Māori access to the Permissions System

The Authority appreciated receiving the progress report late last year of the work of the Permissions team dealing with the backlog, and also trialing new approaches to the work. The “fast yes”, “fast no” options seem a pragmatic and sensible approach to triaging at least a proportion of the applications. We appreciate they are dealing with a significant workload.

References were made to a scientific committee that has been used to assist with university permit applications. We encourage you to also think about the way in which a sector approach may assist in other areas. For example, we have been contacted by people in the museum sector who have experienced protracted and unclear processes for example when applying for permits under the Wildlife Act, that would seem to fit squarely in the “fast yes” category. Examples of problems experienced with the permit processes within the Department that have been brought to our attention include from Puke Ariki in Taranaki, Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland Museum, Te Papa Tongarewa, and Otago Museum.

The members of Museums Aotearoa are active participants in the protection of natural environment specimens, cultural and historical taonga – clearly expressed in their 2023-2026 strategy – and are a sector that contributes a great deal to the work of the Department (advice on CITES matters and identification of material, data on distribution of species, expert advice on pests and weeds, understanding of changes for species in the face of climate change, documenting the biota and providing inventories on which to base management decisions, to name just a few examples).

They also provide a public face to help educate and enthuse the NZ public and the tourist community about the NZ environment and its unique features. Developing a sector relationship with this community would seem to be useful on a number of levels and also potentially help to reduce a proportion of the permit backlog. The strong relationships that have developed between museums and local iwi are a great asset in the protection of taonga.

The more fundamental example that concerns the Authority, and where we consider Section 4 is not being manifested, is in the area of permits associated with iwi and hapu engaged in conservation activities – in some cases on public conservation lands and in other situations on land returned to iwi as part of Treaty settlements. At our meeting in December Tāne Davis, Chair of the Whenua Hou Komiti, advised that putting through an application as DOC, as opposed to Whenua Hou Komiti, yields a faster outcome. This is in spite of the fact that the Whenua Hou Komiti was formed from the outcomes of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 to advise the Minister on all matters in the management of Whenua Hou.

Given the work on Whenua Hou has been conducted for years by members of the Whenua Hou Komiti, alongside the Department, and the issues and conservation challenges that the work is addressing are known to the Department, it seems extraordinary that such applications are so delayed. I understand how it may be perceived by mana whenua as insulting and disrespectful that an application by the Department is treated with greater respect and attention than the equivalent application submitted by the Treaty partner.

In our view the decision-making processes do need to recognise the contributions being made, and provide for more autonomy for Māori particularly when related to taonga species.

In the cases that Tāne has drawn to our attention, there have been delays that mean breeding seasons have been missed, translocations unable to be done in a timely way to enable resettlement at appropriate seasonal windows, and loss of funding because permits had not been issued.

The Authority are keen to explore a solution to these issues.