Agenda of Maori Committee - 14 February 2017

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee

Date: Tuesday 14 February 2017

Time: 10.15am

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 for 14 February 2017 Meeting 3

4. Confirmation of Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 6 December 2016

5. Follow-ups from Previous Maori Committee Meetings 5

6. Call for Any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 9

Decision Items

7. Māori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference 11

8. Meeting Venues 25

9. Confirmation of Maori Committee Representation 27

Information or Performance Monitoring

10. Verbal Update on Current Issues by HBRC Chairman & CE

11. Identification of Tangata Whenua in Resource Consent Application and Notification Decision Processes 29

12. Lake Tutira Ecological Modelling Report 35

13. Re-release of Rabbit Calicivirus (RCD) 37

14. Statutory Advocacy Project Overview and Update 41

15. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 51

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Subject: Māori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the revised version of the current Charter between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Maori Committee of Council.

Background

2. The purpose of the Charter is to reflect the intent and expectations of both the appointed members of the Māori Committee and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council (HBRC).

3. There is an expectation that every three years the Māori Committee Charter, including the memberships terms of reference, will be reviewed to reflect the aspirations and Māori organisational structures that exist in this region.

4. An initial review of the Charter was conducted and discussed at the 6 December 2016 meeting. Council staff were requested to resubmit the draft for final approval at the first Committee meeting in 2017.

5. Attached are the draft Charter and amended Terms of Reference for the Committee’s review and comment.

Decision Making Process

6. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

6.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers in the region with an interest in the management of natural resources.

6.5. Options around the Māori Committee, including membership, have been explored through the review of the Charter and discussions with iwi, hapu and tangata whenua representatives on the Regional Planning Committee, as well as HBRC elected members and staff.

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

6.7. 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 Māori Committee:

1.1. receives and notes the “Māori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference” staff report

1.2. provides agreed amendments for inclusion in the final 2017 Māori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference

1.2. adopts the final 2017 Māori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference as amended.

2. The Māori Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2.2. Adopts and signs the 2017 Māori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference as amended and adopted by the Māori Committee on 14 February 2017.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner
Maori Policy Advisor

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

1	Draft Maori Committee Charter 2017
2	Amended Maori Committee Terms of Reference
3	Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015	Under Separate Cover
4	HBRC Standing Orders	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Subject: Meeting Venues

Reason for Report

1. It is the intention that the Māori Committee will hold some of its meetings throughout this year on marae or in various rohe to establish better connections with the community.

2. This report looks to initiate discussion against the Committee’s meeting dates as to locations and host responsibilities, including managing the agenda items.

3. Meeting dates for the Maori Committee are as follows:

3.1. Tuesday, 11 April, start time 10.15am

3.2. Tuesday 20 June, start time 10.15am

3.3. Tuesday 15 August, start time 10.15am

3.4. Tuesday, 17 October, start time 10.15am

3.5. Tuesday, 12 December, start time 10.15am

Financial and Resource Implications

4. Most facilities charge for use, and there are usually also additional charges for catering.

Decision Making Process

5. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

5.4. The persons affected by this decision are Maori Committee members and iwi/hapu throughout the Hawke’s Bay region.

5.5. Options that have been considered include holding all of the meetings in Napier, in the HBRC Council Chamber.

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

5.7. 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

That the Maori Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “Meeting Venues” staff report.

2. Requests that staff facilitate meetings in the locations and on the dates specified, being:

2.1. Tuesday, 11 April, start time 10.15am

2.2. Tuesday 20 June, start time 10.15am

2.3. Tuesday 15 August, start time 10.15am

2.4. Tuesday, 17 October, start time 10.15am

2.5. Tuesday, 12 December, start time 10.15am

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner
Maori Policy Advisor

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Subject: Confirmation of Maori Committee Representation

Reason for Report

1. It was noted at the 6December 2016 Māori Committee meeting, that the representative of Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui-a- Orotū Taiwhenua was to be confirmed.

2. The last few weeks also saw Dr Roger Maaka advising his intention to stand down as Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea representative.

Background

3. Since its inception in the early 1990s the membership of the Māori Committee has been coordinated by Tangata Whenua representatives themselves, in accordance with rohe structures.

4. As specified in the Committee’s Terms of Reference, there are 12 seats allocated to the Māori members, divided evenly over the four Taiwhenua boundaries. Three seats on the Council’s Māori Committee encompass the boundary of Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui-a-Orotū.

Representation

5. At the meeting conducted late last year, it was agreed that contact would be made with the Chairman of Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui-a- Orotū, Mr Garry Huata, to affirm a representative.

6. An email was forwarded to Council from Mr Huata on 20 December 2016 which confirmed that Peter Eden, as a Trustee of Moteo marae and a member for Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui-a-Orotū, was supported to represent this Board.

7. Mana Ahuiri Trust representatives, in discussion with the Māori Committee Chairman, Mr Mike Mohi, signalled their intent to remain on this committee. Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust also expressed their indication to the Chair for their representation on this committee.

8. Discussions regarding a replacement for Dr Maaka were held and agreement reached to appoint Paora Sciascia to represent Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea.

Confirmation

9. The Chairman of the Maori Committee has forwarded the following recommendations for membership appointments:

9.1. Mr Peter Eden as the Māori Committee representative for Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui-a- Orotū;

9.2. Mr Rangi Spooner as the Māori Committee representative for Mana Ahuriri Trust;

9.3. Interim appointment as the Māori Committee representative for Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust;

9.4. Mr Paora Sciascia as the Māori Committee representative for to represent Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea.

Decision Making Process

10. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

10.4. The persons affected by this decision are members of the Maori Committee and iwi/hapu with representatives on the Committee.

10.5. No other options have been considered.

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

10.7. 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 Māori Committee receives and notes the Confirmation of Māori Committee Representation report.

2. The Māori Committee recommends that Council confirms the appointments of:

2.1. Mr Peter Eden as the Māori Committee representative for Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui-a- Orotū

2.2. Mr Rangi Spooner as the Māori Committee representative for Mana Ahuriri Trust

2.3. _________________ as an interim representative for Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust pending a permanent appointment

2.4. Mr Paora Sciascia as the Māori Committee representative for Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea.

and amends the Māori Committee Terms of Reference accordingly.

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner
Maori Policy Advisor

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Subject: Identification of Tangata Whenua in Resource Consent Application and Notification Decision Processes

Reason for Report

1. At the Māori Committee meeting on 6 December 2016 the committee members asked what is the Council’s Māori Committee members (pertaining to the rohe) active notification and participation in consent application processes within the Hawke’s Bay Region.

Background

2. This paper reports on:

2.1. The process by which Māori Committee members are advised that resource consent applications have been received

2.2. Process for determining when resource consent applications are notified

2.3. The process consents staff follow to identify who tangata whenua (Hapū/Marae) are when tangata whenua are considered affected persons and the role of the Māori Committee members

2.4. The statutory provisions in relation to resource consents applications and statutory acknowledgement areas and statutory areas.

Resource Consent Applications received

3. Each Monday Barb Crawley, Senior Administrator Consents, emails out a list of “Applications Received” to a number of parties. This list includes the resource consents applications that were formally accepted in the previous week. Historically this list was sent to Viv Moule and he forwarded that list on to the Māori Committee members.

4. Following a change to Viv Moule’s role the Applications Received list was sent to Joyce-Anne Raihania to forward on to the Māori committee members. As Joyce-Anne Raihania advised the Māori Committee on 11 January 2017, the Māori Committee members will be sent that list directly from Barb Crawley to their email address.

5. Upon request any person can be added to the email list for receiving the “Applications Received” list each week. The list of applications received can also be found on the Council’s website.

6. The applications received have been formally accepted as meeting the requirements of section 88(2) and Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the applicant has provided sufficient information in the application to allow processing to commence. There is a possibility that further information may be required. At this stage, the decision concerning non-notification or notification of resource consent applications has yet to be made.

7. Provision of the list of resource consents applications received informs people that the applications have been received. It is not “notification” of the resource consent applications.

Notification of Resource Consents

8. Decisions on when resource consents are notified are made in accordance with sections 95A, and 95B – 95G of the RMA and, in the case of statutory acknowledgement areas or statutory areas, relevant sections of claims settlement acts.

9. Sections 95A, and 95B – 95G of the RMA relate to factors such as:

9.1. Magnitude of effects on the environment

9.2. Magnitude of effects on people

9.3. Public notification at applicant’s request

9.4. Rules of Regional Plans

9.5. National Environmental Standards

9.6. Special circumstances

9.7. Protected Customary Rights holders

9.8. Customary Marine Title groups

9.9. and the Council must have regard to every relevant statutory acknowledgement made in accordance with an Act specified in Schedule 11 of the RMA.

10. A recommendation on notification status is made by Consents Planners and confirmed by Manager Consents.

11. In relation to magnitude of effects on people, in making a decision on notification, the Council must decide that a person is an affected person in relation to the activity applied for if the activity will have adverse effects on the person that are “minor” or “more than minor”.

12. If the activity will have adverse effects on tangata whenua (iwi/hapū) that are “minor” or “more than minor”, tangata whenua must be considered affected persons. In the RMA “tangata whenua, in relation to a particular area, means iwi, or hapū, that holds mana whenua over that area”.

13. If the activity that will have adverse effects on tangata whenua is in proximity to a statutory acknowledgement area or statutory area, trustees of Post-Settlement Governance Entities may also be considered adversely affected persons (outlined further below).

14. When there are only specific affected person(s) in relation to a resource consent application the Council will “limited notify” the resource consent application. In some cases, prior to limited notification, the Council will ask resource consent applicants to seek written approval from affected person(s) as this may save parties the costs of proceeding through a notification process. Limited notification of affected persons is not required if affected persons have given written approval for a resource consent application.

15. In relation to magnitude of effects on the environment, if it is determined that a resource consent application will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are “more than minor”, the Council must publicly notify the application. In this publication notification process, the Council advises key parties that may be affected that the resource consent application has been publicly notified. For example, marae/hapū/iwi, treaty claimant groups, PSGE trusts, Department of Conservation, Fish and Game Council, neighbours and local authorities may be advised.

16. If it is determined that the application will not or is not likely to have effects on the environment that are more than minor and there are no adversely affected persons (or affected persons have provided written approval), the resource consent application will be processed on a non-notified basis.

Identifying tangata whenua

17. One of the roles of the Māori Committee through the current HBRC Māori Committee Charter is to provide advice to the consents team as to who tangata whenua (iwi/hapū) are in relation to resource consent applications when requested. Clauses in that Charter particularly relevant are:

Māori Committee Members' Responsibilities

34. Provide the Regional Council with appropriate Tangata Whenua contacts as and when necessary

35. When requested by Consents staff, provide appropriate Tangata Whenua contacts for those deemed ‘affected’ by a notified resource consent application.

Policies

Resource Consent Process (Article One & Two)

43. The Council will provide a documented process to enable relevant Tangata Whenua to have a meaningful input into publically notified or limited notified resource consent applications that affect them as either hapu/marae or iwi.

44. Relevant Māori members of the Māori Committee will at times be asked to provide appropriate Tangata Whenua contacts in relation to resource consent application(s) and in particular notified consents.

45. The appropriate contacts will be required to represent Tangata Whenua’s views in relation to the proposed activity requiring resource consent and may involve formal submissions either supporting or opposing the application and appearing at consent hearings.

46. The documented process will be reviewed at least every three years with members of the Māori Committee to ensure it is still relevant and effective.

Consultation Policy for tangata whenua Issues (Article One & Two)

Kanohi ki kanohi – Pokohiwi ki pokohiwi

Face to face – Shoulder to shoulder

49. The Council will endeavour to identify those with Mana Whenua (authority for that land) through the appropriate members of the Māori Committee on relevant occasions and in particular for resource consent applications.

18. The current process the Consents team follows to identify who tangata whenua are in relation to a resource consent application is:

18.1. The Consents Planner seeks advice from Joyce-Anne Raihania as to which HBRC Māori committee member should be contacted to identify who tangata whenua are in relation to the application

18.2. The Consents Planner asks the HBRC Māori committee member which marae and hapū are tangata whenua in relation to the resource consent application and ask for contacts for those marae and hapū

18.3. The Consents Planner communicates with the contact the HBRC Māori Committee member provides, explaining that tangata whenua may be considered adversely affected and ask tangata whenua who they wish to represent them. The Consents team acknowledges that it is not the role of the Council to decide who has the mandate to represent tangata whenua (defined under the RMA as iwi/ hapū). The decision on mandate to represent tangata whenua lies with iwi/ hapū.

Statutory acknowledgment areas and statutory areas

19. Statutory areas and statutory acknowledgement areas are common parts of cultural redress in treaty claim settlements.

20. The statutory provisions in relation to statutory area and statutory acknowledgment areas come into effect when implemented in claims settlement legislation.

21. Schedule 11 of the RMA lists the claims settlement acts that include statutory acknowledgements. The claims settlement acts currently listed in Schedule 11 of the RMA which have statutory areas partly or wholly within the Hawke’s Bay region and the corresponding trusts relating to the statutory areas and statutory acknowledgement areas are:

Treaty Claims Settlement Acts	Post Settlement Governance Entity trust for the purposes of statutory areas
Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Act 2012	Ngati Pāhauwera Development Trust
Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012	Te Rūnanga o Ngati Whare Trust
Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012	Te Rūnanga o Ngati Manawa Trust
Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Act 2012	Tāmanuhiri Tutu Poroporo Trust
Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Act 2013	Rongowhakaata Settlement Trust
Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Act 2014	Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust
Hineuru Claims Settlement Act 2016	Te Kōpere o te iwi o Hineuru Trust

22. The statutory areas and statutory acknowledgements are set out in schedules of the claims settlement acts.

23. Key statutory provisions set out in the above claims acts for Councils to follow in relation to resource consent applications in these areas are for a 20-year period on and from the “effective date” of the claims settlement acts:

23.1. For each resource consent application, the Council receives for an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory acknowledgement area or statutory area, the Council must provide a summary of the application to the trustees. The summary must be the same as would be given to an affected person by limited notification under s95B of the RMA or as may be agreed between the trustees and the Council. The summary must be provided as soon as possible after the application is received and before a notification decision is made under s95E of the RMA.

23.2. In relation to an application for a resource consent for an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory acknowledgement area or statutory area, in deciding, under s95E of the RMA, whether the trustees are affected persons in relation to the activity the Council must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement.

24. The “effective date” is defined in the claims settlement acts as 6 months after the “settlement date”. The “settlement date” means the date that is 20 business days after the date on which the claims settlement act comes into force.

25. Amongst other provisions, the above claims settlement acts also state that concerning activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory acknowledgement area or statutory area, the statutory acknowledgement can be presented by the trustees and any member of the iwi/hapū (pertaining to the claims settlement act) as evidence of the association with a statutory acknowledgement area or a statutory area in submissions and proceedings. In order for iwi/hapū to present this as evidence in submissions and proceedings, iwi/hapū would need to be notified as well as the trustees.

Decision Making Process

26. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Māori Committee receives and notes the “Identification of Tangata Whenua in Resource Consent Application and Notification Decision Processes” staff report.

Authored by:

Erin Petuha

Consents Planner

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Subject: Lake Tutira Ecological Modelling Report

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided to assist in understanding why Lake Tutira experiences algal blooms, and to assess management strategies for improving water quality in the lake.

2. Copies of the full modelling report are available upon request.

Summary of Findings

3. Ecological modelling was undertaken by the University of Waikato for options including reconnection of Papakiri Stream, lake aeration, geochemical engineering, and nutrient load reduction. The project used 6 years of water quality data collected by council and has been through the University of Waikato review process.

4. Lake Tutira appears to be often phosphorus limited – i.e. processes that supply phosphorus to the lake will increase the risk of algae blooms occurring. Fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by certain species of bloom-forming cyanobacteria may compensate for a shortfall in nitrogen supply when phosphorus is abundant in the lake. Therefore, mitigations that reduce phosphorus levels should directly reduce the risk of algal blooms.

5. The risk of algal blooms appears to be increased when nutrient-rich flood flows from Papakiri Stream overtop the stop banks, or backflow via the overflow channel. Preventing these intrusions should help to somewhat decrease the risk and duration of problematic algal blooms.

6. A full reconnection of Papakiri Stream would be detrimental to lake health. It would probably increase the risk of algal blooms and lead to an overall deterioration in water quality.

7. A partial reconnection of Papakiri Stream that allows low flows, but not high flows, to enter the lake is likely to have a lesser impact on water quality. This is because low flows carry substantially lower concentrations of nutrients and sediment in Papakiri.

8. Nutrient release from bottom sediments appears to be a source of ongoing nitrogen and phosphorus supply. These ‘legacy’ loads represent decades of accumulation, and may provide an ongoing source of phosphorus for decades to come.

9. Engineering solutions were modelled that attempt to keep phosphorus trapped on the bottom, and hence unavailable to drive algae blooms. Of the options modelled, mixing via aeration appeared to result in an immediate cessation of algal blooms, but only a slight improvement in overall water quality. A high degree of aeration and mixing was required to prevent bloom formation. Capping and flocculation approaches resulted in both a cessation of algal blooms and improvement in overall water quality, although a margin of uncertainty applies to these results.

10. Large reductions in nutrient and sediment losses from the catchment were required to have a substantial impact on overall lake water quality. It is difficult to predict long-term effects of catchment load reductions, however, because of uncertainty around how long the accumulated nutrients and sediment (legacy) will exert an influence for.

Decision Making Process

11. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Maori Committee receives and notes the “Lake Tutira Ecological Modelling” report.

Authored by:

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

Subject: Re-release of Rabbit Calicivirus (RCD)

Reason for Report

1. The European rabbit is a significant pest in New Zealand causing both economic and environmental loss. Control has been ongoing for over 100 years utilizing a range of techniques including trapping, shooting and toxins. Biological controls have been used for rabbit control and in 1998 RCD (Also called RHDV1) was illegally released into New Zealand as a rabbit biocontrol. Rabbits are in many cases now immune to the strain of RCD virus released in 1998 and a re-release of the RCD virus with a strain that helps to counter that immunity is proposed for Australia in autumn 2017. This next strain of RCD virus (RHDV1 K5) is currently going through an importation process in New Zealand with the possibility of release April - May 2017. RHDV1 K5 is not a new virus. It is a Korean strain of the existing RHDV1 virus already widespread in New Zealand. This report discusses that proposed release and broadly outlines Councils approach.

Background

2. In September 1995 Viral RCD escaped from an Australian Government approved testing area on Wardang Island to mainland Australia. In 1997, the New Zealand authorities considered importing RCD as a biological control agent of the European rabbit but decided NOT TO. Subsequently, New Zealand farmers illegally imported RCD virus from Australia and spread RCD in the Mackenzie Basin area, deliberately infecting rabbits to spread the disease throughout the country.

3. Unfortunately, RCD was released after breeding had commenced for the season, and rabbits under 2 weeks old at the time of the introduction were resistant to the disease. These young rabbits were therefore able to survive and breed rabbit numbers back up. While it varies from site to site rabbit populations are increasing across New Zealand with a large number of rabbits now immune to RCD. In the Hawkes Bay, regional blood sample monitoring has shown average immunity has gone from 8% to around 70% over the last decade.

Regional Pest Management Plan

4. Rabbits are a declared pest in the Hawkes Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s (HBRC) long term goal is to minimise the adverse effects of rabbits on the region’s biodiversity and economic prosperity.

5. To achieve this Council conducts targeted surveillance of rabbit prone areas and at its discretion will meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control on rateable land. The landowner economic need is the major trigger for Council support for rabbit control operations. Occupiers are responsible for the control of rabbits on their land. HBRC also monitors RHD immunity levels on known or suspected RHD areas and has a regional network of rabbit night count monitoring lines.

Re-release of RCD

6. Over the last decade Australian government and industry joined forces in a global search for a new rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV) strain to boost rabbit biocontrol effectiveness in Australia. The search and evaluation has led to a naturally occurring RHDV variant from Korea (RHDV1 K5) being selected. Australian authorities have given approval for the release of this strain in March/April 2017.

7. RHDV1 K5 is a variant of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV1) that causes a fatal haemorrhagic disease in the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). It is specific to the European rabbit, and once a rabbit shows symptoms, death is rapid. There is no treatment or cure for rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD); however, a vaccine for domestic and production rabbits is available.

8. The New Zealand Rabbit Coordination Group (RCG) and Landcare Research are seeking approval from Ministry for Primary Industries and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to introduce K5 into New Zealand. This will help control rabbit damage which costs the agricultural industry millions in control and lost production each year.

9. Both variants cause the same disease; however, the RHDV1 K5 variant is better adapted to overcome the protective effects of the immunity in Calicivirus detected several years ago in rabbits.

Impact of re-release of RCD strain RHDV1 K5 – A controlled release is important

10. A controlled release is preferable to ensure a higher-quality commercially prepared product is made available to rabbits. This will also allow the release to be appropriately managed and monitored. This approach will increase the likelihood of success and maximise benefits to farmers and the environment.

11. While exact knockdown figures are unknown, we do not expect to see population reductions like those seen with the release of Calicivirus in 1996/97. Knockdowns are expected to be conservative, depending on location and susceptibility of the rabbit population to RHDV1 K5, figures of between 30%-40% have been suggested.

12. The use of the RHDV1 K5 variant should improve the effectiveness of RHDV in cool-wet regions and continue to suppress rabbit numbers throughout their distribution, particularly in conjunction with other forms of control.

13. Domestic or pet rabbits are at risk from the RHDV1 K5 virus and a vaccine is available. The currently available RHDV vaccine will protect domestic/pet rabbits against RHDV1. There are no human health risks associated with RHDV.

National approval process

14. The New Zealand Rabbit Coordination Group (RCG) is coordinating the approvals processes. RCG includes representatives from regional and district councils, the Ministry of Primary Industries, Federated Farmers, the Department of Conservation, and Land Information. The applicant for the approvals on behalf of the RCG is Environment Canterbury.

15. Three statutory approvals are required to register, import and release RHDV1 K5 in New Zealand:

15.1. a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) approval

15.2. registration under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM)

15.3. an unwanted organism approval under the Biosecurity Act (BSA).

16. The Rabbit Coordination Group submitted a HSNO application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in September 2016 and this is currently being processed.

Proposed Release Date

17. The programme for securing the relevant approvals is targeted towards a release window of March/April 2017. This window aligns with the proposed Australian release, and is also when biological conditions are likely to be most favourable for RHDV1 K5.

18. The following high level programme is proposed to meet this release window:

18.1. Stakeholder engagement September to November 2016

18.2. Final permit applications (ACVM, HSNO and BSA) submitted October 2016

18.3. Approvals by February 2017

18.4. Importation February 2017

18.5. Release March/April 2017

Hawkes Bay Release

19. Subject to national approvals being gained biosecurity staff propose a Hawke’s Bay release of RHDV1 K 5 around May 2017. Staff are currently preparing an implementation plan for the proposed release which will discuss engagement with key stakeholders, operational delivery and costs. Costs will be met by the existing rabbit reserve. The implementation plan will be discussed with major stakeholders so that they are aware of what is proposed and have the opportunity to input into it. As RHDV1 K5 is a Korean strain of the existing RHDV1 virus already widespread in New Zealand discussion on the implementation plan will be the principle means of engagement.

Decision Making Process

20. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Maori Committee receives the “Re-release of Rabbit Calicivirus (RCD)” report.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 14 February 2017

SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Project Overview and Update

Reason for Report

1. At the Maori Committee’s inaugural meeting for the 2016-19 triennium, members requested further explanation of what the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project is and how that project’s activities are undertaken. This report provides those explanations and is twofold:

1.1. To provide a fuller description of the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project (HBRC project code 196) because some clarification was requested by members of the Maori Committee; and

1.2. To provide a summary of those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in. This is what past reports have regularly briefed committee members about.

What is the Statutory Advocacy project?

2. The Council’s Statutory Advocacy project centres on resource management-related proposals (initiated by third parties) 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 city or district council

2.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a city or district council

2.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a city or district council

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, discussion documents etc prepared by city councils, district councils, government ministries (e.g. Department of Conservation, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Primary Industries) or other agencies involved in resource management

2.6. proposed legislation (e.g. Bills, Regulations, national environmental standards, national policy statements and associated amendments).

3. To be clear, in all cases of the Statutory Advocacy activity, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is only an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on proposals put forward by others.

4. The regular Statutory Advocacy Update reports presented to the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee focus on formal submission stages of matters in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 above.

How is the Council’s position formed?

5. Essentially, ‘Statutory Advocacy’ is a cluster of initiatives to assist in implementing the Council’s own policies. This advocacy is highlighted in Figure 1 which is an illustration of the planning cycle and how different parts of the Council are involved in that process.

Figure 1 - Planning cycle highlighting 'advocacy' activities as part of implementing HBRC's plans

6. The Council’s ‘statutory advocacy’ position is typically informed by the Council’s own existing plans, policies and strategies, plus its land ownership and/or asset management interests.

7. There is quite a list of HBRC’s plans, policies and strategies (refer Attachment 1 which is graphical illustration of the list as previously presented to the Maori Committee meeting in December 2015). Each of those policy documents has a particular purpose. Consequently, for any particular proposal, those policy documents will have more or less relevance which is considered on a case by case basis.

8. The Strategic Development Group is responsible for coordinating the formation of Council’s position on resource management-related statutory advocacy proposals. For local proposals, planning staff liaise with staff from a variety of other sections to establish:

8.1. whether or not the Council has any relevant policy, asset management and/or land ownership interests relating to a proposal; and

8.2. if there are interests, then whether those interests warrant an advocacy response.

9. In relation to proposed legislation, relevant staff will typically review the proposal in the first instance. Where relevant, planning staff will seek input from various teams to formulate a draft submission for consideration by councillors.

How is advocacy expressed?

10. Expression of HBRC’s policy advocacy is typically communicated in the following ways:

10.1. Pre-application/during drafting phases of the proposal through relevant staff engaging with the proponent. This is typically in the form of face to face meetings and exchanges of written correspondence/comments. For example, staff liaising with city and district councils regarding draft versions of district plans, or liaison with developers before they lodge land use and subdivision consent proposals with the relevant city or district council.

10.2. Formal written submissions made to the administering authority and associated hearings and appeal processes (if relevant).

10.3. Joining court proceedings as an interested party (e.g. High Court proceedings regarding applications for Customary Marine Title and/or Protected Customary Rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act).

11. For many years now, the Council has delegated authority to lodge submissions on various resource management-related proposals to the Group Manager Strategic Development. In relation to Council making formal submissions on national legislation (i.e. as paragraph 2.6 above refers), the Council has not fully delegated that authority to senior staff.

12. At some stage during development of new legislation, the relevant Minister/Ministry of the Crown will typically invite submissions from any person. It is worth noting that these sorts of opportunities are extended to not only local authorities, but other interests too. Any person, group, organisation or company will have a chance to make their own submission on Bills, proposed NPSs, proposed NES etc.

13. On some occasions, opportunities exist to ‘share’ positions and impressions of proposed legislation with sector representative groups such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), and/or the collective of 16 regional councils and unitary authorities.

14. Preparation and lodgement of joint submissions with two or more like-minded agencies (for example, a joint submission on proposed NPS on Urban Development Capacity by HBRC, HB territorial authorities and the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group; joint submission on a proposed NES for Plantation Forestry by HBRC, PanPac Limited and Hawke's Bay Forestry Group).

15. Best endeavours are made to present draft submissions on proposed legislation to the Council for consideration. Some of those draft submissions would be presented to the Regional Planning Committee for consideration when they directly relate to proposed amendments to the RMA, national policy statements, national environmental standards or similar national regulations. However, this is all very dependent on submission deadlines relative to committee and council meeting schedules.

16. In the past, due to timing constraints, some submissions on proposed legislation have needed to be made with only authorisation from the Chief Executive, Council Chairman and/or co-chairs of the Regional Planning Committee. Some of these challenges will be mitigated by the Regional Planning Committee meeting far more frequently (i.e. monthly) during 2017.

17. Copies of any formal submissions made by the Council on resource management-related proposals under the banner of the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project are routinely uploaded and can be accessed from the Council’s website^{^[1]}.

Statutory Advocacy Update

18. A summary of those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in is outlined in Attachment 2. This update covers the period 1 November 2016 to 31 January 2017. During 2017, similar reports are intended to be presented bi-monthly, rather than every monthly Committee meeting.

Decision Making Process

19. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Maori Committee receives and takes note of the Statutory Advocacy Project Overview and Update report.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	HBRC Strategies and Plans
2	Statutory Advocacy Project Update

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