Details have emerged of efforts by Transport Agency Waka Kotahi and Heritage New Zealand to sideline a hapū grouping from consultation over the building of a passing lane on State Highway 3 in Taranaki.
Haumoana White. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin
The government agencies agreed to take a 'do the minimum' approach with Ngā Hapū o Poutama but are now at odds over what that actually means.
Ngā Hapū o Poutama are included in the Heritage New Zealand Archaeological Authority as a party to be consulted over the project on the Rapanui straight at Tongaporutu, along with Ngāti Tama.
Poutama hapū Ngati Wai kaitiaki Haumoana White is a neighbour to the site and said for him it was home.
"I've lived here and been associated with here for all of my 76 years. My dad was here before me. He died here, my wife died here. His father Te Oro, he lived here. I don't think they can deny we are tangata whenua."
But in minutes obtained via the Official Information Act of a November conference call involving Heritage New Zealand, Waka Kotahi and engineering consultants Beca, they discuss doing just that.
Parties on the call then talk about a workaround for dealing with Poutama who it is claimed have been difficult to work with in the past.
"One option is to seek to amend the Authority Conditions to achieve consistency, eg remove Poutama. Whilst this might seem an effective solution it could expose multiple projects to the risk of appeal and create delays. The general feeling in the meeting was that this was not the best option.
"A preferable option is to work within the existing conditions. A 'do minimum' approach should be applied with Poutama, eg notify but do not invite to site."
Waka Kotahi senior project manager Raj Rajagopal emails Poutama on 7 December advising them Inframax was awarded the contract on 30 November and the finish date is expected to be 9 November 2021.
Rajagopal tells Poutama, that Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto will carry out cultural monitoring of the site.
He, however, omits to give Poutama a start date for the project as per the conditions of the Archaeological Authority.
Poutama note the email, but don't respond.
In February, the pact between Waka Kotahi and Heritage NZ begins to unravel after Poutama make a formal complaint to the latter saying that the conditions of the Archaeological Authority are not being met.
Heritage NZ archaeologist Kathryn Hurren, who was on the conference call, fires off some questions via email to Rajagopal.
"I am seeking information from NZTA / Waka Kotahi in relation to the works and the involvement of Poutama the project to date:
"Did NZTA / Waka Kotahi inform Poutama of the start date of the project works?
"Were Poutama notified that archaeological material had been encountered during the project?
"Were Poutama provided with the archaeological assessments, work plans as well as updates associated with the project; and were they given an opportunity to discuss recent finds with project archaeologist?"
Rajagopal is taken aback at the change in tone from Hurren and says he will involve his superiors and legal team in any further discussions with Heritage NZ.
In addressing her questions, he refers back to the November conference call.
"It was decided at the meeting held between Heritage New Zealand, NZTA and the Mt Messenger team that communication with Poutama will be minimum and informing them of the works. Accordingly, an email was sent out to Poutama on December 7."
Rajagopal says having decided that Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto have "tikanga status" it was up to Poutama to seek access to the site from them.
White said it was Waka Kotahi's job to keep Poutama in the loop and he was not happy.
"I'm disgusted really. I don't think anybody should be treated in that matter in this day and age, but it's probably not unexpected."
He'd heard nothing from Waka Kotahi regarding taonga reportedly found on site.
"Not a thing. I don't even know now what they've found. I haven't seen anything others may have but I certainly haven't been informed."
White did not believe that was good enough.
"I believe that stuff belongs to us and we've got our own whare taonga where that stuff can be stored. It's not good enough, absolutely not."
Waka Kotahi infrastructure delivery acting regional manager Jo Wilton said it did have discussions with Heritage NZ about applying for a new Archaeological Authority that did not list Poutama as an interested party, consistent with other authorities it holds.
Wilton said it was not unusual for these meetings to take place early in the process, before involving relevant interest groups.
She said as with all its projects, Waka Kotahi would reflect on what had worked well and what could be improved as part of the wrap-up for the passing lane job.
Heritage NZ said it was unable to comment because it was involved in an Environment Court case with Poutama on a separate but related matter.
In 2020, Poutama Kaitiaki Charitable Trust and beef farmers Debbie and Tony Pascoe lost an appeal against a 2019 Environment Court decision which found they were not tangata whenua, or kaitiaki of the Mangapekepeke Valley - the route for the $200m Mt Messenger bypass on SH3.
It instead found Ngāti Tama had mana whenua over the land.
