NGATI WHATUA NGA RIMA O KAIPARA TRUST

Transcription

1 NGATI WHATUA NGA RIMA O KAIPARA TRUST PO Box 226, Te Awaroa Helensville Phone: ; Environment 9851; Health 7594; Facsimile: 9317 Website: Bebo Hakinakina Taiohi: bebo.com/kaiparamaori Nga Marae e Rima: Reweti, Haranui, Te Kia Ora, Te Aroha Pa, Puatahi SUBMISSION OF NGATI WHATUA O KAIPARA LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND LAW REFORM) BILL 12 February 2010 Prepared by Jane Sherard, Kaiarataki CE in consultation With comments received from various Ngati Whatua hui korero, joint attendances at external hui with IHI (Iwi Have Influence), Social Wellbeing LG 20 November 2009, LG Conferences & Mayoral Panels and Te Puni Kokiri Information Hui Orewa & Waitakere.

2 Committee Secretariat Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee Office Parliament Buildings, Wellington Tena koe This submission follows a suite of previous Ngati Whatua manawhenua iwi, hapu collective 1 submissions put to the following forums. 1. Tribal hui with Royal Commissioners, Mt Albert (May ); 2. Senior Advisors Royal Commission office, Auckland (09 September 2008), 3. Select Committee Maori sub committee hearing, Orakei Marae (September 2009) 4. Select Committee Public hearing, Parnell and Hibiscus Coast (September 2009) 5. Auckland Transitional Agency, Newmarket (October 2009) 6. Local Government Commission (December 2009) updated January 2010 We wish to speak to our submission requiring approximately 20minutes to adequately present the full extent of our issues. Our comments and immediate recommendations have been sorted into sections covering the key issues we consider paramount. We however also reserve the right to provide a supplementary when Ngati Whatua o Kaipara presents. FUNDAMENTALS The devolvement of Central Government obligations to the new Auckland Council of Te Tiriti o Waitangi Articles and the subsequent Treaty of Waitangi principles of implementation The legislative obligation of the new Auckland Council to independently maintain and/or enhance upon the continuing engagement arrangements held with the mandated and representative tribal organisations (separate to the proposed Maori Statute Board) Recognition of equity in terms of process and representation within the proposed Bill Subsequent proposals to reorganize the Auckland governance arrangements. MAORI STATUTE BOARD Purpose of the Board; Clarifying the proposed Bill in terms of membership tensions; Board advice / recommendations not contributing to decision making especially on culture heritage, environmental (including utility infrastructure) and water allocations The extent of the relationship between the Board and the new Auckland Council; Adequate resources, including the Secretariat; PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS Manaakitanga (take care of, endorsement) for Pacific and Ethnic communities and Social Wellbeing / Community Economic Development mechanisms Council Committees membership elections; Privatisation and/or sale of Council owned assets Council Controlled Organisations; Regional Parkland; and Conclusions 1 Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua, Kaipara, Orakei and Te UrioHau governance, management and trusteeship whanau members in attendance 2 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As in the time of our tupuna speaking at the archived Kaipara Aotea (Shelly Beach) and Orakei Kohimarama series of tribal hui ( ), the before mentioned submissions ( ) reiterate the same intent to be welcomed into your Councils as of right of being Manawhenua iwi, hapu within our own tribal area. On 6 February 2010, New Zealand s diverse population participated in the nation s day of partnership. On the same day, the two Manawhenua iwi tribes in Auckland also saw the tino rangatiratanga flag flying on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Six days later we knowingly enter into a consultative submission process to comment on provisions within a series of work in progress Bills enabling a major and fundamental transformation in Auckland s local governance arrangements. It will be the cross political parties subsequent decision making in Wellington that will either cause Auckland as a region to flourish or falter. Given that the National Government wishes to be known as a Government of change, 2 such change should be in the positive rather than change for the sake of change and/or in adherence to the determinations of the Minister of Local Government. In stating the obvious, the regional and local benefits that can be derived through Manawhenua iwi, hapu post settlement arrangements in Auckland (urban and rural settings) are extensive. Working with our partnering interests for the betterment of all within our rohe remains a cornerstone of the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara philosophy. This is based upon our ancestral connections to the land and waters of Tamaki Makaurau. This is our anchor to keep things familiar but progressive for the future generations. Our whanaungatanga (kinship ties) between Kaipara and Orakei would lead us to work together as tribal hapu, marae on developing not only an economic development base for our whanau but by inclusion and consideration also, for the diverse population living among us. Therefore the Minister of Local Government s decision to decline the Manawhenua iwi, hapu previous offer (September 2009) to elect representatives into the new Auckland Council prior to its formal establishment by defaulting to the LG Electoral Act and public referendum orchestrates a delay. Referendums are highly cost prohibitive for all parties involved. In this instance, Manawhenua iwi, hapu would be placed in an untenable position of being subjected to the Maori football for political point scoring at tribal whanaungatanga whanau iwi ke expense 3. It is hoped that with the Tribunal settlements now being rightly given due attention by the Government will come political astuteness and maturity. The country requires Auckland to be working at its collective best, regionally and locally. Noting the pre determinations (1 st Bill); exclusion to equity (2 nd Bill) and further constraints in partnership decision making, CCO non accountabilities and workin progress legislative amendments (3 rd Bill); Auckland s collective best will be hard to achieve. To that effect, we repeat the offer to work together with all parties. We wish to ensure the gifts of land our tupuna gave for social & utility infrastructure between Kaipara and Orakei retain the mana and integrity for our future generations as was intended back in We would urge the National Government to enter into a legislative partnership of equity to improve the context and application of this proposed Bill so that shared regulatory, representation, and decision making capacity with the Manawhenua iwi, hapu of Tamaki Makaurau and the wider community can be realised. 2 Notes for Members Brief, Anne Carter, Deputy Secretary, Local Government & Communities, Section 7: Pg13 3 Relationships between Manawhenua and non manawhenua is the recognition that whakapapa (genealogy) underpins these connections, thus Maori of Tamaki Makaurau will always remain whanau iwi ke, (always be connected) from the four winds. 3 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

4 FUNDAMENTALS: 1. Central Government devolvement to Local Government Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations As stated in previous Ngati Whatua o Kaipara submissions, the continuing devolvement of legislative obligations between central and local government is a risk to both local government itself and the public at large. Manawhenua iwi, hapu engage on the basis of their ancestral mana (prestige, integrity) and rangatiratanga (self determination, authority within their tribal rohe). These are recognised and protected by Te Tiriti o Waitangi between the parties of each geographic tribal area and the Crown and its agent, the Government of the term. Devolvement in terms of using the Local Government Electoral Act and/or public referendum to determine whether the Manawhenua iwi can take up their rightful position as a co governing partner is effectively a requirement that orchestrates delay. Recommendation: That the Government make provision for designated tribally elected representatives (by Manawhenua and Taurahere Maori) to directly contribute to shared decision making by either: Incorporating the establishment of Manawhenua iwi representational seating as recommended by the Royal Commission 4 with relevant amendments or; Undertaking the Electoral College voting mechanism jointly offered by Ngati Whatua and Tainui in August/September 2009 Giving a prescribed directive, mechanism and timeline to do so within the new Auckland Council s final establishment phase by the Minister of Local Government. Rationale Note to the Select Committee: All options of the above mentioned recommendation will assist the inaugural Mayor and/or future mayors to ensure: The Auckland Council fully exercises its responsibilities within their elected term to satisfy the central government devolvement of the Crown s Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. Gives effect to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provisions requiring councils and other parties to take appropriate account of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local government decision making processes, especially water. (issues of tribal heritage, land and water are areas of interest solely for the tribal domain of Manawhenua iwi, hapu) 2. Maintenance and/or continuation of existing engagement arrangements already held with respective Councils (identified by the proposed Bill as separate to the proposed Maori Statute Board) The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill states the Maori Statute Board shall not undermine existing arrangements between Council and tangata whenua pursuant to the Local Government Act. Ngati Whatua o Kaipara however has reservations on this application given the extent in which the legislative principles of the LGA and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are marginalised in the proposed Bill. 4 Similar Ministerial Appointments to the Ministry of Health & Disability and/or Health Research Council 4 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

5 The clear absence and non consideration to how the existing arrangements that Manawhenua iwi, hapu have with the Councils within their tribal rohe can be transferred leaves the statement lacking in its implementation. In the absence of legislative guidelines, there appears to be an assumption that the Auckland Transitional Agency has allowed for this clarity. This is not the case! Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara maintains an office in Rodney District Council to achieve direct working access to its staff. When necessary, Council bring Consent applicants, consultants and utility consultants to our offices in Te Awaroa, Helensville. We also meet with central government utility infrastructure 5 projects and various Biosecurity & biodiversity projects co managing the effects of the rural settings around our five marae, Kaipara and Mahurangi harbours and all Council regions therein. At the least, we would expect a similar arrangement to be established with the new Auckland Council as part of our tribal Manawhenua iwi, hapu marae existing arrangements. It is poor strategic and legislative policy writing to leave this aspect up to chance or good faith on behalf of the Minister of Local Government to direct as such. His constant default to the Local Government Electoral Act 1974 is simplistic by nature and to that end, the legislation must be more coherent and robust in its terminology, applicability and implementation processes and expectations of the users. Therefore as articulated in our Local Government Commission submission (updated 10 January 2010), it is requested that either ATA and/or this proposed Bill clearly articulate the mechanisms of transfer of existing arrangements, e.g. similar to the LTCCP, Area Management Plans etc. Any ambiguity on this section will subsequently traverse to the Bill s associated regulations for the new Auckland Council and render any implementation of relationship with Manawhenua iwi isolative and ineffective thus undermining the existing arrangements. That the proposed Bill clearly contain specific reference to the Articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and/or the Treaty of Waitangi principles. That a distinction of separation between the Maori Statute Board and the existing arrangements with Manawhenua iwi, hapu organisations with the new Auckland Council is clearly articulated in the proposed Bill. That the proposed Bill clearly prescribe how the new Auckland Council will maintain the existing arrangements held by Manawhenua iwi, hapu groups as above mentioned. That the same transferring process utilised for the Councils LTCCPs and other planning documents be used to transfer Manawhenua iwi, hapu Memorandum of Understanding, Agreement of Engagements and other arrangements to the new Auckland Council, Local Boards and relevant Council Committees. 5 Ontrack NZ Rail, NZ Transport Agency, Watercare Biosolids, Energy Generation, MaFish, Landcare, NIWA, Auckland Regional Council (Parks, Stormwater, Planning) and Councils Rodney, North Shore, Waitakere operative covering both coasts and population growth. 5 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

6 Rationale Note to the Select Committee: Given the Maori Statute Board seemingly can develop a measure of influence and thus is regarded as having improved the partnership situation of consultation, it however remains a consultation mechanism without any decision making capacity. This is extremely relevant with regard to the Manawhenua iwi, hapu being full excluded in the decision making and operations of the two identified Council controlled organisations previously identified by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara as priority relationships: Clauses 19, 24, 45, 49 52, 91, 92, 96; Schedule 1, Schedule 2: 3. Recognition of equity in terms of process and representation within the proposed Bill The non practical implementation of acknowledging and working with the Manawhenua iwi, hapu rangatiratanga within their own tribal area will impact upon implementing effective relationships pursuant to the pending Tribunal Claim settlements with the new Auckland Council. This will be evidenced especially after the Deed of Settlements are finalised for enactment in terms of any co governance and co management relationships now emerging for the betterment of the region, e.g. Kaipara Harbour, Waitakere Ranges, Regional Parklands and Conservation Areas impacted by regulatory decision making made in isolation. That the relationship between Manawhenua and non Manawhenua based on the recognition of whakapapa (genealogy) underpinning those connections to the land and waters within ones tribal area are included in the proposed Bill. That recognition of equity correlates with pending Tribunal Claim settlements engaged in co governance and co management arrangements with the Crown over identified areas of interest as agreed upon in the Deed of Settlement. That integrated governance and/or management committees are established at both regional and local levels with members of the new Auckland Council and/or its identified Council Committees. Rationale Note and Live examples to the Select Committee: Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group, established by Ngati Whatua (Te UrioHau hapu and Nga Rima o Kaipara) with central government agencies and community NGOs for the Kaipara Harbour Deed of Acknowledgement given to Ngati Whatua 6 and Kawerau a Maki in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act The writer presented the Ngati Whatua (Te Runanga and Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara) submissions at the Primary Production select committee hearing and facilitated parliamentary vote requests 6 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

7 4. Subsequent proposals to reorganize the Auckland governance arrangement. Clause 59 prohibits the receipt of any proposals to reorganize the local governance arrangements for the Auckland until after the 2013 election. The proposed Bill gives scant rationale for the weighting applied as this clause removes all consideration. Recommendation: That Clause 59 be altered to ensure there is a legislative opportunity to apply for the reorganisation of the new Auckland Council should significant issues arise from the passage of this proposed Bill (in its current state and/or with minimal change recommended by the Select Committee) Rationale Note and Example to the Select Committee: Due diligence should be applied to this proposed Bill in that there should always be a capacity to review a legislation that with the luxury of foresight, is shown as flawed. MAORI STATUTE BOARD From one of the previous Local Government Amendments (No. 8) Bill 1989, it is worthy to note Local Government has come full circle with the added component being that of statute recognition and constrained powers. Also there have been several attempts in which Ngati Whatua o Kaipara has participated in as a mark of our good faith tenacity. The most recent was the Manawhenua Establishment Working Group and its changed successor, Tamaki Regional Manawhenua Group now under review for the purposes of modelling the Board structure. Like the above mentioned Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group, this was also led by Manawhenua iwi seeking Local Government to enact and/or enhance upon its obligations. The legislative impediment was the constant defaulting between central and local government on who implements the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to what extent with Ngati Whatua as well as who had regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore it is considered the current devolvement of Central Government obligations to Local Government in terms of Auckland s political governance arrangements has already been litigated and should be relied upon to enact strengthened mechanisms within the current proposal to properly establish the above mentioned Board. 1. Purpose of the Board Clause 67 states the purpose of the board is to assist the Auckland Council in making decisions, performing functions, and exercising powers. There is a subtle point of difference omitting the words carrying out existing legislative requirements. This is an important omission as it would be difficult for the Local Government Act 2002, Section 4 and Section 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (incumbent with all the various other references in other legislation pursuant to Local Government Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations) to apply and/or adhere to. Further there is another case whereby the point of difference between the planning behind the Maori Statute Board is comparatively less that that put toward the powers of Local Boards carefully set out in section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 and within this proposed Bill. The same Clause 67 establishes the board as a body corporate. 7 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

8 This is an acute point of difference as the Maori Statute Board status and powers are broad under body corporate. It is noted the purpose of the Board is similar to that of the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002 and that Part 7 CL 69 (b) as part of the Board s general functions is to develop a schedule of issues of significance to Manawhenua iwi and Maori Tamaki Makaurau alike. This clause is supported by the requirements in Schedule 20 CL (3) the agreement must include the Board s work plan for the year. Therefore, the expectation of the Board to deliver on its work plan that all levels of the new Auckland Council decision making processes including the Local Boards when it does not have accessibility to all the levels of the new Auckland Council will impede the Board unnecessarily in its work plan execution. That the Board s purpose is the same as the Local Government Act 2002 which ensures all potential areas of interest for Manawhenua and Maori of Tamaki Makaurau are covered. That there should be clear mechanisms and tools to ensure that the Board can access all levels of the new Auckland Council and Local Boards. That it is recommended that further consideration and analysis of the current drafting of body corporate in clause 67, by comparison with section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, be undertaken to determine whether a submission should be made to clarify the status and powers of the board as a body corporate. That the responsibility to achieve accountability for the Board should also lie with the Minister of Local Government in addition to the Minister of Maori Affairs. That there is clarity between the processes identified in the proposed Bill for decision making within the Board. It is preferred that this be either the same as the new Auckland Council (majority vote with casting vote) OR utilise the Manawhenua tikanga a iwi processes. Rationale to the Select Committee: Given the Minister of Local Government is the propellant for the Auckland Local Governance arrangements he should not abdicate this responsibility solely to the Minister of Maori Affairs. 2. Board advice / recommendations tenders declined and subsequently not taken into account There appears to be no mitigation in terms of membership tensions, and decision making being contrary to Board tendering to give advice on culture heritage, environmental planning (including utility infrastructure) and water quality. That the Board membership is increased to a minimum of four years and a maximum of two terms with a rolling membership process. This will depoliticise the Board s process from the Auckland Council s local body election processes. That the Board representatives of non Manawhenua sit on the board but shall have no voting rights and shall not be counted in the quorum but shall be considered as if they were full members of the board with respect to eligibility, terms and remuneration. 8 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

9 That the proposed Bill clarifies a number of provisions in Part 7 of the Bill and Schedule 3 relating to the establishment of the Maori Statutory Board, it s scope and applications. Noting the Board is to tender its advice to the Auckland Council to have its advice taken into account, what are the rights of appeal or dispute settlement processes provided in the proposed Bill when their advice is overruled or ignored. While the there is a promotion that should the Board s advice be overruled or ignored, the Auckland Council is to clearly state its rationale in doing so. This is compounded by no right of appeal for the Board to enter into clarification discussions with the Council. 3. Adequate resources, including the Secretariat As outlined in Part 7 (73), there should be equity in terms of resourcing the Maori Statute Board to the same degree of the new Auckland Council directorates, Local Boards and Council Controlled Organisations in order to ensure best business practice. Much of this is around the area of engagement with tribal and Maori ratepayers to validate and quantify the recommendations tendered. To that effect, these provisions should be supported by the Funding requirements outlined in Schedule 3 20 (1) to (7) and 28 Ability to delegate. The powers of the Board should also include delegations to create processes to enable the Board to achieve and deliver on the Board s purpose and as such the Secretariat should be equipped with staff, including Maori and non Maori with a high level of the appropriate requirements including a sound knowledge of local government, understanding of kaupapa Maori, te reo Maori and Manawhenua iwi, hapu relationships. That the proposed Bill clearly clarifies that the Secretariat retain a higher annual budget level similar to that afforded to the new Auckland Council Executive levels and/or Directorate Strategy & Policy of the Council Controlled Organisations. That at all levels of the new Auckland Council and Local Boards there should be facilities, internalised processes and mechanisms to ensure an effective Secretariat office. That the transmission of information on policies and Council activities and reciprocal recommendations is direct between the Auckland Council Chair and the Board. That the Secretariat also be adequately resourced to undertake Local Government research study. That there should be future functions of the Maori specialist teams within the new Auckland Council should be required to work closely with the Secretariat to meet its obligations to the Board. Rationale to the Select Committee: The above mentioned recommendations centre around the captured lessons gained from working with some key Council officers who seemingly maintain a gatekeeper role of interpretation and therefore marginalisation of Manawhenua iwi. (This reiterates our Royal Commission submission). 9 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

10 PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS: Please note these will also be further commented on at the hearing. 1. Manaakitanga to other people resident within a tribal area This has been well articulated in the Executive Summary and applies also to the Manawhenua iwi, hapu responsibility to acknowledge, endorse, and facilitate the care of those in residence within the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara tribal area. To that effect, Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara is also one of only two tribal organisations who deliver the Ministry of Social Development Family & Community Heartland Services. We introduce and work with all central and local government and NGOs to meet with the members of the community as well as working with our own whanau in a variety of working, personal and consent mitigation areas. Our purpose of venturing into this service delivery was to manaaki people resident within our immediate rohe. Our Orewa office also uses the same kaupapa with Council officers and the public. This will be sorely tested if our resources are stretched due to the new Local Government staff not coming out to the rural Kaipara to be relative to the actual areas. Emphasis needs to be stated that decision making between Ngati Whatua o Kaipara and Orakei are relevant to our respective takiwa rohe and therefore one cannot be expected to speak for the other because of the new Auckland Council office locations. It was considered necessary to state this clearly following some uninformed recent political statements assuming a one size fits all is the best approach. (a) Ethnic and Pacific Peoples advisory panels While a step in the right direct, the establishment of advisory panels in relation to Ethnic and Pacific Peoples (Clauses 11, 24 and 111) are supported however there appears to be no robust establishment processes included in legislation and an equally unclear ease of disestablishment. (b) There should also be a mechanism between these advisory panels and the Maori Statute Board, effectively also an advisory board to facilitate a commonality of people power between Manawhenua iwi, hapu, Maori ratepayers and several other groups. This would greatly assist with the aspirations of Community Development and Social Wellbeing areas of interest. 2. Council Committees membership elections The Maori Statute Board should have the capacity to identify and elect membership requirements on all Council Committees. This will assist with the internal processes for both the Auckland Council and the Board. This should take into account the provisions in the Local Government Act providing opportunities for people with particular expertise to be appointed to Council committees with full voting rights. The appointments of such nature also affirm the valuable input of Manawhenua iwi, hapu and Maori ratepayer resident to enhance their social, environmental, economic and cultural wellbeing. That the new Auckland Council is instructed to provide the opportunity for two Board members on all of its Committees. This will have a purpose to ensure effective engagement and applicability from the Board in order to perform its functions to good effect. 10 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

11 3. Privatisation and/or sale of Council owned assets The repealing of the Local Government Auckland Amendment Act 2004 under Clause 49 of this proposed Bill evidences the work in progress context. For example, Section 28 of the Local Government (Auckland) Act 2004, restrictions are placed on disposal of Council shares in Ports of Auckland Limited and a special consultative process is required in relation to any proposed sale of shares. With the repeal of such requirements combined with the appeasement moratorium of strategic asset sales until 1 July 2012, (Clause 62), any proposed sale or privatisation of Council owned or controlled assets and services will be able to be sold within a 24month period. Again, the privatisation by ambiguity and stealth appears to be part of a major agenda using legislative amendment schedules included in respective Bills to complete the exercise. 4. Local Boards The purpose of Local Boards should be expanded to include: Integrated enabling of local place shaping, local identity, cultural capital and local community economic development. Future post settlement social wellbeing and economic aspirations being planned by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara for marae whanau developments. Specific provision should be made for CCOs to develop working relationships with Local Boards to ensure the aspirations, needs and priorities of local communities influence the operation of the CCOs, and their operations with the public. This is also inclusive of any CCO arrangements with Manawhenua iwi, hapu organisations to engage with specific projects as agreed to by the tribe. Ngati Whatua o Kaipara has already identified and entered into existing CCO agency agreements and would expect these to be transferred using the ATA model once the Local Government provisions provide for this. 5. Council Controlled Organisations The establishment of CCOs for the Auckland Council has changed in this proposed Bill with the amendments of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act The amendments as seen in Section 35(g) effectively transfers the power gained by democratic election of the Auckland Council to the Minister of Local Government. This, combined with the additional Section 35(h) giving sole appointment powers of the CCO directors also to the Minister orchestrates a mechanism of control in the hands of one person. A concluding concern to the establishment of CCOs is that Clause 59 prohibits the receipt of any proposals to reorganize the local governance arrangements for Auckland until after the 2013 election. a) Watercare Services Limited (WSL) Pursuant to Clause 71 of this proposed Bill, Watercare Services Limited is the only CCO required to take into account any policies of and any direction given by the new Auckland Council until 30 June This date is in between the Local Body elections of 2013 and 2016 giving a settlement period of 12 months in operation. Combining this effect of Clause 71 with Clause 67 deleting the capacity of information to be gathered under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 after 30 June 2012, gives a highly indefensible monopoly mechanism sole being created for WSL no requirement to be transparent and accountable in their operations. 11 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

12 This warrants robust attention in terms of accountability and transparency not only to the new Auckland Council but more importantly to the resident voters and ratepayers of Auckland. It would therefore be appropriate for the new Auckland Council to lead a process of ensuring good fit rather than business as usual in order to achieve the Corporate Statement of Intent before the 01 November That Clause 59 be altered to ensure there is a legislative opportunity to apply for the reorganisation of the new Auckland Council should significant issues arise from the passage of this proposed Bill (in its current state and/or with minimal change recommended by the Select Committee) That all CCOs principles and the Corporate Statements of Intent should specify its level of commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and identify the extent of engagement with the Maori Statute Board, Tribal Manawhenua and Maori ratepayers. That should CCOs act contrary and/or in addition to their purpose as stated in the proposed Bill, this be permitted when there is a clear agreement of engagement from the tribal Manawhenua entity the CCO has had prior negotiations with. That duly elected Councillors should also have the appointment option of being a Director of a CCO. That CCOs enter into a legislative prescribed moratorium on privatisation, parkland nationalisation 7 and asset sales until such time that the Local Government Commission in conjunction with Local Government NZ and Ministry of Internal Affairs completes its a review evaluation on the new Local Government arrangements for Auckland following the 2013 Local Body elections. Rationale to the Select Committee: Given no background papers were released to help the resident & ratepayers understand the transfer of several current council activities to CCO structures and in the absence of feasibility and capacity, there should be a settlement period to evaluation the corporate model utilised in the context of CCOs, especially WSL. CONCLUSION: That it is reiterated that irrespective the model, structure, ward and local boards, appropriate decision making and engagement mechanisms should be in place so ALL the newly established agency organisations including the Control Controlled Organisations have the appropriate capacity to work with Manawhenua iwi, hapu within their own tribal area as identified by the natural taonga of waters 8 and mountains. 7 Any regional parkland under the current jurisdiction of Auckland Regional Council e.g. ACM Park, Waitakere Ranges 8 Hence inappropriateness of Auckland region boundary line splitting Kaipara Harbour and causing the current issue around boundary and regulatory distinctions that Manawhenua iwi Ngati Whatua iwi, hapu are subjected to on various competitive use. 12 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010

13 The Ngati Whatua tribal area has and will always overlay the Local Government area and organisational arrangements by virtue of our ancestral marae, urupa, land, waters and kinship whanau people presence amid the diversity of an increasing population and legislative systems blind to Manawhenua iwi tribal distinctions. We continue to query the absence of prescribed capacity of shared decision making and appropriate internal engagement mechanisms for Auckland Council, Local Boards and CCOs to work directly with Manawhenua iwi, hapu tribal organisations. This refers to the solution already given by Ngati Whatua and Tainui using the preferred Electoral Act in order to proactively share the partnering decision making positional responsibilities for the betterment 9 of the Auckland region as a whole. DATED at Te Awaroa/Helensville this day 12 th February 2010 M.J. Sherard Kaiarataki CE End Appendice: (Confidential to Select Committee Membership) 1. Tribal Royal Commission Powerpoint 2. Excerpts Conclusions and Recommendations from Local Government Commission submission 3. Kaipara Harbour Local Government (Auckland Council) submission supplement 4. Transport Roading Projects current with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara 5. RoNS Puhoi to Wellsford Structure with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara Letter of Engagement 6. Agreement of Engagement Watercare Services Limited Biosolids Trial 7. AIP Powerpoint (Permission to be given) with accompanying media articles 8. Letter to Auckland Transitional Agency and reply 9. Auckland Regional Council RPMP Technical Input from Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara 9 Ngati Whatua (Orakei and Kaipara takiwa) had already signaled improved GDP post Tribunal Claim Settlement arrangements as an economic commerce benefit to the Auckland region in its entirety as part of our overall tribal area. We had signaled both urban city and rural benefits. 13 P age- Updated Versions 12 February 2010