Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee

Date: Tuesday 17 February 2015

Time: 10.15 am (Morning Tea at 10.00 am)

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Short Term Replacements 3

4. Confirmation of Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 16 December 2014

5. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 16 December 2014

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 5

7. Follow-ups from Previous Maori Committee Meetings 7

Decision Items

8. Incorporating Tangata Whenua Views 9

9. Iwi Hapu Management Plans 17

Information or Performance Monitoring

10. Verbal Update on Current Issues by HBRC Chairman

11. Parliamentary Commissioner's Update Report on Longfin Eels 21

12. Estuarine and Coastal Water Quality verbal update

13. February 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update 23

14. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 29

Please Note - Pre Meeting for Māori Members of the Committee begins at 9 am

1. Two hour on-road parking is available in Vautier Street at the rear of the HBRC Building.

2. The public park in Vautier Street on the old Council site costs only $4 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3. There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street - it would be appropriate that the “Visitors” parks be available for the Members travelling distances from Wairoa and CHB

N.B. Any carparks that have yellow markings should NOT be used to park in.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 17 February 2015

Subject: Incorporating Tangata Whenua Views

Reason for Report

1. This paper is being considered by both the Maori Committee and the Regional Planning Committee at its meetings on 17 and 18 February 2015 respectively. Staff have prepared it in response to two matters:

1.1. the proposals put forward by the Maori Committee as part of the Long Term Plan process (see Attachment 1) and

1.2. the need to support the Regional Planning Committee, and particularly the Maori members in order for the RPC to be a fully conversant and capable of good decision making in relation to the planning process.

2. Staff propose that a small working group of Committee members and staff be established to develop a terms of reference for a review of:

2.1. how HBRC currently incorporates tangata whenua views across its activities at both an operational and governance level,

2.2. HBRC’s performance in that regard from a council and tangata whenua perspective; and

2.3. how other councils are incorporating tangata whenua views.

Background

3. Both Committees were given an opportunity early in the Long Term Plan process to identify areas that the Council should focus on over the next Ten Years. The Regional Planning Committee in particular has a specific role to reviewing the Resource Management Planning Programme for the ten year period.

4. Members of the Maori Committee presented a number of proposals for the Council to consider and these are provided in Attachment 1 along with HBRC’s initial response.

5. The issue of support for the Regional Planning Committee was traversed in the Regional Planning Committee workshops held in the latter part of 2014, particularly in terms of the capacity and capability of the Maori members to up-skill in RMA planning processes and to provide for secession planning,

6. It is also relevant that the Tukituki Cultural Values and Uses Report that was prepared by Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga as part of the Tukituki Plan Change supporting documents included three recommendations for the Council to consider.

7. The report suggested that HBRC may ‘need to undertake an audit / peer review to determine the extent that the overarching regional environmental outcomes include environmental Maori outcomes and indicators. The HBRC will also need to engage with mana whenua to evaluate whether the overarching outcomes relating to important environmental Maori cultural values are being achieved. This may involve an evaluation of the plans and their performance against cultural values indicators, outcome and monitoring measures framework constructed within this report’.

8. The similar report for the Tukituki River produced by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga also contained a raft of recommendations that could be considered in the wider context.

Discussion

9. Given the range of questions being asked of Council, staff propose that Council should take a broader look at how best it can incorporate tangata whenua values and how best it can support the Regional Planning Committee.

10. Exploring the answers to this question (Phase 1 of the review) would involve:

10.1. a review of what HBRC is doing now and how it is structured (eg Maori Committee, Regional Planning Committee, marae/hapu engagement in Council projects);

10.2. a review of how well those actions incorporate tangata whenua views from the HBRC’s perspective, tangata whenua perspective as well as other stakeholders perspective;

10.3. a review of how other councils are incorporating tangata whenua views and how well that is being perceived.

11. The review would incorporate the Maori Committee proposals and would provide them with a broader context.

12. If Phase 1 shows there are shortfalls or things that HBRC can do better, then Phase 2 would involve consideration of the options available and funding implications.

13. It is important that Council’s tangata whenua representatives both on the Maori Committee and the Regional Planning Committee approve the way this review is undertaken. It is therefore suggested that a small working group comprising four tangata whenua representatives and two Councillors assist staff in the development of a terms of reference for Phase 1 and the process for engaging an appropriate independent person to undertake the Phase 1 review. It is suggested that the membership of this working group be the Chair of the Maori Committee, the co-Chairs of the Regional Planning Committee. 1 other member each from the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee, and one other councillor.

14. This group would give final approval to the terms of reference and the selection process for the consultant.

15. In terms of timing, it is expected that this Review could be completed by 30 June 2015 if the contract was awarded by the end of March.

Financial Implications

16. Once the Terms of Reference are agreed, proposals and costing will be sought from suitably qualified consultants. It is anticipated that the cost of such a study could be in the order of $15 - 25,000, depending on the scope. It is proposed to fund this from Strategy and Planning Project 192.

17. Given the timing of Phase 1, we will not be in a position to provide specific funding in the Long Term Plan for Phase 2 but the Council may consider making a provisional funding allocation in the draft Long Term Plan.

Decision Making Process

18. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

18.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

18.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

18.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers for the region and the wider tangata whenua community.

18.5. Options that have been considered include not undertaking the review and considering discrete proposals for incorporating tangata whenua values.

18.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

18.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

The Maori Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Agrees to undertake a review of HBRC’s practices to incorporate tangata whenua values to determine how HBRC can best incorporate tangata whenua values and how it can best support the Regional Planning Committee.

3. Agrees to establish a working group of tangata whenua representatives from the Maori Committee (2) and the Regional Planning Committee (2) and Councillors(2) to assist staff in the Review Project, principally:

3.1. Agreeing the Terms of Reference for the Phase 1 Review

3.2. Agreeing the selection criteria and process for appointment of the consultant

4. Endorses the following Maori Committee members for the working group:

4.1 Mr Mike Mohi (Chair of Maori Committee)

4.2 ?________________ (Maori Committee member)

5. Considers provisional funding in the draft Long Term Plan for the implementation of Phase 2.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Councils Response to LTP Proposals from Maori Committee

Councils Response to LTP Proposals from Maori Committee

Attachment 1

Maori Committee Proposals and HBRC’s preliminary response

The following is a summary of the proposals submitted by Council's Maori Committee for early consideration in Long Term Plan process and Council’s preliminary response. The proposals formed the basis of a presentation by Roger Maaka, Marei Apatu, Mike Mohi and Shaun Haraki at the Council Workshop on Wednesday 17 September 2014.

The Council appreciated the presentation by the Maori Committee representatives and the thought that had gone into developing the proposals.

In summary, many of the proposals fall into current projects and do not require additional funding while other proposals do. Council’s response follows each proposal description.

1. Establishment of a second tier role- Group Manager Maori and a senior advisor role to actively assist with capacity building within Council. Important to provide support and a 'Maori resource' to staff, councillors and members of RPC. Vital to assist with capacity building. Helps build understanding for both partners. Possibility of resource to 'hire in' relevant 'experts' to assist (RPC)

Council’s Response

Provision has been made in the draft LTP for a new position in the Policy team for a Maori Policy Advisor. This role would have a focus on the resource management planning work that Council has before it over the next ten years and the engagement with iwi and hapu and the integration of cultural values into those processes and planning documents. It would support Council’s obligations with respect to the involvement of tangata whenua in resource management in the region. This role would also support the RPC. Consideration is alos being given to the establishment of a 2^nd tier position.

2. Establishing close partnership arrangements with post settlement entities. Note: this is about close partnership and not close 'working' arrangements; subtle but very important difference . Inclined to take more notice of our 'partners'! Includes provision to have Chair of Maori Committee attend RPC meetings with speaking rights but not voting rights.

Council’s Response

The existing 2^nd tier position of Group Manager External Relations has responsibilities for maintain relationship with tangata whenua whether it is the negotiating group or the post settlement entity. This position is held by Liz Lambert who is also currently the Interim Chief Executive.

There is a willingness of Council for the Chair of the Maori Committee to attend RPC meetings on an ex-officio basis. This will be formally presented to the RPC at its next meeting in February. 2015.

3. Prioritising wet land restoration projects with tangata whenua e.g. more Whangawehi type initiatives. Accepting tangata whenua priorities as important. Work where needed not necessarily where 'easiest'. Whangawehi an excellent example and an example of joint venture with Nga Whenua Rahui, Council and tangata whenua . Also joint assistance at Whaakaki.

Council’s Response

In general, Council is moving away from the approach of working with the people who want to be worked with to working in areas where it is most needed.

The Regional Landcare Scheme will be focused in priority sub-catchments or otherwise on projects that align with the objectives of the Land Management Operational Plan. The Biodiversity Strategy will also provide for an alignment for priorities.

Council has been working with the hapu of Bridge Pa on its restoration objectives.

Council is more than happy to work with tangata whenua groups where there is an alignment of outcomes and funding is available.

4. Work closer with hapu/marae on development and monitoring of waterways within their rohe. Facilitating initiatives with other government agencies. Look to leverage off other agencies particularly Nga Whenua Rahui. Build on successes which encourage others to take part. Encourage more tangata whenua involvement in monitoring requirements . Need to establish MOR with such entities .

Council’s Response

Work in this area has started with the development of a monitoring framework for the Papanui Stream. The Tukituki plan change also requires the development of a cultural monitoring framework and it is desirable that the framework could be used to develop cultural monitoring programmes for the whole region.

However, there is a lot of korero needed to develop this project and to understand what needs to be done to make it successful.

5. Promote and support appropriate training for hapu reps, MC members etc e.g. Cultural Health Index (CHI), state of Takiwai, RMA commissioner and other workshops and initiatives. Promotion and participation in science wananga.

6. Provision of scholarship(s) that help develop tangata whenua capacity to interact on resource issues on an equal footing.

Looking for Council to actively provide for appropriate training for tangata whenua opportunities across the various functions Council is involved in. This is also about capacity building that allows tangata whenua to be better informed so that discussions with Council are more effect ive.

As part of the spectrum of Maori capacity building we see the next natura l progression would be for Council to support scholarships. To allow for the ability of 'mature' student to be able to apply we suggest a contribution to cover their living costs for a year so they can 'survive' while studying. We recommend a sum of $70,000 per year.

Council’s Response

Council’s focus for training must necessarily be for the members of the Regional Planning Committee. Some training requirements will fall out of the cultural monitoring framework project described above.

The Council does not support a contribution to a scholarship at this time but it does have an existing cadetship initiative in the Asset management section as a means of addressing the skills shortage in that area.

7. Gas and oil mana whenua group

At present there isn't a region wide approach from tangata whenua to look at the issues around this subject. Looking to the Regional Council to take a facilitation role e.g. promote and assist with organising a regional forum for tangata whenua. Ensures tangata whenua are involved at an early stage rather than running to 'catch up'.

Council’s Response

Council has made funding available in the current year to commence public engagement on this issues with a view to determining whether a plan change is required. There has also been discussion more broadly around energy. While work on this has not yet started, Council will discuss these issues and the desired engagement with tangata whenua with the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee.

8. Promoting te reo wherever possible

Looking for Council to be proactive in the promotion of te reo. Also recognising the likelihood that Council will be required to provide translation options if Maori chose to present to Council using te reo, whether written or verbal. More likely in future as more te reo speakers come through.

Council’s Response

Council already responds to requests to present submissions and evidence in te reo at part of its hearings processes.

While the Council’s building has signage in te reo, more consideration is needed as to whether our publications could better promote te reo.

9. Encourage development of Maori tourism via tagged funding to Tourism HB

Look to 'tag' some of Council's contribution to Tourism HB to develop a Maori tourism strategy or to support Maori initiatives. There is a real opportunity for HB to build on the cultural value of the region and the ability to bring visitors to the Region based on Maori tourism development . E.g. Matatini, Iron Maori etc . To support Matatini we recommend $100,000 over next 2/3 years be set aside as potential Council's contribution .

Council’s Response

Tourism Hawke’s Bay has a contractual agreement with HBRC incorporating a number of key performance indicators. Their principal function is to attract people to Hawke’s Bay from outside the region. It is then up to each tourism facility to attract people to their own operation once they are in Hawke’s Bay. HBRC is proposing in its draft LTP to renew its funding agreement with Tourism HB for a further three years. As part of the discussions a new contract HBRC will put forward a KPI to seek an effective focus in their advertising campaigns by Tourism Hawke’s Bay on cultural opportunities for tourists.

With respect to Matatini the focus for HBRC is on working alongside the event organisers to support the readiness of marae facilities to receive and host their guests. HBRC has offered technical support in the first instance for an assessment of marae facilities to scope the level of upgrading required.

10. Encourage partnership development with Maori land owners e.g. land use capability studies.

Develop a strategy to develop closer working relationships with Trusts and Incorporations to promote sustainable land use practices and agri-business opportunities.

Council’s Response

One of the proposals in the Draft LTP is the development of an East Coast Hill Country Strategy. The Maori Committee has received a presentation on this concept during the year. Council would welcome a closer working relationship with key Maori landowners as part of that process.

11. Targeted sustainable Maori economic development initiatives.

Look to provide specific assistance to assist with Maori economic development. Will tie in with Treaty settlement s as well as other initiatives.

Council’s Response

Council already have some funding committed to Maori economic development. A review of the Regional Economic Development Strategy is currently underway and Maori economic development should be part of that. Economic development will no doubt be a focus for the Post Settlement Governance Entities and Council welcomes a relationship with them in this area.

12. Investigate opportunities for alternate energy options e.g. solar power for Marae.

Assisting with alternate energy sources for marae would not only benefit the marae community but also better prepare marae for emergency events.

Council’s Response

As discussed above, Council has already provided funding for the development of an energy strategy and the current budgets already provide for a solar power scheme subject to a feasible business case. These types of initiatives are likely to be explored as part of that project.

As part of the assessment of marae for their readiness for Matatini the assessment will look at their potential needs for emergency events. While initially this will apply in only the Ahuririi and Heretaunga rohe it can be extended to Wairoa and Tamatea for civil defence emergency preparedness purposes.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 17 February 2015

Subject: Iwi Hapu Management Plans

Reason for Report

1. This paper revisits the Council’s current process for receiving iwi/hapu management plans (‘IHMPs’). Questions have arisen about outcomes of the process potentially leading to a situation where an IHMP could be lodged but not officially ‘received’ for some time.

2. This paper is being considered by both the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee at their meetings on 17^th and 18^th February respectively.

Background

3. An IHMP is a planning document:

a) prepared by a whanau/hapu/marae/iwi; and

b) is recognised by an Iwi Authority (the authority that represents an iwi/hapu and that is recognised by that iwi/hapu as having authority to do so); and

c) is received by the Council.

4. Holders of a customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act may also prepare a planning document.

5. A planning document that is not recognised by an iwi authority does not possess the same status under the Resource Management Act (‘RMA’) as a IHMP that has been recognised by an iwi authority.

6. In relation to IHMPs, various sections of the RMA^{^[1]} require regional councils and territorial authorities to “take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority” when preparing or changing a regional policy statement, regional plan or a district plan.

7. There is no compulsion for whanau/hapu/marae/iwi to prepare a planning document, but a growing number of Treaty settlements are promoting preparation of such planning documents by post settlement entities with input from local authorities (for example, the Ahuriri Estuary management plan in draft Deed of Agreement for Mana Ahuriri’s claim).

8. In terms of IHMP content, there are no ‘templates’ or minimum requirements. Authors are free to determine content, style and layout for themselves. In recent years, a growing number of examples and guides have been published on the internet. The Council has also made a number of attempts to facilitate the development of a template for IHMPs.

HBRC procedure for receiving Iwi/Hapu Management Plans

9. In April 2013, the Council adopted a procedure for receiving IHMPs. That process is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Current process for receipt of IHMP by HBRC via Maori Committee

10. In short, once the step of lodgement has been completed, the IHMP is effectively ‘received’ by the Council.

11. The subsequent step involving a presentation to the Maori Committee (on a marae or at the regular meeting venue) provides some formality to the event. The presentation is not an opportunity for the Committee to evaluate and pass judgement on the IHMP’s content. The Committee is not being asked to adopt the IHMP being presented to it, just ceremonially ‘receive’ the document as is – regardless of content quality.

12. The Committee does not have the ability to reject a IHMP. Likewise, the Committee does not have the ability to defer or postpone formal receipt because technically, this has already occurred when the IHMP lodgement step was completed. This is a notable point of process implementation which has previously led to the Kahungunu ki Uta Kahungunu ki Tai (KKUKKT) Fisheries Strategic Plan lodged by Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated in August 2013 not being formally received by the Council under the current process, yet for all intents and purposes was already effectively received.

13. If the relevant iwi authority has already recognised the IHMP, then Council must receive it. Following from that, the Council must subsequently take it into account when preparing or changing regional policy documents under the RMA. How the Council might take each IHMP into account will vary, depending on a range of factors. Those factors may include:

a) geographic relevance of the IHMP(s) to the resource being managed/used

b) clarity and detail of IHMP content

c) relevance of IHMP content to the Council’s own roles and responsibilities under the RMA.

14. IHMPs may also be a matter that councils have regard to when assessing and making decisions on resource consent applications^{^[2]}.

Suggested process changes for receiving Iwi/Hapu Management Plans

15. With the current process having been in play for over 18 months now, it seemed timely to ‘check’ its workability. Staff consider there are three distinct matters for process clarification.

16. Firstly, the process needs to reflect that the Council ‘receives’ an IHMP at the time of lodgement.

17. Secondly, given that the Regional Planning Committee must take IHMPs into account in their role of policy development, it is appropriate that the Regional Planning Committee is presented with these documents.

18. If the Group does not want to take up the offer of presenting the IHMP as a location of its choice, an additional option of presenting it at a regular Committee meeting should be provided.

19. There is also the opportunity to encourage groups preparing IHMPs to seek informal comment on draft versions of IHMPs from staff before they are finalised and lodged.

20. Members of the Maori Committee could be provided with a copy of any future IHMPs.

21. Figure 2 summarises the process diagrammatically and indicates suggested changes in tracked changes styled text.

Figure 2 - Process for receiving IHMPs with suggested changes

Decision Making Process

22. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

22.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

22.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

22.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

22.4. The persons affected by this decision are those Groups preparing and lodging iwi/hapu management plans and all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

22.5. Options that have been considered include the status quo, clarifying the process and amending the process for receiving iwi/hapu management plans.

22.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

22.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That the Maori Committee:

1.1. receives the ‘Iwi/Hapu Management Plans’ report.

1.2. Agrees that any future iwi/hapu management plans are to be presented to the Regional Planning Committee.

1.3. Agrees that copies of any future iwi/hapu management plans are provided to members of the Maori Committee.

2. That the Maori Committee recommends Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2.2. Notes that iwi/hapu management plans must be received and are considered to be lodged at the moment the document is passed to the Council via a staff member or other duly authorised person (e.g. the Chairman) acting on behalf of the Council; and cannot be declined or returned to tangata whenua if the relevant iwi authority has acknowledged the iwi/hapu management plan.

2.3. Amends the Council’s process for receiving iwi/hapu management plans so that any such plans are presented to the Regional Planning Committee and copies of plans are provided to members of the Maori Committee.

2.4. Agrees that the Council continues to offer the opportunity for groups to present their iwi/hapu management plan(s) to the Regional Planning Committee at a location of the Group’s choosing or at a Regional Planning Committee meeting.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 17 February 2015

Subject: Parliamentary Commissioner's Update Report on Longfin Eels

Reason for Report

1. This report is to outline the main points of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s Update Report on longfin eels.

Background

2. The Maori committee discussed their concerns about the future sustainability of the longfin eel population in light of extensive commercial operations in June and August 2013.

3. The discussions resulted in a letter outlining the committee’s concerns about the longfin eel fishery, being sent to the Chief Executive of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated to present at a leader’s forum.

4. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment had produced a report in April 2013, On a Pathway to Extinction? An investigation into the status and management of longfin eel. This report highlighted the concern of many Maori, environmental groups, the NZ Conservation Authority and some scientists and local government representatives.

5. Based on those concerns the Commissioner began an investigation. This report is an update on that investigation.

6. The Commissioner concluded that there are three key pressures on the longfin eel fishery; fishing, loss of habitat and barriers to their migration up and down waterways.

7. The Commissioner recommended that commercial fishing of longfin eels be suspended, at least for some time. Further, that the Department of Conservation make better use of existing policy mechanisms to increase protection of eels and other migratory fish. Protecting habitat and removing barriers to fish passage along rivers. A third recommendation was the establishment of an independent panel to review the full range of information available on the status of the longfin eel population.

8. The respective Ministers for Primary industries and Conservation both agreed to recommendations 2 and 3 from the Commissioner in June 2013.

9. In August 2014, the Minister for Primary Industries announced his decision on the Commissioner’s recommendation related to suspending commercial fishing.

10. The Minister for Primary Industries indicated that following the report from the independent panel set up under the Commissioner’s recommendation 3, he decided not to suspend commercial fishing at this time. He indicated that the “best available information about the current status of the fishery suggests there is no sustainability concern to warrant closure of the commercial longfin fishery”.

11. The panel had indicated that there was a high probability that the longfin eel population had been substantially reduced relative to “pristine biomass”, but that there had been “some suggestion” that since the late 2000s there had been a slowing and perhaps even a halting of these declines.

12. Notwithstanding his decision the Minister did announce a set of management measures including:

12.1. A review of catch limits for longfin eels

12.2. Consideration of separate South island longfin and shortfin stocks

12.3. Introduction of abundance target levels, and

12.4. Improved information from the commercial longfin eel fishery.

13. In relation to recommendation 3 from the Commissioner, the Department of Conservation has agreed to address the following key matters

13.1. Improved legal protection of some eel populations and better protection of fish passages.

13.2. Public awareness and promotion of best practice e.g. drain cleaning.

13.3. Using government water policy reform to better manage freshwater fish and their habitat.

14. The Commissioner acknowledges that there has been progress but believes that the “weight of evidence” shows that the longfin eel population is currently in decline. She has undertaken to closely follow the progress on this issue.

15. While the Regional Council is not directly responsible for the eel fishery a couple of steps have been taken that supports the Commissioner’s recommendations that are within the scope of Council’s functions.

16. Along with other regional councils we have adopted a standardized approach for assessing the abundance of freshwater fish communities which is a component of our routine fish monitoring programme for the SOE reporting.

17. This council is also involved in establishing a fish barrier mitigation programme which will help identify and establish priority fish barrier work.

18. A report on these two initiatives will be presented at a future Maori Committee meeting.

Decision Making Process

19. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the report on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s Update Report on Longfin Eels.

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 17 February 2015

SUBJECT: February 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update

Reason for Report

1. This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 30 November 2014 and 31 January 2015.

2. The Statutory Advocacy project (Project 192) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3. In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own Plans, Policies and Strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.

4. The summary plus accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the February 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Statutory Advocacy Map
2	Council Update

Council Update

Attachment 2

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 31 January 2015)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
23 October 2014	HDC	1	Resource Consent Application Consent is sought to subdivide part of the property at 996 State Highway 2, Whirinaki into 15 residential sites.	Applicant The Evans Family Trust Agent Cardno	Notified	31 January 2015 · HDC held a hearing on 15^th December 2014 and HDC issued its decision on 19^thJanuary 2015. HDC decided to grant consent subject to various conditions and consequently declined HBRC’s submission. · The deadline for lodging an Environment Court appeal against HDC’s decision is 11 February 2015. · HBRC’s submission and presentation at the hearing opposed the application principally because the application site is in an area that has been determined as inappropriate for development in both the RPS and the 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. The subject site is also in an area indicated as at risk from tsunami risk and the application does not appear to consider the potential effects arising from this. 30 November 2014 · Submissions closed Monday 24th November 2014. · A submission was lodged opposing the application. A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions
18 July 2014	HDC	2	Notice of Requirement A Notice of Requirement for the Whakatu Arterial Link project to provide a road between Havelock North, State Highway 2 North, Pakowhai Road, the Expressway and the Port of Napier.	HDC	Notified, HDC hearing pending	31 January 2015 · HDC scheduled a hearing for 2-3 February 2015. HBRC and Regional Transport Committee to appear at the hearing. 30 November 2014 · Submissions closed Wednesday 20^th August 2014. · A submission was lodged supporting the Notice of Requirement and in support of the supporting submission lodged by the Regional Transport Committee. Both submissions can be found at HBRC Submissions · Details of the application can be found here Notice of Requirement
5 December 2013	NCC	3	Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan. A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.	NCC	Notified, NCC hearing pending	30 November 2014 · Submissions closed on Friday 14 February 2014. The HBRC submission can be found at HBRC Submissions · Details of Hearings timetables are yet to be publicised by Napier City Council.
8 November 2013	HDC	4	Proposed Hastings District Plan Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety. Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant.	HDC	Notified, HDC hearings in progress	30 November 2014 · HDC have commenced hearings on topic by topic basis. HDC’s hearings programme scheduled to run through remainder of 2014 into first half of 2015. · The HBRC Submission and Further Submission on the HDC Plan Review can be found here HBRC Submissions http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/HBRC Document Library/20140214 Submission HDC District Plan.pdf
1 August 2013	NA	5	Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.	Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)	Notified, High Court hearing pending	31 January 2015 · Applicant has filed revised details of the subject area and purpose of the application. Next step as directed by the High Court is for the Applicant to prepare evidence and circulate to parties. High Court yet to set hearing date. · Council has opposed the grant of the orders unless the nature and geographical extent of the orders is specified with sufficient detail to enable the Council to appropriately understand the effect of the orders sought. Submissions were also made by the Crown and Gisborne District Council, both seeking clearer specificity of the scope and nature of the orders being applied for. · On 26 Sept 2014, the High Court released a timetable for the provision of evidence by the applicant and other interested parties. The filing of evidence is expected to be complete by early 2015. No High Court hearing date has been set yet.

[1] see sections 61(2A)(a), 66(2A)(a) and 74(2A)(a) of the RMA.

Item	Topic	Councillor/Committee member / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.