BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2021-AKL-000059 AT AUCKLAND

• 2.1 This evidence covers:

• (a) Informing our position on the RNZ operation: Community and iwi membership communications.

• (b) The position of Ngāti Mutunga on the RNZ operation.

• (c) Relationship with RNZ.

• (d) Consideration of additional consent conditions.

• (e) Long term effects.

• 3.7 We can have no faith in RNZ's ability to be able to comply with any stronger conditions. As in Ms Benson's evidence, RNZ has not been able to comply with its current conditions.

• 3.8 The cultural values that Ngāti Mutunga holds for the whenua, the Haehanga Stream and Mimitangiatua awa cannot be addressed through the proposed consent conditions. We don't believe that the consent conditions can change behaviour. Marlene Benson's evidence shows non-compliance has continued right up to this Environment Court hearing. We believe RNZ's freshly stated commitment to improve operations at the site will be forgotten once a new resource consent has been issued.

• 3.9 The task of restoring the mauri to the awa and whenua has been made a lot more difficult due to the spreading of contaminated material throughout an unknown area of the site. Ngāti Mutunga is now focussed on removing the risk from the Pad 3 (drilling mud mix) stockpile and investigations on the scale of contamination over the rest of the site, so that the whole site can be remediated.

• 4.1 It is essential that we communicate with our Iwi membership and keep them informed of important matters that impact our rohe.

• 4.2 The RNZ operation is of great concern due to the environmental and cultural impact.

• 4.3 There is high interest in the outcome of the appeal from mana whenua. Approximately 50 Ngāti Mutunga members attended the Council hearing. As stated by Mr Tuuta, a rāhui was placed on the Mimitangiatua awa in December 2020 preventing collection of mahinga kai and other cultural practices. A decision on this rāhui is awaiting the outcome of this Environment Court hearing.

• 4.4 Our Iwi membership have been kept updated on the high level progress of this matter through the following means:

• 5.1 The Haehanga Stream flows to the Mimitangiatua River, a tupuna awa and a statutory acknowledgement area for Ngāti Mutunga.1

• 5.2 The health of our awa directly impacts on the health of our people, both spiritually and physically. We are all part of the same ecosystem and whakapapa. Waters of both the Mimitangiatua and Haehanga, have spiritual qualities of mauri and wairua. These qualities are related to the physical wellbeing of the water.

At the Council-level hearing, the representatives of Ngāti Mutunga almost entirely blamed the state of the Mimitangiatua river at the feet of the operations of RNZ's Uruti facility. There was no tenable scientific basis for that view, but it did explain the entrenched nature of their opposition.

• 5.4 We do not agree with this statement. First, Ngāti Mutunga presented scientific evidence at that hearing at considerable expense. This is in line the with Te Rūnanga practice of considering both Western Science methods/ results alongside Ngāti Mutunga's our own cultural monitoring methods and findings.3 This does not mean we rely entirely on Western Science but it informs our position on the applications.

• 5.5 Secondly, Ngāti Mutunga does not entirely blame the state of the Mimitangiatua at the feet of the RNZ facility operations. Ms Benson informs me that Ngāti Mutunga has never said that. Ngāti Mutunga's balanced position on this is shown in the Mauri Compass Report that was tabled at the Council-level hearing, attached to Ms McKay's evidence as her Appendix 2.4

• 6.1 I corresponded with the RNZ Cultural Expert, Mr Brockbank during December 2021 through to March 2022, to arrange an engagement with him.

• 6.2 A meeting was organised at the RNZ site on 9 December 2021, where introductions were made with Mr Brockbank.

• 6.3 This visit also provided an opportunity for Ngati Mutunga and its Mauri Compass practitioners to view the condition of the site, the Pad 3 stockpile, the compost pile, the worm beds and the wetland system. It also provided an opportunity to identify locations for monitoring for the Mauri Compass and to meet with Mr Gibson (RNZ's Site Manager).

• 6.4 Another meeting was set for 24 March 2022 as an opportunity for Mr Brockbank to ask questions and for Ngāti Mutunga to provide responses. At this meeting, Marlene Benson and I explained to Mr Brockbank some of the frustrations Ngāti Mutunga has had with RNZ site management in the past.

• 6.5 Mr Brockbank notes in his evidence that RNZ have shown a strong willingness to do the right things when it comes to their relationship with

• 6.6 As Environmental Manager Ms Benson has dealt with RNZ relationship issues for more than 6 years, whereas I have become involved relatively recently. As Ms Benson states, over the past there has developed a level of mistrust with RNZ that makes it difficult for Ngāti Mutunga to support the applications.

• 6.7 Although there have been major challenges to our relationship with RNZ, Ngāti Mutunga is still able to meet and interact in a professional way. We appreciate RNZ management and staff facilitating our ability to carry out the further Mauri Compass survey on the RNZ site earlier this year.

• 6.8 However, the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. The past behaviour of RNZ has demonstrated their concern is not to nurture a relationship with Ngati Mutunga or the local community. RNZ have not demonstrated that their future behaviour will change.

• 7.1 Mr Brockbank notes that the proposed conditions that were put forward at the close of the hearing were in his opinion 'limited' and that there is greater opportunity to co-design more detailed conditions that allow Ngāti Mutunga to exercise their role as kaitiaki.7

• 7.2 Ngāti Mutunga have reviewed the proposed conditions offered by Mr Brockbank and believe that they fall short of being able to address our cultural concerns.

• 7.3 Cultural monitoring is a proposed consent condition. This does not respond to our cultural concerns at this site, which include Western Science information of the impacts on the awa and on the soils and groundwater. They include RNZ's history of non-compliance with consent conditions. They include concerns that 'incidents' will continue to occur impacting the Haehanga and Mimitangiatua awa.

• 7.4 RNZ are proposing a Cultural Monitoring and Awareness Plan (CMAP), in a situation where they have created a contaminated site in our rohe. This has been due to poor management. They have also concealed from Taranaki Regional Council what has been brought onto the site.8

• 7.5 Cultural induction, training and awareness can easily become a tick box exercise with no real value. In my experience, cultural induction, training and awareness must be a part of a bigger vision of cultural competency, which is a long journey. It involves learning within oneself a cultural response as to why one practice is better compared to another. When it is a stand-alone solution it can be seen by participants as another training initiative, and is not taken seriously. It would be especially difficult when there is a history of poor management, and a lack of trust.

• 7.6 It is important to note that whatever improvements are believed to have happened to the site recently, for example stopping taking drilling waste on the site, are not a direct response to Ngāti Mutunga. Rather, a response of non-compliance over a long period of time.

• 7.7 As a means of improving the relationship between Ngāti Mutunga and RNZ there is an offer to establish a Kaitiaki Forum or Tangata Whenua Engagement Group:9

"The forum would facilitate ongoing engagement with Ngāti Mutunga in respect of the activities authorised under consent conditions, provide an opportunity for Ngāti Mutunga to provide kaitiaki inputs into the drafting, preparation, monitoring, and implementation of plans, and provide an opportunity for Ngāti Mutunga to receive reporting and monitoring updates."

• 8.1 It is crucial that Ngāti Mutunga considers the intergenerational impacts resulting from the long-term landfill legacy and the impact that legacy will have on our local environment and waterways after the RNZ operation is finished.

• 8.2 For Ngāti Mutunga our Kaitiaki responsibilities mean that we should be ensuring that no long term legacy of contamination is allowed to remain on the site after the current operation ceases

• 8.3 The intergenerational approach that Ngāti Mutunga take to its responsibility as Kaitiaki across its rohe can never be understated.

• 8.4 Our concern is the environmental impact over a 50 to 100 year period and even longer. This creates an ongoing burden for Ngāti Mutunga and continued risk for successive generations.

• 8.5 Now is the time to have the site cleaned up. We understand that TRC are proposing that this may take 6-8 years. Ms Beecroft is providing us with independent advice on this process. Ngāti Mutunga is now in the position where it is talking to its Board about the options for the contaminated material on Pad 310, and we are awaiting investigation of contamination over the rest of the site. Ngāti Mutunga cannot understand how this extent of contamination has been allowed to occur.