Latest news with #WaitangiTribunal
NZ Herald
21-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Waitangi Tribunal pushes pause on seabed mining claim off Pātea, Taranaki
The Crown argued a panel has not even been appointed – and that iwi will contribute to that selection and get a say once the decision-making panel is working. The Waitangi Tribunal grants urgent hearings in exceptional circumstances: applicants must be suffering – or likely to suffer – significant and irreversible prejudice from current or pending Crown actions. Judge Reeves: 'I do not agree that the risk of significant and irreversible prejudice has crystallised, and the application is premature. 'The application does not yet meet the high threshold required to divert the resources and disrupt the tribunal's inquiry programme that would result by granting an urgent inquiry,' she ruled. 'However, leave is reserved for the applicants to renew their application if circumstances change.' Claimants said they had already suffered prejudice from their decade-long fight against TTR's mining application, through to defeating the company in the Supreme Court. Mana whenua said Government bias made the fast-track process unjust. Judge Reeves said the claimants believed 'the Crown's vocal support of the [seabed mining] project and the FTAA appears to make meaningful engagement with the applicants or delay of the project to pursue alternative remedies 'highly unlikely''. On Friday in New Plymouth Shane Jones – the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and of Resources – called opponents a 'belligerent, well-organised, rowdy bunch of activists'. He had previously dismissed mana whenua objectors as 'pixie-like hapūs' – which many felt was an insult that still rankles in South Taranaki. Taranaki mana whenua claimants to the tribunal are Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui and associated Ruanui hapū, hapū of Ngāruahine iwi, Te Korowai o Ngāruahine and Parihaka Papakainga Trust. Other parties include Climate Justice Taranaki, Ngāruahine's school Te Kura o Ngāruahinerangi and, from outside the region, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki, which also faces an FTAA application. For the fast-track bid to be rejected, the mine's negative impacts must significantly outweigh national and regional benefits – meaning environmental and cultural damage must be deemed greater than the money the mine makes for Taranaki and New Zealand. Last Thursday, the organisers of the fast-track decision process ordered TTR to show where it had updated its evidence since losing in the courts. 'Almost all of the technical appendices are dated 2015 and were obviously prepared to support the 2016 application. Only a handful of those reports were updated in 2023 or 2024,' panel convener Jennifer Caldwell noted. 'The Cultural Values Assessment report, prepared by an independent consultant in 2017, was not updated despite what must have been new information as to the Māori concerns.' A month earlier, panel conveners ordered the Environmental Protection Authority to dig into the proposed seabed mine's environmental and economic impacts. Every day of operation for at least 20 years, the mining ship would discharge 180,000 tonnes of unwanted seabed sediment, a recognised pollutant, into the abundant waters of the Pātea Shoals. TTR claims regional benefits of: 305 jobs directly with the miner. 1125 Taranaki-based jobs indirectly. $250 million annual Taranaki operational spend. Port upgrades at New Plymouth and Whanganui. A TTR charitable grants trust. A report for the miners predicted annual national gains of $55 million in royalties, $136m in corporate tax and $855m in foreign exchange earnings. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
RNZ News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Waitangi Tribunal pushes pause on seabed mine claim
The Tribunal parking the seabed mine claim is a rare setback for mana whenua who've resisted Trans-Tasman's plans since before the first application in 2013. Photo: Te Korimako o Taranaki The Waitangi Tribunal has rejected the application to halt a fast-track bid to mine the seabed off Pātea - but has left the door open if the process turns out to be unfair. Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) has applied through the new Fast-Track Approvals Act (FTAA) to mine for iron, titanium and vanadium in the South Taranaki Bight. Multiple South Taranaki hapū and iwi sought a Tribunal injunction to block processing of the fast-track application, and an urgent hearing into alleged Crown Treaty breaches. But Tribunal deputy chair Judge Sarah Reeves agreed with the Crown that the fast-track needed a chance to be proven fair. The Crown argued a panel had not even been appointed - and that iwi will contribute to that selection and get a say once the decision-making panel is working. The Waitangi Tribunal grants urgent hearings in exceptional circumstances: applicants must be suffering - or likely to suffer - significant and irreversible prejudice from current or pending Crown actions. "I do not agree that the risk of significant and irreversible prejudice has crystallised, and the application is premature," said Judge Reeves. "The application does not yet meet the high threshold required to divert the resources and disrupt the Tribunal's inquiry programme that would result by granting an urgent inquiry," she ruled. "However, leave is reserved for the applicants to renew their application if circumstances change." Claimants said they had already suffered prejudice from their decade-long fight against TTR's mining application, right through to defeating the company in the Supreme Court. Mana whenua said government bias made the fast-track process unjust. Judge Reeves said the claimants believe "the Crown's vocal support of the [seabed mining] project and the FTAA appears to make meaningful engagement with the applicants or delay of the project to pursue alternative remedies 'highly unlikely'". On Friday in New Plymouth Shane Jones - the minister of oceans and fisheries, and of resources - called opponents a [ "belligerent, well-organised, rowdy] bunch of activists." He had previously dismissed mana whenua objectors as "pixie-like hapūs" - which many felt was an insult that still rankles in South Taranaki. Taranaki mana whenua claimants to the Tribunal are: Trans-Tasman Resources boss Alan Eggers says the seabed mine would bring jobs and riches without harming the environment. Photo: Te Korimako o Taranaki Other parties include Climate Justice Taranaki, Ngāruahine's school Te Kura o Ngāruahinerangi and from outside the region Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki who also face an FTAA application. For the fast-track bid to be rejected the mine's negative impacts must significantly outweigh national and regional benefits - meaning environmental and cultural damage must be deemed greater than the money the mine makes for Taranaki and New Zealand. Last Thursday the organisers of the fast-track decision process ordered TTR to [ show where it had updated its evidence] since losing in the courts. "Almost all of the technical appendices are dated 2015 and were obviously prepared to support the 2016 application. Only a handful of those reports were updated in 2023 or 2024," noted panel convener Jennifer Caldwell. "The Cultural Values Assessment report, prepared by an independent consultant in 2017, was not updated despite what must have been new information as to the Māori concerns." A month earlier panel conveners ordered the Environmental Protection Authority to dig into the proposed seabed mine's [ environmental and economic impacts]. Every day of operation for at least 20 years the mining ship would discharge 180,000 tonnes of unwanted seabed sediment, a recognised pollutant, into the abundant waters of the Pātea Shoals. TTR claims region benefits of: A report for the miners predicted annual national gains of: LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ on Air.
Scoop
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Chris Bishop's Halt To Council Plan Changes Risks Further Development Of Waikanae Cemetery
Kāpiti Coast iwi Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai are devastated at the news the Government will halt all council plan changes until 2027, as they await the hearing of a local plan change to have a cemetery designated as waahi tapu. Kārewarewa urupā, located at Waikanae Beach, has a long and complex history, being utilised since 1839. It was sold by the Māori Trustee in 1968 to a private company under the impression it wasn't a cemetery, and lost its cemetery designation in 1970, despite local kaumātua objections. Half of the cemetery was developed into housing in the 1970s, creating a painful grievance for the local iwi. More recent attempts to develop the other half in 2000 resulted in the discovery of 11 buried individuals, and development has halted since. The most recent application to develop the remaining land was in 2019. Following an urgent report by the Waitangi Tribunal in 2020 into the urupā history, identifying the need to protect the urupā, the Kāpiti Coast District Council have worked on a plan change they've notified to designate the urupā as waahi tapu, providing protection from further development, and a means of ensuring residents don't find themselves in the uncomfortable position of purchasing housing on cemetery lands. However, Minister of Resource Management Reform Chris Bishop announced earlier this week that the Government would be halting all Council planning work in New Zealand, including plan changes, until the implementation of his new Resource Management Act in 2027. 'We echo the concerns of other communities across Aotearoa who are highlighting a wide range of troubling consequences this halt is creating, by stripping communities of the ability to manage their own affairs and ensure development happens in a manner that our own residents want' says iwi resource management expert Dr. Mahina-a-rangi Baker. Treaty of Waitangi claimant and local kaumatua Tutere Parata says 'As an iwi we've had to deal with the impacts of development that has historically happened against our wishes or without our input. We've had to support distressed residents who through no fault of their own discover they're living on a burial ground, sometimes encountering human remains. Halting this plan change only puts more people at risk. Regardless of what any future resource management law says, Waikanae residents won't want to live on a cemetery.' Chairperson of Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Rawiri Tāwhai-Bodsworth says that the halt has serious implications for not only us as mana whenua, but all our community. 'By taking away the tools that we rely upon Council using to protect our taonga, such as urupā and waahi tapu, the Government is again breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi, after a long painful history of successive breaches and ill treatment. We want the breaches of Te Tiriti to stop.' Dr. Baker says the announcement highlights what she says is a lack of understanding on the part of Ministers as to what communities and local government are dealing with on the ground. 'The issue isn't that Councils need to reign in spending, the issue is that we have a range of critical resource management responsibilities devolved to our Councils, with the lowest levels of tax devolution to local government in the OECD. The Government should be addressing the funding model for local government, not stripping the tools that enable us to develop and protect our communities.
Otago Daily Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Using principles and the making of laws
Where principles and law-making meet. Photo: ODT files What are we to make of the various principles we have been hearing about recently: a principle of neutrality that is supposed to support the principle of free speech; a principle of tolerance; three principles in the Treaty Principles Bill; the Waitangi Tribunal's Treaty principles; and the principles of the Act New Zealand party. Some try to live by the principle of moderation in all things, others by the 10 pre-eminent biblical principles. Many would apply the principle of equality as equal pay for equal work. Then there are the principles of human rights and indigenous rights. It would seem that a majority of people write and speak of principles as if they are infallible statements to be read off verbatim — and that is usually the intention. It was United States psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who formally reinforced a belief that acting in accordance with universal principles is the highest level of moral development. But since 1958, Kohlberg's claim has been thoroughly criticised, especially for being more characteristic of a male way of thinking about the world, contrary to a caring approach. Kohlberg's claim also presupposes that universal principles override particular facts and feelings which are fundamental to moral, legal and scientific considerations. In this short space, I aim to pour doubt on uncritical confidence in the wide use of principles to steer decision-making. To do that, I would like to consider two basic characteristics of principles that such use tends to run slipshod over. They amount to an inescapable interplay of faith and reason. The first characteristic of principles is that they are expressions of beliefs. Belief is another way of looking at faith commitment, irrespective of what that commitment might be anchored in: a deity, tradition, philosophical ideology or a particular interpretation of nature. We necessarily put our trust in principles in order to guide us in decision-making because there never is access to all the facts and feelings surrounding any particular matter. However, the irony here is that although principled thinking is a key tool in rational thought, it is also essentially founded on belief that cannot be fully justified. Principles are adopted in faith. Where then do principles come from? Being beliefs, they have no observable physical existence as objects or behaviours. They exist merely as ideas, even as very useful ideas. So we always need to ask, "whose ideas?" People usually invent principles to exert power and dominate, forcing others to bend to their way of thinking — what they consider "right". Therefore, we always also need to ask, "on whose authority?" and "will I accept or challenge that authority?" Like assumptions and other beliefs, principles are not a suitable basis for discussion. Unless they are widely held, they are divisive. The idea that overarching principles can act as a check on all other principles illustrates the reality that they are designed to constrain and prevent open discussion and promote conformity. On the other hand, some other overarching principles, such as the twin principles of love God and love thy neighbour, can promote wide open inclusive discussion. It is well to acknowledge that some people presume universal principles actually do exist, somewhere out there, or within the human psyche; a core suite of affirmations about what is right and wrong (moral knowledge) that all of humanity can comprehend. Unfortunately, cultures and individuals continually disagree about which principles count because there is no aspect of reality against which to verify them. Yet, as biological beings inhabiting a global environment, the principle of interdependence is hard to beat. A second characteristic of principles that also brings into question their usefulness, is that they are generalisations. This means that they result from reflection on a host of particular situations. The important point here is that it is nonsense to suppose that generalisations, such as principles, will apply in all relevant situations. Exceptions are the rule. When considering how to legislate, act or adjudicate in a situation, particular facts and feelings are crucial. The relative importance of generalisations and particulars in discussion and decision-making is disputed territory. While some believe in the supposed authority of a generalisation (a principle or law), others believe in the supposed authority that the particulars of a case provide. Alternatively, consider scientific principles and their applicability. It is often pointed out that science cannot to be trusted because scientific knowledge keeps on changing. This happens because scientific generalisations (principles and laws) are based not on beliefs as much as they are based on data sets (grassroots information, so-called facts) which keep on changing due to new observations about a changing world, and are more often than not, generated by new technologies. A good example is the recent article in Nature that discusses the use of satellite imagery and Argo floats instead of random sampling, to determine the saltiness of the Southern Ocean. This has provided a new understanding of sea ice melting. Here, there is a fit between particulars and generalisations which the use of principles per se cannot provide. I leave the following chicken and egg conundrum: do particular observations of objects and behaviours come first, or the generalisations generated by many such observations? In any case, the solution is not straightforward, and more so when we realise, as British historian Agnes Arber brought to our attention in 1954 in The Mind and the Eye, that the observer's mind brings generalisations and ideologies to observation through their eyes. Principled thinking is then, fraught with difficulty. The introduction of overarching principles as proposed by the Regulatory Standards Bill is, according to this analysis, a serious step backwards into denial of the status of such principles as power-mongering beliefs. Such a check on existing and new legislation by overarching principles is an unnecessary, if not mischievous, rationalisation. There are so many issues in health, education, corrections, welfare and the environment that elected members can surely troubleshoot through robust discussion with a commitment to co-operative non-partisan governance, without entertaining the Act party's divisive, road-blocking principles. • Ron Adams is a former teacher of ethics and theology in Dunedin.
Scoop
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Submissions Show Overwhelming Opposition To RSB
The Green Party is calling on Cabinet to stop the Regulatory Standards Bill, after only 19 of a total 208 submissions heard over the course of last week's submissions process supported the Bill. 'It couldn't be clearer that by a huge proportion, New Zealanders do not want this Bill passed,' says the Green Party's Regulation Spokesperson, Francisco Hernandez. 'Christopher Luxon and his Cabinet should see the writing on the wall here, listen to the people of New Zealand and put a stop to this deeply unpopular legislation. 'An emphatic 87% of submitters opposed the bill, and only 9% were for it. What's the point of all that consultation if it's going to be ignored anyway? 'After all those hours, all that engagement, all those expert submissions, to go ahead and pass this legislation shows this government's lack of interest in listening to expertise and experience. It's also hugely wasteful. 'Where are Seymour's yellow tape scissors now? Likely dulled by all the cuts being made to crucial public services. 'This Bill risks causing deep divisions, not least because of constitutionally significant ramifications for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and for Aotearoa, which is why the Waitangi Tribunal has warned it is a violation of the Treaty. 'As lawmakers we must listen to the overwhelming evidence, the mass of public opinion and expert advice. Stop this Bill now,' says Francisco Hernandez.
