Auckland sites needing a cultural assessment grow to 5,500

March 10th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Bernard Orsman writes:

The has confirmed that an extra 2000 or so properties are covered by a controversial rule requiring owners to seek iwi approval to work on their land.

A rule in the council’s draft Unitary Plan requires applicants carrying out work on 3661 sites of significance and value to mana whenua to obtain a “cultural impact assessment” from one or more of 19 iwi groups.

Now the council has told the Herald the rule applies to “significant ecological areas (SEA)”, of which more than 2000 were in the plan.

Maybe it would be easier for the Council to just provide a list of sites which don’t need a cultural assessment in order to remove vegetation etc. Eventually that will be the shorter list.

Politicians are divided on the iwi consent rule, which Auckland University associate law professor Ken Palmer said must be seen as invalid.

In a letter to the Herald on Friday, Professor Palmer, an expert on the Resource Management Act, said Labour amended the act in 2005 to clarify doubts over consultation, especially with iwi.

“The section unequivocally states ‘neither [an applicant nor a council] has a duty under this act to consult any person about the application’.”

Council chief planning officer Dr Roger Blakeley disputed Dr Palmer’s interpretation, saying a cultural impact assessment was not equivalent to consultation, but similar to a requirement to supply specialist reports, such as from an engineer.

Semantics. It is another step towards town planners undermining the rights of owners.

Professor Palmer did not agree with Dr Blakeley’s view, saying a specialist report might be justified on matters of land risk, noise and air pollution, etc, but any obligation to consult mana whenua on cultural concerns went beyond this “and impinges on normal rights of freehold ownership”.

Indeed.

Labour’s Maori affairs spokesman, , said the council should assure itself it was taking account of Maori criteria in the act because the average Kiwi would recoil when asked to engage in a long and expensive cultural impact assessment.

Mr Jones said no one doubted the need to embrace obligations to respect sacred sites, but the issue had morphed into something else.

I’m still waiting for someone in the media to pin Nanaia Mahuta down and ask her if she agrees with Shane Jones in his opposition to the cultural assessments. Or Phil Twyford. Or David Cunliffe.

Tags: , ,

46 Responses to “Auckland sites needing a cultural assessment grow to 5,500”

  1. wreck1080 (3,885 comments) says:

    the treaty settlement process may be nearing an end, but the maori claims industry is just getting started.

    My childrens children will be paying fees to maori too lazy to work for their own money.

    And, we have Geoffrey Palmer to blame. The man who has damaged NZ immensely.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Zebulon (100 comments) says:

    This is like a metatasised cancer. Evil, spreading out of control, and, eventually it will kill the host.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    This is a frightening and dangerous precedent for any land owner in NZ.
    I really fear for the future of this country…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (8,324 comments) says:

    Why complain?

    Anyone who is happy to have the Treaty considered a”founding ” document, the undefined principles thereof to be incorporated in law,the treaty be considered a partnership or process,the flying of a separatist flag from government buildings on a national holiday…….

    all this stupid thinking and race based inclusion of such matters into law and practise be it local or national has led to this utterly ridiculous situation.

    We reap as our elites have sown.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. backster (2,152 comments) says:

    “I’m still waiting for someone in the media to pin Nanaia Mahuta down and ask her if she agrees with Shane Jones in his opposition to the cultural assessments. Or Phil Twyford. Or David Cunliffe.”

    You might be, but I am far more interested in what the National party is going to do about this nonsense. The present Minister has had this portfolio,only a sideline interest for her, thrust upon her. I am sure Nick SMITH if he still had the portfolio would have had this matter dealt with before lunchtime,.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Simon (699 comments) says:

    If you are unfortunate to come across anything on your property that may resemble something of cultural significance be sure to bulldoze it or otherwise dispose of it as quickly as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,112 comments) says:

    All very good reasons to repeal the RMA and replace it with something based on an extension of the law of nuisance…just as the new ACT leader suggests…

    Simon: I am reliably informed that this already happens…apparently civil engineers and related professionals’ advice – always verbal for obvious reasons – is ” God’s sake, if you find any bones that might be human get rid of them quickly and don’t tell a soul”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MT_Tinman (3,136 comments) says:

    wreck1080 (3,413 comments) says:
    March 10th, 2014 at 11:07 am

    And, we have Geoffrey Palmer to blame. The man who has damaged NZ immensely.

    Balls!

    The Bolger government had every chance to reverse the idiocy of Palmer.

    Instead, under the watchful eye of Doug Graham, they chose to expand on those excesses.

    Make no mistake, many of the ills this country suffers from (incl. but certainly not limited to proportional representation) lie at the feet of Bolger and his cohorts.

    Only the Clark government (if any) has done more damage to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (7,112 comments) says:

    Returning to Professor Sir Geoffrey…as I suppose we must…I have never been able to work out why the man has the credibility he does with “the establishment”..The RMA for which he was responsible had so many flaws and inconsistencies in it that it was amended the year after it was passed by an Act almost as long as the original…the only people who have ever had a good word for Palmer’s magnum opus are the hardline Greenies…

    As a law professor he had a rep as a nasty bully (the famous story about him throwing 20 cents at some hapless student and saying – in a full lecture theatre – “call your mother and tell her you’re not going to be a lawyer after all” is apparently true, and not apocryphal); Who can remember anything he did of note as Prime Minister? I bet half those reading this are saying “WAS he once Prime Minister?”

    In person he is a pompous stuffed shirt….What have I missed?

    MT: You are right of course…Bolger followed Palmer’s brief tenure as PM, and he could and should have got rid of the damn thing back then…in all fairness though, no-one in 1991 would have dreamed the references to Maori interests would develop as they did…for that we have the genius of the late Sir Robin Cooke to thank…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,838 comments) says:

    All power to the Maori ™ – you know they deserve it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ShawnLH (4,605 comments) says:

    This is one of those regulations that requires strong and uncompromising civil disobedience, and is a good example of the need for the right to bear arms.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ross12 (1,411 comments) says:

    Might help keep Auckland house prices down! /sarc

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kowtow (8,324 comments) says:

    Across the board private property rights are under assault.

    Don’t look to Notional to protect them either.

    This parliament is stripping the tobacco companies of their rights .

    And in the context of this discussion it is at the behest of the Maori Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    I have a hammer stone sitting on my deck.
    It is possible to see the sweat stain where some pre iron maori toiled, eking an existence in a pre technology world. Artefacts such as this litter our landscape. Is consulting the generation 170 years removed from artefacts the correct path to evaluate signifacance or should it be a culturally neutral archology based consent process. The neighbours bulldozed a significant archology site with building and food cooking pits without complying with the present notification process. Adding more culturally driven barrowpushes grabbing for money with no training consistency or scientific basis is not the correct way to identify and preserve sites that are valuable. It will only encourage evasion and developement stalling culturally aligned nimbysisim.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (13,588 comments) says:

    Not only the meat of the “long pig”, read whitey, tastes good. His money too!

    The Stone Agers’ elites, abetted by stupid officials and politicians, are laughing all the way to the bank.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. edhunter (538 comments) says:

    I’m with Backster on this one, why is National so quite on this, surely they have more enough Maori MPs who could make a statement on this issue to negate any perceived Maori bashing.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    National should be dealing with this problem now by changing the Super Cities powers.
    Otherwise in no time it will be everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. greenjacket (460 comments) says:

    In this case, it isn’t the problem with the RMA, but the inability of councils to carry out the law. In this case, it is Dr Roger Blakeley at Auckland Council screwing up.
    Blakeley did such a job screwing up Porirua, and before that Dept of Internal affairs, I am surprised he hasn’t completely fecked up Auckland planning even sooner.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,838 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    This is one of those regulations that requires strong and uncompromising civil disobedience

    Agreed.

    and is a good example of the need for the right to bear arms.

    LOL what? You’re literally going to go into the Auckland Council packing heat and shoot the place up until they drop this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ShawnLH (4,605 comments) says:

    “LOL what? You’re literally going to go into the Auckland Council packing heat and shoot the place up until they drop this?”

    Don’t be silly, of course not. But when the Council and local tribespeople turn up on your doorstep and start telling you what you can and cannot do on your property, and said tribespeople demand money, then you have a right to defend yourself from theft and extortion. And no, that does not mean shooting first, but in visually showing your resolve to defend yourself from socialist councilors and lazy, money extorting Maori fascists who think having brown skin gives them the right to extortion and theft.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,417 comments) says:

    I’m still waiting for someone in the media to pin Nanaia Mahuta John Key down and ask him if he agrees with Shane Jones in his opposition to the cultural assessments.

    If he doesn’t when and what is he and his lazy Govt. going to do about it?

    There I fxed that for you DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,857 comments) says:

    Maori’s want to stick their noses into everything – well the Treaty didn’t go that far.

    There is a limit to what government can do,and the British – who also signed on our behalf – new that. Maori should have no more power than a democratic government of any other persuasion has.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    This is *crazy*. It is EXTORTION. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Is it not time to have binding referenda on the Treaty. It is past its use-by date, totally irrelevant, and an expense taxpayers can no longer tolerate. Maori must be told the cupboard is bare, RMA must be dumped, and let us get the country on its feet again. Waitangi Tribunal is forever looking at further scams to screw those that work to make this country survive, and it is becoming a dishonest way to fete a select few fat cats.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (9,838 comments) says:

    ShawnLH – all good! I just wondered where you were going with the right to bear arms stuff, is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wreck1080 (3,885 comments) says:

    @mt_tinman — while I agree that successive governments could have tried to roll back some of these things I think in practice it is almost impossible once the maoris have got their hooks into something.

    You imagine trying to reverse Geoffrey Palmers work that requires local and national govt to write the treaty of waitangi into their policy framework .

    I like to sheet home blame to the original architects as it becomes difficult to later reverse law once people have jumped on the gravy train.

    Read this….
    http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2013/06/maori-the-treaty-and-the-constitution-rt-hon-sir-geoffrey-palmer-qc/

    As a result of the Treaty policy we began to include treaty clauses in legislation in 1986. Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 provided in section 4 “this Act shall be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” The Environment Act 1986 required that in the management of natural and physical resources “full and balanced account is taken of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

    So, this is just a continuation of Palmers work.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Len Brown is dispossessing Aucklanders to create a supercity for Chinese

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “Maori fascists who think having brown skin gives them the right to extortion and theft.”

    If you think Maoridom is about people with brown skin then all your arguments mean nothing

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “All power to the Maori ™ – you know they deserve it.”

    No one deserves complete power, let alone the Nat/Lab coalition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “This is a frightening and dangerous precedent for any land owner in NZ.
    I really fear for the future of this country…”

    Too many half asleep and in denial though. Esp the white middle class who have been sheltered for so long.

    Where radio talk back hosts come from and have no understanding but are encouraged by radio bosses because they can talk intelligent nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ShawnLH (4,605 comments) says:

    No worries RRM. My words were poorly chosen. I’m a fan of having a big stick but using it only when physically attacked. Waving it about is sometimes useful though ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. unaha-closp (1,158 comments) says:

    This is not treaty related, it is only occurring in Auckland. This is purely the result of the local body elections. Len Brown won, so he needs to help out his supporters. More pokies and a railway station for the casino. Mandatory regulatory fees paid to senior Maori. Its what they get for providing money and votes in an election.

    If you want someone to blame (other than Len Brown) then Rodney Hide should be the biggest contender. What Geoff Palmer did 30 years ago is not relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ShawnLH (4,605 comments) says:

    I never understood how the Auckland Super City idea was in any way, shape or form, consistent with ACT’s philosophy.

    How did Hide sell this to the party? If your opposed to big government, why would you create yet more big government???

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I think that the very best thing that property owners can do is to *ignore* this requirement.
    Bulldoze your land as much as you want, and to *hell* with what may be under it.
    If the council bitches about it, take a few hundred kilos of manure and dump it in the room that Brown shagged in.

    Tell me how the Auckland Council will take over 5,000 people to court! It would be *impossible* for them.

    The law is an ass and should be treated as such.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (7,112 comments) says:

    1080: All the references to “the principles of the Treaty…” in pre 1990 legislation are also Palmer’s work…As I have said here before, Roger Douglas clearly recalls the cabinet of the day asking Palmer what these references meant, and what the ramifications of including them were…the legal genius told them such references were “meaningless window dressing…”

    ShawnLH: Thats an easy one. I can’t remember the exact numbers now, but as I recall the SuperCity amalgamation meant something like 4000 bureaucrats got made redundant…someone will have the exact figures…Now that considerable time has passed I can say I strongly disagreed with Rodney ignoring the wishes of people out where I live (and beyond) and our counterparts in the south, none of whom wanted to be in “Auckland”…He had some reason at the time; I can’t recall what it was…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – “All the references to “the principles of the Treaty…” in pre 1990 legislation are also Palmer’s work.”

    Then if they were *his work* then they can be *removed*. Completely expunged from the law books.

    As “his work”, they have *no more standing* than *any other* law on the books.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Process of making The “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Removal Bill”
    List of each time “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” is in legislation.
    Rewrite each clause to remove the reference.
    Pass under urgency using the government’s majority of parliament.

    Problem solved!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Harriet (4,857 comments) says:

    What I can’t understand about ‘all the past grieviances inflicted upon Maori by white men’ is this:

    If there are no true Maori left – and they are all now mostly of mixed Maori/Scots/Irish blood – then where are all the allegations of ‘past rape’ of Maori women?

    There are no allegations that white men raped Maori women in large numbers, so to suggest that past Maori are victims doesn’t then support the current real life evidence that Maori women had half breeds as children by rape.

    It is then reasonable to suggest that Maori women and white men cohabitated together in large numbers. Maori women and white men did then get on together in early NZ. And Maori men have never complained that ‘their women’ were ill treated in these relationships.

    Maori men and white women probably didn’t breed to produce current Maoris – as it is often said by historians, academics and the broader left – that ‘Maori men’ were looked down upon by the parents of white girls.

    Therefor the blindenly obvious is that Pakeha men are really the fathers of most Maori men alive today.

    No wonder Maori men make Maori women sit ‘down the back’ – out of shame!!!! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. David Garrett (7,112 comments) says:

    Gary: Removing references to the Treaty was National policy during Brash’s leadership…quietly abandoned when he was…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    DG – there’s a good portion of National supporters who wish it wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    The so-called ‘principles’ are the biggest hinderance to this countries future and have been responsible for millions in unnecessary expenditure historically.

    We can see now what Palmer did was appalling but no one has had the guts to front up and correct this unacceptable addition to legislation.

    Which MP is going to stand up and ‘have regard to’ this Palmer stuff up?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. David Garrett (7,112 comments) says:

    wiseowl: You already know the answer to your question…Do you happen to recall what happened when I supported a guest poster on here who suggested we should pay child abusers to be voluntarily sterilized? I led the TV news that night, against a background of goose stepping storm troopers, and smoking death camp ovens… And that was just for saying “This person might have a point; we should discuss whether $5000 up front now is a better cost/benefit than tens of thousands of welfare dollars – not to mention the human misery – down the track”

    Given the absurd reaction to that, what chance do you think ANY MP is going to stand up and say “We need to remove all references to this so-called Treaty”?? Jamie Whyte has already rejected the idea…All the plebs in the the Nats do just as they are told…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ShawnLH (4,605 comments) says:

    The initial shine has gone off Jamie Whyte very fast.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Yep. Maybe he needs his sister to put the shine back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wiseowl (869 comments) says:

    DG.
    I know what you mean.
    I live in hope!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    ANOTHER BAD EXPENSIVE ON GOING

    JOKE

    MORE FINANCIAL TORTUREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.