Stormwater, Rāhui and the Ten-Day Survey
A city council plans a stormwater outlet through a coastal reserve 150 metres from a marae. The reserve contains a small midden site and leads to a shellfish bed where the marae placed a rāhui eight months ago after contamination. The council's consultation was a 10-day online survey with 43 responses and two public meetings; neither meeting was held on the marae. The council did not commission a cultural impact assessment. The project is funded and scheduled to start in six weeks; the consent application is limited notified. The marae committee has written twice asking for a hui and received an email saying the survey captured marae views. The council's iwi engagement policy requires early engagement with mana whenua, but the project manager says the policy is aspirational. The rāhui is not a legal ban; the council says it cannot enforce it.
1. Evaluate the council's consultation against tikanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. Do not rely on legal compliance alone.
Read the worked answer
Legal compliance is not the same as Te Tiriti partnership. A 10-day online survey with 43 responses and two off-marae meetings is thin, especially for a project 150 metres from a marae and a midden. The council's own policy requires early engagement with mana whenua; calling it aspirational undermines its credibility. Tikanga requires hui face to face, with time for kōrero, kaumātua leadership and whakapapa connection to the midden and shellfish bed. The rāhui is an expression of kaitiakitanga; even if not legally enforceable, it is a material cultural effect the council must consider. Active protection means identifying and mitigating effects on wāhi tapu and mauri, not just avoiding a legal breach. Good faith means not saying the survey captured marae views when the marae has twice asked for a hui. The consultation is flawed and should be redone before the notification period closes. The council should also consider whether limited notification is appropriate given the cultural effects.
2. Identify the tikanga issues raised by the stormwater outlet and the rāhui, and explain how they should shape consent conditions.
Read the worked answer
The tikanga issues are the mauri of the stream and harbour, the midden as wāhi tapu, the rāhui as a relationship of care, and the mana of the marae if the council proceeds without agreement. Conditions should include: a cultural impact assessment before consent; a buffer from the midden; no works during the rāhui or spawning; silt and contaminant controls; independent shellfish monitoring; a cultural monitor on site; an accidental discovery protocol for kōiwi; karakia before works; restoration of access; an annual hui; and council funding for monitoring. The rāhui should be recognised in the consent as a cultural restriction, even if it is not statutory. The outlet should not increase contamination. If effects cannot be avoided, the council should reconsider the route. Conditions must be enforceable, with review and mana whenua sign-off, otherwise they are only words.
3. Recommend a process the council should follow before works begin, and justify why each step matters.
Read the worked answer
The council should pause the six-week start and write to the marae acknowledging the flawed process. It should hold a hui on the marae within 10 days, bringing maps, technical reports and decision-makers with authority. It should commission a cultural impact assessment and an independent ecological assessment. It should consider alternative outlet routes and design. It should extend the limited notification period. It should negotiate a written agreement with conditions and resourcing, then report to the council and iwi committee. Works should not start until agreement is reached. Each step matters because the relationship has been damaged; a hui is not a tick-box but a chance to restore mana. The council should also review its engagement policy so that 'aspirational' is not used to excuse delay. If the marae withholds consent, the council should not proceed without a transparent, tikanga-informed decision and legal advice.