Ngati Whatua's Ngarimu Blair says most of his hapu would not know the NZ Māori Council even existed. Photo / Dean Purcell
Tribal authorities such as Ngai Tahu are fighting a bid by the New Zealand Māori Council to limit the role of iwi in setting up planning committees under Resource Management Act reforms.
It is a battle royal in the Waitangi Tribunal between iwi-based groups who say they have the rangatiratanga, and pan-Māori groups who says the distinctions between the groups divide Maori into first-class Māori and second-class Māori.
And once legislation is introduced to Parliament later this year, the bill is likely to become another magnet for debate over co-governance.
The bill replacing the RMA, the Natural and Built Environments Bill, is still being drafted but is expected to be introduced in October.
The Government has decided that there will be 14 regional planning committees throughout New Zealand comprising representatives of the local government and of Māori.
They will be autonomous decision-making bodies that will have to prepare a plan for every local authority in the region and monitor its implementation.
How the Māori representatives are to be selected was the subject of a priority hearing in the Waitangi Tribunal last week.
The Government has given a broad outline of how the Māori representatives should be selected but it says there will be a large amount of flexibility within each region to allow for self-determination.
The Government wants iwi authorities and groups representing hapu to lead and facilitate discussions in each region as to how to appoint its Māori representatives.
They will be required to consult other Māori entities, such as the New Zealand Māori Council or the Federation of Māori Authorities. But iwi and hapu are to take the lead role.
They will be required to keep a record of engagement and to make it publicly available.
If they cannot reach agreement on how the Māori reps will be appointed, there will be a dispute resolution procedure set out in the bill.
The committees will be a minimum of six altogether and a minimum of two Māori representatives.
The Māori Council believes that what the Government is proposing is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The tribunal will deliver its findings by September 2.
The case also involves many luminaries, including the former Waitangi Tribunal chairman and former High Court Judge Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie, on the side of the Māori Council, and the former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, acting for Ngai Tahu.
Durie said post-settlement governance groups (legal bodies that receive Waitangi settlements), were "centralist, western constructs at odds with Māori custom and international standards for indigenous representation."
The Māori Council said iwi groups, the New Zealand Māori Council and the Federation of Māori Authorities should be responsible for leading the process to determine Māori representatives on what it calls "partnership bodies" in each region.
Pan-Māori advocate John Tamihere, who is the chief executive of Te Whanau o Waipareira, the chief executive of the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency (Woca), and an executive member of the National Urban Maori Authority (Numa), hit out at modern iwi organisations and post-settlement governance entities as "elite" groups.
"Modern Iwi organisations such as PSGEs are feudal tribal constructs, dominated by an elite group that have no genuine connection to Māori at the hapū or whanau level. They are inadequate in that they cannot address the everyday problems of contemporary Māori life."
He said the Māori Council had reached the peak of its influence in the 1980s and was less effective now "to the point where you could say that it has run itself."
But groups such as Woca and Numa had not reached the peak of their influence and were thriving and growing by the day.
He said that in the planning committee appointments, Numa and its network of urban Māori authorities needed to have a leadership role in the same way that iwi post-settlement governance groups and hapu entities are recognised.
"It is a breach of te Tiriti for mana whenua Māori to be treated as first-class Māori, while tangata whenua Māori are treated as second-class Māori.
"There should be no first and second class when it comes to Māori, for we are all equal."
Lisa Tumahai, the kaiwhakahaere of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, responded to criticism of the role of post settlement governance groups.
She set out the structures of Te Runanga and its 18 different regions, and the connections it has with members wherever they live.
Professor Rawiri Tau of Canterbury University, who is the head of Ngai Tuahuriri, Ngai Tahu's largest hapu, disputed Durie's evidence.
He said many iwi adopted post-settlement governance entities not to become more western "but to become more themselves."
"That is not westernisation; it is modernisation."
The Māori Council was an example of a westernised institution imposed on Māori by the Holyoake Government under a law in 1962.
"Rangatiratanga in the Ngai Tahu takiwa resides exclusively with Ngai Tahu. There is no room in Ngai Tahu tikanga for any other answer."
Riki Gage gave evidence for the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group and said his iwi, Te Whanau a Apanui, considered the NZ Māori Council "an institution of the state" and would not exist were it not for the statue creating them.
"They were simply empowered by the Crown to represent 'all Māori.' This, in and of itself, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
"To further entrench that breach by entrenching the NZMC 'as of right' into representative bodies as the NZMC seek is perverse, and it is an entrenchment of colonial breach we are not prepared to tolerate."
Ngarimu Blair, of Ngati Whatua Orakei Trust, said the New Zealand Māori Council was not relevant to Ngati Whatua "and likely never will be".
"Most our hapu, especially our rangatahi, have no idea that NZMC exists. Nor do representatives of NZMC have the requisite mana or knowledge to establish any credible presence in our rohe of Tamaki."
A submission by Ministry for the Environment deputy secretary Janine Smith said that in order to uphold rangatiratanga under the Treaty did not necessarily mean it was appropriate for the Crown to play an entirely passive role.
"Being too flexible could open up the process to numerous legal challenges and could undermine the principles of partnership ... "
"We sought to strike a balance between providing for self-determination and greater inclusion for Maori groups, while also recognising the need for a low level of prescription to ensure the efficacy of the new system as a whole."
The tribunal panel comprised chairman Judge Wilson Isaac, Dr Robyn Anderson, Ron Crosby, Dr Grant Phillipson, and Professor Pou Temara.
The hearings were deemed part of the inquiry into national freshwater and geothermal resources (Wai 2358).
'You don’t want to be doom and gloom your whole life. That's just a miserable way to live'