakia

A karakia was provided by Te Taute Taiepa.

12:29 pm – the meeting closed.

Confirmed

Terewai Kalman

Chairperson, Rangitāiki River Forum



Pūrongo Ki: Report To:	Rangitāiki River Forum
Rā Hui: Meeting Date:	15 November 2024
Kaituhi Pūrongo: Report Writer:	Nassah Rolleston-Steed, Principal Advisor, Policy and Planning
Kaiwhakamana Pūrongo: Report Authoriser:	Kataraina O'Brien, General Manager, Strategic Engagement
Kaupapa: Purpose:	To resolve to formally commence review of Te Ara Whānui o Rangitāiki

Te Ara Whānui o Rangitaiki River Document - Formal Resolution to Commence Review

Whakarāpopototanga
Executive Summary

Both the Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa Claims Settlement Acts 2012 require the 10-year review of Te Ara Whānui o Rangitāiki - the Rangitāiki River Document must commence before 16 December 2024. This report seeks the Rangitāiki River Forum resolve to formally initiate a review of the Te Ara Whānui o Rangitāiki. A report was presented to the Forum’s 30 August 2024 hui which provided an initial overview of what a formal review process involves and legal requirements. Forum members requested a workshop to collectively discuss feedback on the River Document’s contents. That workshop occurred in Whakatane on Friday 11 October.

Staff require clarification and direction to firm up the review scope, process, timeframes and resourcing requirements/commitments. Namely direction on which River Document contents will be the focus of the review (i.e. will it include material changes) which will determine the process to be followed. Once clarification is received staff will prepare a formal Project Plan and Communication and Engagement Plan for consideration.

Based on feedback received to date, staff recommend the Review focus primarily on the River Document’s actions. It is likely to yield the better outcomes while avoiding consuming undedicated resources on the special consultative process. It will enable the Forum to make amendments without due formality and expense of having to run a submissions process, hold hearings and engage with key stakeholders.

At the 11 October workshop Forum members raised concerns about Cabinet’s decision to include reconsenting for the Manawa Energy Ltd Wheao Hydro-Electric Power Scheme in the list of 149 approved Fast track Schedule 2 projects. Members expressed concerns the Fast Track consents process will circumvent ordinary iwi consultation obligations. Members want to ensure central government honours its Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement Act obligations. Recommendation 5 is included for the Forum to endorse the Chair to write to Ministers Jones and Bishop requesting consultation with iwi and ability to nominate a person to the expert panel with Treaty of Waitangi and Maori cultural expertise.

Ngā tūtohutanga
Recommendations

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Te Ara Whānui o Rangitaiki River Document - Formal Resolution to Commence Review

2 Resolves pursuant to Section 124(2)(a) of the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012 and Section 128(2)(a) Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012 to commence the formal 10-year review of Te Ara Whānui o Rangitāiki – The Rangitāiki River Document.

3 Notes the nature of feedback received from Rangitaiki River Forum members collective at the Friday 11 October workshop and individually via email affects both material and non-material contents indicating the review will invoke the special consultative process under the Local Government Act 2002 involving public notification, submissions and a hearing process.

4 Provides staff with clarification on the scope of contents subject to review, members resourcing commitments and broad review timeframes so there is sufficient information for staff to develop a project plan and communication and engagement strategy for consideration at the first Rangitāiki River Forum hui in 2025.

5 Notes that at the 11 October 2024 workshop, the Rangitaiki River Forum endorsed the Chair, on behalf of the Forum, writing to Ministers Bishop and Jones to raise concerns about the Wheao Hydro Electric Power Scheme Reconsenting being included in the list of Fast-track Schedule 2 projects and seeking assurance Crown will uphold its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi require consultation with iwi; and request iwi appoint a person with expertise in tikanga Māori, Te Tiriti of Waitangi and Māori culture and traditions to the Expert Panel.

6 Notes the risks and assumptions identified in section 5.1 that need to be actively managed during the formal review process.

1. He Whakamārama
Background

Te Ara Whanui o Rangitāiki – the Rangitaiki River Document (River Document) is due for its formal 10-year review. A report was presented to the Forum’s 30 August 2024 introducing the review requirements and related considerations. A follow up workshop was held on Friday 11 October to seek the Forum’s feedback on the River Document review and its contents. Recommendation 2 above seeks a resolution in favour of commencing the formal review process.

From discussions and feedback received at the preceding 30 August meeting and the 11 October workshop members expressed a desire to make improvements to the River Document. For example, to remove actions completed, while other actions may be reframed to increase their effectiveness and new actions may also be considered. At this point members have discussed the review and made comment, and one written response has been received from Tuhoe. However, no definitive direction has been provided on what River Document contents will be amended as part of the review. Staff require clarification on the scope of contents proposed to be amended to be able to prepare a project plan and communication and engagement plan to enable a well-coordinated and planned formal review process.

Given Forum members have not budgeted for a formal review, there is a case to confine the amendments to non-material changes and limit the review’s scope and timing. This will avoid the need to instigate the special consultative process under the Local Government Act 2002 while enabling the ability to make changes without due formality. Material changes will invoke use of the special consultative process and trigger the need for a submissions and hearings process, which is considerably more time and resource demanding and expensive.

2. Legislative Requirements

2.1 Timeframes

There are two considerations relating to timeframes the deadline for starting the review and then how long the review process will take once initiated.

2.1.1 16 December 2024 Deadline

The deadline under Section 124(2) of the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012 and Section 128(2) Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012 states the Forum must:

…start a review of the River Document no later than 10 years after the later of—

(a) the first time that the River Document is approved;

The River Document was adopted on 16 December 2016. The formal review must therefore commence no later than 16 December 2024. Recommendation 2 seeks a resolution to formally commence the River Document review to meet this legislative requirement.

2.1.2 Review Process

The Claims Settlement Act 2012 legislation doesn’t define a framework or process for how the review should be undertaken except that the Forum must:

· Meet to discuss and commence a review; and

· Consult and seek comment from appropriate persons and organisations.

Apart from these two points the Forum can determine its preferred approach for conducting its review. That includes the timeframe for the review as the legislation is silent on the speed and nature of review. As is discussed below, the nature of the changes made will determine the extent of consultation to be undertaken. If material changes are proposed, then the special consultative process should be followed (i.e. same process used when the River Document was first developed).

There may be other processes that may influence the River Document’s review – such as the freshwater planning (NPSFM) process or the Eastern Bay Spatial Planning process. The timing of these may influence the Forum’s thinking around the review timeframe.

2.2 Material v Non-Material Changes

If the Forum considers the River Document should be amended in a material way, the River Document must follow the same special consultative process adopted in developing the original River Document. If the River Document is not proposed to be amended in a material way the Forum can approve the updated River Document via a formal resolution, then notify when and where it is available for inspection.

The legislation does not specify what material and non-material amendments are. Material is commonly defined as something significant or important. The question is what River Document contents fit that category. Arguably important contents will be those stipulated in the legislation as required to be included. Sections 118 and 122^{^[1]} Contents of Rangitāiki River Document respectively sets out the Rangitāiki River Document may contain—

(a) A vision for the Rangitāiki River; and

(b) Objectives for the Rangitāiki River; and

(c) Desired outcomes for the Rangitāiki River.

Furthermore Sections 119 and 123^{^[2]} Effect on Resource Management Act 1991 planning documents respectively sets out that when preparing or changing the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement (RPS), Regional Council must recognise and provide for any vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitāiki River Document. Imbedding the River Document’s vision, objectives and desired outcomes in the RPS means it has a direct influence on and connect to regional and district plan change processes in the region. The RPS sets the overarching policy framework for the plans at a regional level and all regional and district plan are required to give effect to (or actively implement) its policy direction. Furthermore, persons processing resource consents must have particular regard to the RPS.

A diagram of a policy statement

Description automatically generated

Staff take a pragmatic view that material changes involve amendments to contents, required by the claims settlement legislation, to be included in the River Document and that have a bearing on RMA processes. That is the vision, objectives and desired outcomes. If these contents are amended, then the review process should follow the special consultative process set out in the Local Government Act 2002 which is the same process followed in preparing the first Rangitāiki River Document.

2.2.1 Change 3 (Rangitaiki River) to the RPS

Regional Council moved to implements its legislative requirements to change the RPS shortly after the River Document was approved. Change 3 (Rangitāiki River) to the RPS was initiated in December 2014 shortly after the River Document was approved. It was formally notified on 11 October 2016 and Council’s decisions notified on 17 October 2017. Council’s decisions on Change 3 (Rangitaiki River) were appealed by Trustpower and Federated Farmers with several s274 interested parties joining the appeals. The appeals were resolved at mediation and a consent order signed off by the Environment Court. Change 3 was eventually made operative on 9 October 2018.

If the vision, objectives and desired outcomes of the River Document are amended through this review, Regional Council will be obligated to review the RPS Change 3 (Rangitaiki River) provisions and if necessary change them at the next available opportunity.

2.3 Workshop Feedback

Members raised various matters at the 11 October workshop in Whakatane. Members comments are captured below and where necessary staff responses are provided in italics following.

2.3.1 Matters raised:

1. Concern around legal weighting afforded to cultural values and connections with the Rangitaiki River. Iwi have different values and cultural descriptions and the external reader may consider one better then the other. The document should reflect equality around iwi cultural description.

Staff response: The comment was a response to discussion on parts of the River Document that identify cultural connections and context including traditional associations iwi have with the Rangitaiki River. Questions concerning legal weighting of matters in resource management decision making processes is a complex and broad ranging matter and depends on situational context. Different readers perceptions of cultural connections is subjective in the same way a person might prefer the way a particular person narrates the same story over another’s version of that same story.

RPS Policy IW 2B ‘Recognising matters of significance to Maori’ states for ‘Proposals which may affect the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions must:..(b) Recognise that only tangata whenua can identify and evidentially substantiate their relationship and that of their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.’ Policy IW 2B recognises that in order to meet the requirements of Section 6(e) of the Act^{^[3]} persons preparing assessments of environmental effects must consult tangata whenua who have a relationship with the area affected.

2. Need to undertake a stocktake/evaluation to understand what progress had been made implementing the River Document’s actions and achieving its objectives and desired outcomes. It was considered this step would be necessary to identify any gaps in the River Document that needed addressing and ensure it is framed in the most effective manner for the next 10 years.

Staff response: Charles Harley (Team Leader, Coastal Catchments) provides the Forum with reporting on the annual plan, annual reports and six monthly Rangitaiki Catchment Programme Dashboard. These report on achievements against the Rangitaiki Catchment Programme: Annual Work Plans and River Document Actions. This was recently reported to the Forum as part of the 30 August 2024 agenda.

3. Regarding the River Document’s Vision…’Does it have collective meaning shared by all communities.’ The comment raised concern that its wording is too high level and could be interpreted differently. The vision statement/wawate states: A healthy Rangitaiki River, values by the community, protected for future generations. Tihei Mauri Ora.

Staff response: The River Document’s Vision is typical of Vision statements in statutory resource management documents. Vision statements are often aspirational, sustainability focused, high level and connected to societal values such as stewardship. The River Document’s Vision fulfils these common traits. The River Documents objectives and desired outcomes further illustrate in greater detail what the vision encapsulates.

4. In response to the River Document’s ‘Problem Statements’ on page 18 discussion ensued about central government’s strong views on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, co-governance, Te Mana o te Wai and the Fast Track Approvals Bill. Collectively all the various reform currently underway has potential to undermine the River Document’s objectives. Furthermore, the problems should better reflect the need to focus on the migration of tuna and other native fish species both up and down the River.

Staff response: The River Document recognises the importance of providing for the natural life-cycle, including migration paths, of tuna and other indigenous species. Objectives 1 and 2 address this. The same can be said about Change 3 (Rangitaiki River) to the RPS which similarly addresses the impacts of land use change, hydro-electrical power generation schemes, flood protection and irrigation schemes on decreased numbers of indigenous fish species.

It was at this point discussion ensued on Cabinet’s decision to include reconsenting for the Manawa Energy Ltd Wheao Hydro-Electric Power Scheme in the list of 149 approved Fast track Schedule 2 projects. Members expressed concerns the Fast Track consents process will circumvent ordinary iwi consultation obligations and want to ensure central government honours its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Recommendation 5 is included for the Forum to endorse the Chair to write to Ministers Jones and Bishop requesting consultation with iwi and ability to nominate a person to the expert panel with Treaty of Waitangi and Maori cultural expertise.

5. In response to the River Document’s ‘Desired Outcomes’ on page 20 there was contention the review should add more context and headings to the Desired Outcomes, Problems and Actions.

Staff response: The Forum has discretion to add further Desired Outcomes or Problems as part of this review. The question is what are the Desired Outcomes or Problems that are currently not reflected in the River Document and how do they relate to achieving the vision.

6. The word mauri and its definition needs revision.

Staff response: The Forum has discretion to amend the definition for Mauri. The River Document glossary includes the following definition for Mauri = life-force, life supporting capacity.

The term mauri is referenced 13 times throughout the River Document. It features in the vision and desired outcomes and traditional associations iwi have with the River. Protecting the Mauri of water is the River Document’s first Desired Outcome. Mauri is referred to in relation to the Rangitaiki River being regarded as a tipuna, a giver of life that sustains the mauri of all within its embrace. Ngati Manawa in its traditional associations refers to its relationship with Rangitaiki River and responsibilities to protect its mauri and that the state of mauri represents the mana and mauri of the iwi. Similarly Ngati Awa in its traditional associations states Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngati Awa whanui to the Rangitaiki River.

The definition for Mauri in the RPS very long and description as follows: ‘The essential life force, energy or principle that tangata whenua believe exists in all things the natural world, including people. Tangata whenua believe it is the vital essence or life force by which all things cohere in nature. When Mauri is absent there is no life. When Mauri is degraded, or absent, tangata whenua believe this can mean that they have been remiss in their kaitiakitanga responsibilities and this affects their relationship with the atura (Maori gods). Mauri can also be imbued within manmade or physical objects.’

Both existing definitions are appropriate. The Forum could devise a new definition for Mauri. The question is whether it is necessary or what added value a different definition might have.

An interesting case study is the project to implement RPS Method 44 ‘Developing Mauri Models’ which states: ‘Work with tangata whenua in the development of ways to assess the mauri of natural resources with the intent that such methods are implemented in regional plans for monitoring consented activities, the state of the environment and the efficiency and effectiveness of plan provisions, where these involve matters of significance to Maori.’ A project was initiated to implement Method 44 which involved fourteen consultation hui with tangata whenua from across the region. From the consultation undertaken it was apparent that different iwi and hapu have diverging views on mauri and whether it is appropriate to develop a model to assess Mauri of natural and physical resources.

7. We are failing to achieve our objectives and there is not enough push to accomplish them. Some of the factors to achieve the objectives are outside the Forum or its members control (e.g. long finned eel commercial take).

Staff response: The concerns are acknowledged. Some objectives are aspirational and could take a concerted and persisted ongoing effort to attain over a long time period. That doesn’t mean they are inappropriate; they simply reflect the preferences of Forum members when the River Document was being developed. Staff consider the objectives are broadly appropriate and remain relevant providing scope for the Forum to focus attention on projects and actions that will contribute to achieving the objectives, which is a more efficient use of time and resources. This review process should place greater focus on the River Document’s actions and lessons from the annual monitoring programme directed towards achieving the objectives and whether these can be framed more directly or effectively.

8. As kaitiaki iwi want greater control and influence in environmental monitoring, compliance and enforcement of Councils regulatory plans, rules protection natural resources and resource consent decisions. Specific mention was made to water takes and discharges. There are other functions and responsibilities that will also be linked to the River Documents objectives and desired outcomes. Iwi want greater influence over environmental

Staff response: The aspiration to have tangata whenua involved in compliance and enforcement matters is not new. Other iwi and hapu have outlined aspirations for the same in their rohe. This could be a focus for the review to further investigate what an iwi led taiao monitoring capacity and capability programme. Regional Council’s Te Ara Poutama (Pursuit of excellence) community outcome seeks to partner with tangata whenua towards a prosperous and equitable regional future. Related to this outcome is Goal 15 which states: ‘Supporting enhanced Maori participation in operational activities and progressing new opportunities where they arise within existing operations.’ Also related is Goal 16 which states: ‘Supporting Maori capacity and capability building to empower proactive relationships.’ He Korowai Matauranga framework seeks to respect the integrity of mātauranga Māori recognising its value to inform Regional Council’s decision-making processes and operation business. One of its key benefits is seeking constructive relationships engaging with tangata whenua in plans and processes.

2.4 Individual Feedback Received

On Thursday 17 October staff emailed Forum members inviting them to provide any feedback, comments or suggestions by Friday 25 October. Only Ngapera Rangiaho (Tuhoe) provided feedback which I repeat in full as follows:

Public excluded minutes identified concerns raised at the workshop which are similar to the values and principles of Tūhoe. With regards to co-governance relationships and this document RRF being up for review, the following input is to be taken into consideration:

Tuhoe has particular interest in Crown role and resourcing, governance structure and performance, water management policy and operation framework.

RMA Resource consent and iwi cultural assessment are disconnected from policies that work in silos of each other. i.e. Surface water take from streams or tributaries to supply Dairy farms are unsustainable practices that have occurred close to half a century - unacceptable. The two documents that are in conflict of each other is NPS-FW and RMA Resource Consent. NPS-FW specific to the stream - Resource consent to water allocation. The disconnect is taken from the stream as a separate policy but the water is to provide service to a farm. What the policy does not address in its entirety is the impact of the take to serve another. Te Kawa o Te Urewera does not work in silo but looks at the whole system and its sustainability.

Resource consent SPASMO function is inconsistent in its measurement of water allocation and as such SPASMO does not make sense.

Evidence-based is also biased as there are two forms of research methodology Quantitative and Qualitative. Within Council there is a greater preference to Quantitative research (number crunching), whilst Qualitative is born out of the relationship between iwi and environment that is connected through whakapapa from the beginning of time. Qualitative research in its full essence is value and principle-based that should not be dismissed as it gives the impression that Te Kawa o Te Urewera, Te Urewera Act and Deed of Settlement are defunct documents which are NOT.

Therefore, how can iwi legal instruments give effect to the RRF to counteract unsustainable practices and behaviours that is accountable while in its future form protects the wellbeing of our waterways, our whenua and tangata.

Na mihi

Ngapera Rangiaho

Response: Ngapera’s comments raise a number of concerns. The concerns raised around bias towards quantitative research was in part the impetus behind the development of He Korowai Matauranga. Its genesis emerged from a Komiti Maori recommendation which full Council endorsed and resourced through the 2015-25 Long Term Plan. Whilst it is a Regional Council framework it recognises Ngapera’s views are widely held by our Maori communities. He Korowai Matauranga framework seeks to respect the integrity of mātauranga Māori recognising its value to inform Regional Council’s decision-making processes and operation business. One of the foundations is to strategise, coordinate and align matauranga evidence to inform Council’s decision making processes. In doing so one off its 7 principles is Huinga Rawaho (complement) which states: ‘Matauranga Maori and western science are complementary to each other and is a positive demonstration of the Treaty of Waitangi partnership in action.’ This principle is translated into one of the key objectives being: ‘Te ensure matauranga Maori is utilised and managed in a way that reflects its intention.’

Efficient allocation decisions require robust tools/models and standards. Models are important for helping understand complex processes, but all have their limitations and uncertainties especially where data availability is limited. SPASMO-IR is no different.

Regional Council uses the SPASMO-IR model to assist with evaluating irrigation water take consent applications. SPASMO-IR is used to provide information on water quantity relative to the characteristics of the site/land area and land use proposed in order to promote efficient water use and reducing water demand. SPASMO-IR model requires re-evaluation to better align with on best on-farm practice. This is because monitoring of growers and farmers water take consents shows most consent holders use significantly less water than what their consents and SPASMO-IR provides for, even during very dry seasons. Recent analysis shows most irrigation consent holders region wide use well below their allocation limits and don’t use more than 50% of their allocation, even in peak periods. Consent staff caution that some of the more recent water take consents the difference between the level of take and what was allocated could be attributed to orchards being developed in a staged manner.

Consents staff are currently working with Plant and Food Research to reign in the SPASMO-IR modelling parameters (e.g. crop root depth) to improve water use allocation decision making processes. Despite these shortcomings SPASMO is only one of the means consents staff use to assess the efficiency of use for water take consents whether for new applications or renewals. Consents staff utilise water use records as well as best case studies for like uses (where available) to assist with determining whether proposals will ensure an efficient use of water.

2.5 Summary

Members feedback to date raises a number of issues which impacts much of the River Document’s content. Members have raised issues with the River Document’s stated problems, objectives, vision and desired outcomes. Staff recommend the Review focus on the River Document’s actions while also taking opportunity to update any facts with more accurate up to date information (i.e. census data). Focusing attention on the actions is a more efficient use of the Forum’s time and resources. It enables the Forum to make changes without due formality and expense of having to run a submissions process, hold hearings and engage with key stakeholders.

3. Project Plan/ Communications and Engagement Plan

It is good practice to prepare a project plan at the initiation stage of a project. Particularly where there is governance oversight. In order to do this, staff require certainty what River Document contents will be amended. Currently based on the feedback received and direction from the Forum there is still a lack of clarity around the extent of River Document contents subject to amendments under this review. Once the Forum have determined the extent of changes proposed to the River Document staff should be able to frame up a project plan for consideration at the Forum’s first meeting in 2025.

A communications and engagement plan will be developed if material changes are proposed as this will invoke the need to use the Local Government Act 2002 special consultation process.

4. Wheao Hydro-Electric Power Scheme Reconsenting

At the 11 October workshop Forum members discussed Cabinet’s decision to include reconsenting for the Wheao Hydro-Electric Power Scheme in the list of 149 Fast track Schedule 2 projects. The applicant Manawa Energy Ltd is seeking to reconsent the existing Wheao Hydro-Electric Power Scheme. The Scheme’s existing consents are due to expire at various dates during 2016.

Forum members expressed concerns the Fast Track Approvals Bill (the Bill) consents process will circumvent normal tangata whenua consultation obligations. Iwi members (on this Forum) all have Treaty of Waitangi Settlement legislation, and most (except for Tuhoe) have statutory acknowledgements over parts of the Rangitaiki River and/or its tributaries. All iwi have significant cultural relationships with the Rangitiaki River.

4.1 Fast Track Approvals Bill

The Bill proposes establishing a permanent fast-track approvals regime for projects of national and regional significance. The approval process involves several Ministers including for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Conservation and the Minister Responsible for the Crown Minerals Act. The Ministers will jointly determine whether a project is referred to an Expert Panel.

The Expert Panel will include a Panel Convener, who is a retired or former Environment or High Court Judge. The Panel Convener is responsible for appointing up to 4 other Expert Panel members. The Panel membership must include 1 person nominated by the relevant local authorities which could be an elected member. The Panel Convener can appoint more then 4 persons based on the stated criteria which includes (d) matters unique to any relevant iwi participation legislation. The Panel Convener must also appoint one of the Expert Panel members to act as the Chairperson.

Clause 5 of the Bill includes procedural matters if any Treaty Settlement Act or other iwi participation legislation applies. This applies to any existing legislative or other agreements that have requirements for iwi or hapu participation in the appointment of hearing commissioners to determine resource consent applications or other iwi or hapu consultation requirements.

Based on our current understanding the Bill should be passed into law before the end of 2024.

4.2 Statutory Acknowledgements

Statutory acknowledgements exist over parts of the Rangitaiki River for all iwi except Tuhoe^{^[4]}. Statutory acknowledgements are an acknowledgement by the Crown that recognises the particular mana, cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional associations iwi have with the Rangitaiki River. Councils must consider statutory acknowledgements when deciding whether iwi should be involved in resource consents processes. The existence of Statutory Acknowledgements provides iwi with a potential hook to the participation requirements of Clause 5 aforementioned.

4.3 Recommendation to protect ToW obligations

In response to the concerns raised by member re wanting assurance iwi will be consulted as part of the Wheao Hydro Scheme reconsenting a recommendation is included seeking members endorse the Chair to write to Ministers Bishop and Jones to seek assurance Crown will uphold its Treaty of Waitangi obligations including requesting consultation with iwi, that their concerns are documented, and responses/measures recorded. Further that the Forum are able to recommend a person with Treaty of Waitangi and cultural expertise to be appointed to the expert panel.

5. Ngā Whakaarohanga
Considerations

5.1 Ngā Mōrea me Ngā Whakangāwaritanga
Risks and Mitigations

Risk	Explanation	Mitigation
Forum members disagreed on River Document contents to review	Forum members may disagree on the scope of the amendments needed to the River Document.	Staff will be able to assist by building a picture of whether the provisions at contention are still appropriate or could be improved or updated to more accurately reflect the situation. There is a high degree of trust and respect amongst members that to enable a healthy degree of debate and discussion without needing to instigate formal negotiation techniques to achieve collective agreement. Disagreements are not out of the ordinary and the Forum Chair, Deputy Chair and other Forum members may be able to facilitate an agreement on a way forward.
Risk	Explanation	Mitigation
Lack of resourcing available from Forum members to finance and resource review.	Once there is certainty about the extent of amendments proposed staff will be able to determine whether the special consultative process should be employed. This process will be resource demanding.	There are various options to mitigate the costs and resourcing of the review. Deferral is a valid option. There is no timeframe specified in the legislation how long a review must take. Simply that a review must be commenced prior to the 10 year mark on 18 December 2024. An option is to stagger the review process an enable members to pool resourcing in the next of subsequent financial years to resource the review process.
Risk	Explanation	Mitigation
Changes misalign with resource management reform or strategies impacting the catchment	The Forum should consider processes that may influence the River Document review such as the Resource Management Reform, National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and Eastern Bay Spatial Planning Process. For example the reform is removing the hierarchy of obligations in relation to Te Mana o Te Wai which is enshrined in the Forum’s vision and mission.	The Forum receives regular update reports on these programmes to consider their implications and potential for integration.

5.2 Huringa Āhuarangi
Climate Change

The formal River Document review involves matters of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts.

There are no direct implications from climate change on the River Document review. Any climate change implications will be considered as part of the formal review process particularly if any new or amended actions, desired outcomes or objectives are proposed.

5.3 Ngā Pānga ki te Māori
Implications for Māori

There is too much uncertainty to assess implications for Maori at this stage in the process. Once staff understand with certainty what River Document provisions will be affected by the review, an analysis of implications can be undertaken. However the River Document, which is borne from Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation, is concerned ensuring the Rangitaiki River is valued by the community and protected for future generations. The Rangitaiki River is of significant cultural value to all iwi Forum members and any changes to improve its efficiency and effectiveness will also be of importance to iwi Maori.

5.4 Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori
Community Engagement

CONSULT

Whakauiuia

To obtain input or feedback from affected communities about our analysis, alternatives, and /or proposed decisions.

The level of community consultation will reflect the scale of amendments proposed to the River Document. If changes proposed are of a material substance requiring use of the special consultative process staff will ensure the Communication and Engagement Plan scales up consultation and engagement to an appropriate level with key stakeholders during review process.

5.5 Te Hāngai ki te Pou Tarāwaho Rautaki
Alignment with Strategic Framework

The services we deliver and how they are funded that are set in the LTP, are therefore relevant to the purpose of the Rangitaiki River Forum. This includes how we aim to partner with Māori in achieving shared outcomes over the next ten years.

5.6 Ngā Pānga ā-Pūtea
Financial Implications

The cost of the River Document review is unbudgeted. Further information on the review scope and timing is needed to provide clarity for project planning and to determine financial implications for the review. If the review result in material changes to the existing River Document this will necessitate the special consultative process which will require considerably more cost, time and resourcing than if non-material changes are proposed.

Material changes will likely require further amendments to the Regional Policy Statement which will also involve resourcing requirements for Regional Council. However further bespoke RPS changes will likely be avoided by coupling any changes to the operative Rangitaiki River Treaty Co-Governance provisions with other changes already programmed to occur.

The formal Section 79 ten-year RPS review is also due which is yet to be formally considered by Regional Council. That process will be utilised to move the RPS towards full compliance with the National Planning Standards format and structural requirements.

Staff will be able to frame up the financial implications once the Forum provide clear direction on the scope of River Document contents that will be subject to amendments as part of this review.

6. Ngā Mahi Whai Ake
Next Steps

Staff require further direction from the Forum to develop a project plan for the review with a methodology, resourcing and timeframes. Staff suggest the Chair discuss the Forum’s preferences for the River Document review collectively. A key direction is whether changes to the River Document contents will be material or non-material. If the River Document is proposed to be amended in a material way then members will need to consider how the special consultative process will be resourced. Staff recommend the Review focus on the River Document’s actions to get the best value from this review process without needing to exhaust exorbitant resources on the special consultative process. It enables the Forum to make changes without due formality and expense of having to run a submissions process, hold hearings and engage with key stakeholders.



Report To:	Rangitāiki River Forum
Meeting Date:	15 November 2024
Report Writer:	Shari Kameta, Committee Advisor
Report Authoriser:	Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	To consider making amendments to the Rangitāiki River Forum’s Standing Order provisions regarding virtual attendance at meetings.

Amendment to Standing Orders: Virtual Attendance at Meetings

Executive Summary

This report asks the Rangitāiki River Forum (Forum) to consider amending its Standing Orders to allow the remote participation of members (via audio or audiovisual link) to continue to count towards the quorum at Forum meetings, following the expiration of the Severe Weather and Emergency Recovery Legislation Act 2023 provisions on 30 September 2024.

Under the Forum’s Standing Order 3.2, any amendment to Standing Orders must be made by the Forum and by a vote of not less than 75% of the members present.

Recommendations

That the Rangitāiki River Forum:

1 Receives the report, Amendment to Standing Orders: Virtual Attendance at Meetings.

2 Approves the following amendments to the Rangitāiki River Forum’s Standing Orders (refer Attachment 1):

a) Amend section 1.2 Statutory References to remove references of the COVID-19 Response *Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020

b) Amend the following Definition to read: “Present at the meeting to constitute quorum means the member is to be present (in person or via audio/audiovisual link)”;

c) A correction to Standing Order 14.6 (Right to attend by audio or audio-visual link) to amend/replace standing order references 13.11 and 13.12 with 14.10 and 14.11 respectively;

d) Amend Standing Order 14.7 (Member’s status: quorum) to read “Members who attend meetings by electronic link will be counted as present for the purposes of a quorum.”;

e) Amend Standing Order 14.8 (Member’s status: voting) to read “Where a meeting has a quorum, determined by the number present (in person or via audio/audiovisual link), the members attending by electronic link can vote on any matters raised at the meeting.”;

f) Amend Standing Order 14.10 (Conditions for attending by audio or audio-visual link) to read: “Noting standing order 13.7, members may attend meetings by electronic link, either generally or for a specific meeting, if the technology allows”;

g) Amend Standing Order 14.11 (Request to attend by audio or audio visual link) by replacing the word ‘request’ with ‘notification’;

AND:

h) Amend Standing Order 14.9 (Chairperson’s duties) by deleting the sentence “If the Chairperson is attending by audio or audio-visual link, then chairing duties will be undertaken by the Deputy Chair, or a member who is physically present”;

OR:

i) Retain the current Standing Order 14.9 (Chairperson’s duties) and the requirement that the Chairperson must be physically present [in the event of a hybrid meeting].

1. Introduction

The Forum’s Standing Orders are modelled on those provided by Local Government New Zealand and amended as required by the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Acts 2012.

Schedule 7, clauses 25A(3) and 25A(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provide the legislative parameters for the conduct of Forum meetings. The current version of the Forum’s Standing Orders (14.7 and 14.8) is based on these LGA provisions and provides for members’ remote participation and the ability to vote at meetings, but not be counted for the purpose of a quorum. Standing Orders 14.10 and 14.11 provide for other aspects of remote attendance.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and most recently the Cyclone Gabrielle response, the Government enacted temporary provisions under the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act 2023[5], amending the LGA to allow for remote participants (via audio or audiovisual link) to count towards a quorum. This enabled councils and committees to continue to conduct business when the ability to meet in person and meet this legislative requirement was restricted.

On 30 September 2024, the temporary provisions enacted by Central Government during the Cyclone Gabrielle response expired. However, an amendment to the LGA was enacted on 30 August 2024[6] to enable all members (in person and remote) to count towards a quorum. However, a committee’s standing orders must allow for this. Proposed amendments to Standing Orders.

1.1 Current Standing Orders

The Forum’s current Standing Orders (14.6 – 14.15) allow for members to attend meetings by electronic means (via audio or audiovisual link) providing certain conditions are met. However, members who attend this way cannot be counted as present for the purposes of a quorum, but if a quorum has been met by those physically present, then members attending via electronic means are able to participate and vote on any matters raised during the meeting.

Now that the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Act 2023 expired on 30 September 2024, if no changes are made to the Forum’s Standing Orders, members attending via electronic means will not count towards a quorum.

1.2 Proposed amendments to Standing Orders

The Forum must consider the following amendments to its Standing Orders if it wishes to retain the practice of enabling members that are attending remotely to count towards a quorum. These changes are set out in the Recommendations section of the report, with track changes provided in Attachment 1:

1. Remove Statutory References under section 1.2 relating to the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 that have expired (repealed) for completeness.

2. The Definition for being ‘present at the meeting to constitute quorum’ needs to be amended;

3. A change to Standing Orders 14.7 and 14.8 is required to maintain the current practice of holding hybrid meetings, with both virtual and physical attendance of members, to count towards a quorum;

4. Standing Order 14.9 (Chairperson’s duties) currently stipulates that the Chairperson must be physically present at a meeting to undertake the Chair’s duties. The Forum may wish to consider removing this requirement to enable the Chairperson to chair when attending via audio/audiovisual means. There is no requirement in the LGA that the Chairperson must be physically present to chair a meeting;

5. A change to Standing Orders 14.10 and 14.11 is recommended to remove the requirement for specific approval and notice to be given to attend a meeting via electronic means, although prior notice is preferable to facilitate the necessary practical arrangements;

6. Additionally, a correction is required to Standing Order 14.6 (Right to attend by audio or audio-visual link) to replace two incorrect standing order references 13.11 and 13.12 with 14.10 and 14.11 respectively.

The proposed amendments align with the intent of the amended LGA legislation to enable local authorities and committees to decide to make these provisions permanent, if they wish.

Under the Forum’s Standing Order 3.2, any amendment to Standing Orders must be made by the Forum and by a vote of not less than 75% of the members present.

1.3 Benefits of Amending Standing Orders

While physical attendance at meetings is the general preference, there are benefits to amending Standing Order provisions to enable remote participation of members to count towards a quorum:

1. There is less risk of a meeting being cancelled due to lack of quorum and in the event of an emergency, the Forum would be able to hold fully remote meetings and continue to conduct its business when the ability to meet in person is restricted.

2. Enabling members to attend meetings virtually and to count towards the quorum of a meeting supports effective meeting processes and recognises members’ individual and changing needs and ability to attend a meeting in person.

3. Reducing members’ meeting travel has a positive impact on emissions and minimises travel time and cost.

2. Considerations

2.1 Risks and Mitigations

Although there is an element of risk that the chosen audiovisual system/technology could fail, such risk can be mitigated by members attending via other means, e.g. mobile phone or a landline.

3. Next Steps

If adopted, the amended Standing Orders will be made publicly available on the Regional Council’s website. A printed copy of the amended standing orders can be provided to members on request.

Tuhinga Tautoko
Attachments

Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendments to Standing Orders (Adopted 4 December 2020) ⇩

Attachment 2 - Extract: Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 (Version as at 31 July 2024) - Part 2 Amendment to LGA 2002 ⇩

[1] Section 118 of the Ngati Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012 and Section 122 of the Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012.

[2] Section 119 of the Ngati Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012 and Section 123 of the Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012.

[3] Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act addresses matters of national importance and requires persons exercising functions and powers shall recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

[4]Tuhoe have taken a different approach of legislating Te Urewera as a legal entity in its own right.

[6] Schedule 7 clause 25A(4): replaced, on 1 October 2024, by section 49(6) of the Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 (2023 No 57).

Chairperson	Terewai Kalman (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa)
Deputy Chairperson	Te Taute Taiepa (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare)
Tangata Whenua Members
One appointed representative each:
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa	Karito Paul (Alternate)
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare	Jane Nicholas (Alternate)
Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Settlement Trust	Katishe McCauley
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa	Miro Araroa Mihipeka Sisley (Alternate)
Hineuru Iwi Trust	Koriiana Hooker Ngawai Crawford (Alternate)
Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua	Ngapera Rangiaho
Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa	Whakaeke Ritete Ngatoru Wall (Alternate)
Council Members
One appointed member each:
Whakatāne District Council	Cr Tuwhakairiora O’Brien Cr Wilson James (Alternate)
Taupō District Council	Cr John Williamson Cr Yvonne Westerman (Alternate)
Up to five appointed members:
Bay of Plenty Regional Council	Cr Malcolm Campbell Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti Cr Kat Macmillan Cr Ken Shirley Cr Kevin Winters
Quorum	Three iwi members and three Council members and must include a Ngāti Whare member and a Ngāti Manawa member.
Meeting frequency	Quarterly