Local government
As a nationwide pressure group denounces a move towards the “state takeover of private land”, West Coast Māori says the inflammatory letter that sparked the outcry should not have been sent
West Coast Iwi leaders are urging landowners not to panic over letters from the municipality stating that their properties contain important Māori sites.
The letters sent to 1,500 property owners from Karamea to Haast say new rules governing everything from Māori sites to heritage and biodiversity areas are now having legal effect under the combined West Coast district plan announced this month. .
But the letters from the so-called One Plan committee don’t say what the locations are, where they are on a property, or why they are important to Māori.
They do not explain any new rules that may apply.
And a website link in the letter, meant to direct owners to a map with specific information, didn’t work.
false warning
Ngāti Waewae chairman Francois Tumahai says the letters raised unnecessary alarm and should not have been sent.
“We made people ring” [iwi offices] to say ‘does this mean I can’t build a shed?’ and some think iwi wants money for these sites – it’s been crazy.
“What we want people to know is that nothing changes. Having a site doesn’t stop you from doing something, and it’s not about royalties or anything like that.”
National planning standards require municipalities to identify sites of interest to the Māori in their districts, and Poutini Ngāi Tahu (west coast iwi) has done so for the new plan, Tumahai says.
“There are 216 sites from Milford to Kahurangi Point in the north that are important to manawhenua and some are on private property.
“There are old pa sites, mahinga kai sites, old urupā – places that play a part in our history. This is for your information as a landowner only; it doesn’t limit you. And if you already had an old cemetery on your land, wouldn’t you want to know about it?”
Many key locations are in Greymouth, where much of Mawhera Māori’s land is leased to businesses.
But residents of Arahura Pā had also received letters, which left them as bewildered as pakeha property owners, Tumahai said.
Information missing
Tumahai and Makaawhio runanga chair Paul Madgwick, both members of the One Plan committee, had expected letters to affected property owners to provide detailed information and access to working maps online, Tumahai said.
“But they didn’t. The information was not there; the cards didn’t match and on top of that the website crashed because everyone was rushing to it. We can fully understand the alarm caused. Paul and I have rolled up our sleeves.”
Landowners concerned about an area important to Māori can call the council, Tumahai said.
“Actually, they’ve already done that.” He planned to visit a caller, a Barrytown resident who was concerned he wouldn’t be able to put a shed on his property, to reassure him.
The debacle will be rectified and a new batch of personalized letters will be sent soon, Tumahai said.
Meanwhile, the communication blunder has fueled the flames of unease among opponents of central government influence over rural councils and nervous about what co-government with Māori might mean.
“The state takeover of private land is accelerating,” national lobby group Groundswell thundered this week.
Compensation care
It said West Coast property owners had been told “out of the blue” that their properties were “destined for acquisition through state control with immediate effect”.
“By taking this draconian action, municipalities have now turned anything of cultural, historic, or natural value into a liability…without compensating for loss of use or a decline in property values.”
West Coast Regional Council chairman Allan Birchfield agrees.
Although the municipality has a mana whakahono ā rohe agreement to cooperate with manwhenua, he thinks the new rules go too far.
“When we were working on the plan, I didn’t realize how many sites would be involved. I thought she [iwi] wanted to protect cemeteries, and so on. And honestly, you wouldn’t want to build on that, but now they’ve lined up all those other sites too – it’s too much.”
Contrary to Tumahai’s claim that nothing will change for landowners, Birchfield says it will inevitably happen.
“To develop any of these sites, you need permission from the sources and you have to log out of iwi, so it’s not without consequences.”
The proposed Te Tai o Poutini district plan was announced this month and submissions closed at the end of September.
Made with support from the Public Interest Journalism Fund
