The reaction to council letters telling some West Coast landowners their properties contain sites of significance to Māori has generated more heat than light. Is the agitation warranted? Lois Williams reports on what it all means.
In the past week, dozens of West Coast landowners have been told for the first time that they have a site of significance to Māori on their land.
As part of the work on a new district plan for the region and to comply with the law, the two coast iwi Ngāti Waewae and Kāti Māhaki ki Makaawhio - known as Poutini Ngāi Tahu - have had to identify places important to them, for historical or other reasons, on public and private land.
The 216 sites listed by the iwi include old burial and pa sites, but also landmark hills, places where noho wānanga (schools of learning) were held or famous battles were fought.
That’s caused something of a panic in some quarters - in part because council letters to affected landowners don’t say what and where the Māori-interest sites are on their properties.
Or what it all means.
Read more: Iwi soothe Coasters' property fears
They do warn that having such a site could affect landowners’ ability to develop their land and the new (unspecified) rules are now in effect.
The reaction has generated more heat than light, with lobby group Groundswell declaring another government land grab; splenetic posts on social media about state control; and anxious farmers ringing the runanga to ask what’s going on.
West Coast Regional Council chair Allan Birchfield has even called the sites a threat to race relations.
"First it was [Significant Natural Areas] then Three Waters and co-governance, they’re pushing te reo and now this. I’m getting calls from people making bad comments about local iwi. They’ve had enough. (The Government) should just back off and give people back their land,” he told Newsroom this week.
But is the agitation warranted?
Newsroom asked the planners who wrote the new Tai o Poutini Plan to spell out the implications of owning a site of significance to Māori.
Here are our questions and the response from project leader, Jo Armstrong.
Newsroom: In practical terms what will be the effect of having a sight of significance to Māori on your land? Ngāti Waewae chair Francois Tumahai said this week that nothing will change. But Regional Council chair Allan Birchfield says you will need a resource consent to clear or build on a site, and you will need sign-off from the iwi. Who’s right?
Armstrong: It’s a bit of both. In most cases where works won’t affect the cultural values on the site, there will be no need for a resource consent. As each site is different, there are different requirements in the plan, but as much as possible the rules require only a simple approval process.
In urban areas the sites generally include locations such as the Māwhera Incorporation-owned land in Greymouth, and former occupation sites in Westport.
Identification of this area on a property is just to inform the landowner that the area is of historical and cultural interest to Poutini Ngāi Tahu, and part of the rich history of the West Coast. These sites can still be used, developed or sold - just as normal.
In the rural environment ... parts of people’s land may have a site that requires local rūnanga approval to undertake an activity, like earthworks or native vegetation clearance, if it’s in an urupā (cemetery) or sacred maunga for example.
Some of these sites are also identified just to inform the landowner of their cultural significance.
But most do have some additional rules associated with them.
Rural environment rules relate to earthworks, buildings and structures, network utility structures, and in a very small number of sites, grazing and vegetation clearance.
If you were planning these activities within a site where these rules apply, then the rules require you to consult with the relevant Poutini Ngāī Tahu rūnanga and get a letter confirming that the activity won’t affect the cultural values of the site.
If the activity will impact on the cultural values, then you will need to apply for a resource consent.
The one rule that applies to all sites in the urban and rural environment is that landfills, waste disposal and hazardous facilities, intensive indoor primary production, wastewater treatment plants, wastewater disposal facilities or plantation forestry require a non-complying resource consent.
While these sites are all culturally important, the rules have been drafted as much as possible to have a simple approval process.
Newsroom: Can you confirm follow-up letters are going out to landowners detailing sites in question?
Armstrong: We are arranging further letters to landowners identifying the site on their property and the rules associated with it, and we are working hard to have the updated maps completed this week.
The fixing of the maps can’t come soon enough for Makaawhio chair, Paul Madgwick.
“One of the problems we’ve had apart from those letters going out prematurely is that the GIS maps are wrong in places and that’s caused unnecessary stress.”
Some landowners who followed the links online were dismayed to find their entire property corralled on the Regional Council map into a large site of interest to Māori, he says.
“In one case, the boundary has ‘slipped’ across the road from a mahinga kai site - a lagoon - and captured a row of houses at Gladstone, and those owners were very upset, and rightly so.”
The mistakes are partly down to the pressure on councils and planners to rush the new district plan out this year, Madgwick says.
“I can understand people’s concerns, but it’s not helpful to have Groundswell calling this a land grab and conflating it with the concerns about SNAs, which we share.
“Farmers are on edge already about all the stuff coming down from the Government like the freshwater and biodiversity regulations, and I have great sympathy with what Groundswell was originally trying to do.”
But Groundswell had fired off a list of questions to the Te Tai o Poutini Plan committee about the letters sent to landowners and not waited for a reply, before putting out an ‘inflammatory’ statement alleging accelerating “state control of land”, Madgwick says.
“They’re politicising this (sites of interest to Māori) and just pouring petrol on the fire.”
West Coast iwi and the committee have done their best to minimise the impact of the Māori interest sites on landowners, Madgwick says.
“We’ve tried to circumvent the need for people to get resource consents by just contacting the runanga, and getting a letter confirming there’ll be no impact on cultural values. There are very few sites where this would be an issue. And the sites don’t appear on any titles.”
The iwi will bear the cost of any inspection or advice needed on a particular site, Madgwick says.
Previous district plans on the West Coast have recognised historic sites but they’ve barely mentioned Māori, and Maori heritage sites have gone unrecognised, he points out.
“All councils have to identify these now, and we’ve had calls from people who are actually pleased and excited to find out they have a site on their land with historic importance for manawhenua. “
In the face of all the alarm and anxiety over places that matter to Māori, that is a heartening development, Madgwick says.
