Submission of Kahukuraariki Trust Board

On the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill (joint submission)

To: Environment Committee
From: Kahukuraariki Trust Board (KTB)
Re: Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill (as introduced 9 December 2025)
Date: 13 February 2026
KTB wishes to be heard: Yes

1. Preamble

He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are the enabling frameworks, outside of Te Ao Māori, that our tūpuna envisioned would support the development of our nationhood as Aotearoa/New Zealand.

This submission is an ongoing part of that continuum to realise and reassert the aspirations of our tūpuna to facilitate intergenerational equity whilst recognising and upholding Te Mana me te Mauri o te Taiao and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

2. Summary Position
   Kahukuraariki Trust Board (KTB) strongly opposes the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill in their current form.

While KTB supports reform that improves environmental outcomes and planning efficiency, these Bills as introduced represent a material regression in the recognisation and protection of iwi and hapū authority, Treaty settlement integrity, and enduring environmental bottom lines.

The Bills replace substantive duties (including Treaty and Part 2 Māori provisions) with a non-prioritised “goals” model, then constrain how those goals may be applied through a nationally controlled hierarchy. This structure centralises decisive trade-offs upstream, reduces the ability of mana whenua to protect taonga at place, and risks entrenching harmful outcomes through standardization and reduced notification.

KTB is not a stakeholder group or ‘brown community.’  KTB is the Post-Settlement Governance Entity(‘PSGE’) for Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Our rights and redress mechanisms are statutory and negotiated outcomes intended to provide enduring recognition of Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa relationships with whenua, wai, taonga and tangata. The Crown must not implement a new planning system that weakens or erodes those outcomes, whether through reduced standing, narrowed or restricted notification, or transition clauses that are time-limited and Crown-controlled.

For these reasons, KTB submits that the Bills should not proceed unless they are amended to restore strong Te Tiriti/The Treaty obligations, reinstate equivalent hapū and iwi provisions to the RMA Part 2 framework, preserve and uplift Treaty settlement redress, and remove structural settings that deter  protection of wāhi tapu and sites of significance.

3. Submission Owner

1. This submission is on behalf of the Kahukuraariki Trust Board.
2. The Kahukuraariki Trust Board was established in 2015 to receive Treaty settlement assets on behalf of Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa.

4. Treaty Settlement Integrity Must Be Upheld (Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Act 2017)

4.1 Kahukuraariki Trust Board is a Treaty settlement entity, not a stakeholder

Kahukuraariki Trust Board (‘KTB’) is the Post-Settlement Governance Entity (PSGE) for Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Our rights, obligations, and redress mechanisms are not discretionary engagement tools. They are statutory and negotiated outcomes intended to provide a modicum of restitution for historic Te Tiriti breaches and to provide enduring recognition of Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa intergenerational relationships with whenua, wai, and taonga.

KTB submits that the Crown cannot lawfully or ethically implement a new planning system that weakens these rights through reduced notification, narrower standing, or “best endeavours” compliance clauses.

4.2 Treaty Settlement Legislation Required Amendment

The Crown’s own analysis (MfE) acknowledges that Treaty settlement legislation may need to be amended because it currently links specifically to RMA mechanisms.

KTB submits that this is not a minor technical matter. It is a core settlement integrity issue and must be addressed accordingly through mechanisms that better enhance the crown treaty partnership obligations and not lessen them.

4.3 Statutory acknowledgements are practical and functional rights under the RMA

The MfE analysis confirms that statutory acknowledgements under the Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Act 2017 currently operate through the RMA in several key ways, including:

• councils must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement when deciding whether the PSGE is an “affected person” for notification decisions
• councils must attach information relating to the statutory acknowledgement to regional policy statements, regional plans, and district plans
• councils must provide information about consent applications to the PSGE when applications are within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory area
• the PSGE (or any member of the iwi) may cite the statutory acknowledgement as evidence of association in submissions made to councils, the Environment Court, or the EPA

KTB submits that these mechanisms are not symbolic. They are practical tools that enable participation, notification, evidential recognition, and cultural protection.

4.4 The new system will hollow out statutory acknowledgements “in practice”

The MfE analysis states that statutory acknowledgements will be reflected in the Planning Act and Natural Environment Act. However, it also states there will be fewer resource consents/permits in the new system.

KTB submits this creates an immediate risk: Even if statutory acknowledgements are included, their effectiveness will be reduced if fewer permits are notified and fewer applications trigger affected person recognition.

4.5 “More than minor adverse effect” thresholds will undermine settlement rights

The MfE analysis records that these proposed reforms change the threshold for determining whether a PSGE is an affected person to whether the proposed activity may have a “more than minor adverse effect” on the PSGE.

KTB submits that this is inappropriate for cultural effects, which are often:

• cumulative
• downstream
• intergenerational
• and not easily reduced to “minor / more than minor” tests.

KTB seeks legislative amendment to ensure statutory acknowledgements trigger automatic ‘affected person’s recognition and notification.

4.6 Settlement integrity requires uplift, not just “carry-over”

KTB submits that the Crown’s transition away from the RMA is not a neutral legislative exercise. It is a restructuring that risks eroding settlement redress.

Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa received limited settlement redress. If the Crown now removes the system that gives effect to that redress, then the Crown must provide an uplift package to ensure settlement outcomes remain meaningful.

5. Core Concerns: The Bills Represent a Rights Regression for Hapū

5.1 Structural Opposition: The Bills Replace Substantive Duties with Non-prioritised “Goals.”

KTB strongly opposes that the Bills replace the RMA Part 2 with a “goals” framework.

As drafted, the goals are not prioritised. The Bill also establishes a hierarchy in which goals are effectively settled upstream through national direction and standardised plan provisions, then implemented downstream with limited ability to correct harmful outcomes at the permitting stage.

This presents structural risk for iwi and hapū. Most decisive trade-offs will be made at the national level, in processes where mana whenua influence is non-existent or constrained to consultation and submissions, then locked into instruments that local authorities must implement.

KTB submits that this hierarchy is inconsistent with Te Tiriti partnership. It is also inconsistent with the reality that impacts on taonga, wāhi tapu, mahinga kai and cultural landscapes that are most visible at place – are often innocuous until a specific activity is proposed and then implemented.

6. Summary of KTB’s Position on the Bills

KTB’s position is premised on the philosophy that the sustainability and mauri of Te Taiao is a fundamental priority, underpinning iwi and hapū tino rangatiratanga and Treaty settlement integrity. Sustainable development should not override these imperatives but rather support people, communities, social, cultural, and economic wellbeing now and in the future.

KTB acknowledges there are some positive elements in the Bills, including the concept of long-term regional spatial planning. However, these positives are heavily outweighed by the significant reduction in the recognition and protection of iwi and hapū rights and interests in te taiao.

As currently drafted, the Bills pose a significant risk to both existing and future Treaty settlement redress and the hard-fought gains iwi and hapū have secured under the RMA regime for over 30 years, including through extensive litigation.

7. Core Concerns: The Bills Represent a Rights Regression of Iwi and Hapū

7.1 Removal of the RMA Māori provisions

Kahukuraariki Trust Board strongly opposes that the Bills replace RMA Part 2 Māori provisions (including sections 6€, 6(g), 7(a), and 8) with a single “Māori interests’ goal”. KTB considers this a deliberate dilution of the constitutional status of iwi and hapū as Te Tiriti partners. By removing the established statutory recognition of mana whenua relationships, kaitiakitanga, and Treaty principles from the core framework, the Bills effectively homogenise iwi and hapū into a generic category of “Māori interests.”

KTB submits that “Māori” is not an acceptable nomenclature for iwi and hapū and their respective rights, authority, and obligations. Iwi and hapū are Te Tiriti partners. Our rangatiratanga is held at iwi and hapū level, within rohe, and exercised through tikanga and whakapapa relationships to whenua, wai, and taonga. ‘Māori’ is a generic term and cannot replace ‘iwi and hapū’ as an interchangeable substitute. This removes the legal and practical recognition of mana whenua and risks reducing our role to that of a general interest group.

KTB submits that this approach marginalises iwi and hapū from our standing as Te Tiriti partners under Article II, where tino rangatiratanga and authority over our taonga, whenua, wai, and people is affirmed. Instead, the Bills risk relegating iwi and hapū to the position of “Māori stakeholders” comparable to the general public — a framing more consistent with Article III citizenship rights than with the rangatiratanga protections guaranteed under Te Tiriti.

KTB supports the Pou Taiao assessment that the proposed “Māori interests’ goal” is, of a narrower and lesser standard than the existing Part 2 Māori provisions. In KTB’s view, this is a significant regression that will reduce legal protections for iwi and hapū, weaken Treaty settlement redress in practice, and increase the likelihood of culturally harmful outcomes being authorised under the new system.

KTB submits that the Bills must retain provisions equivalent to RMA sections 6(e), 6(g), 7(a), and 8, and must not replace them with a single, diluted goal.

7.2 Removal of the general Treaty obligation

Recognition of Treaty obligations currently recognised in section 8 of the RMA is being replaced with a “descriptive Treaty clause”. There will no longer be any general obligation to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

KTB objects to the removal of the general Treaty obligation and submits that this is a fundamental weakening of Treaty partnership, participation and protection.

7.3 Centralisation and reduced localised solutions

The Bills significantly increase centralised national decision-making and policy direction. This is likely to significantly limit the ability of iwi, hapū and local communities, to develop and implement localised natural resource management solutions.

Kahukuraariki Trust Board opposes this approach. Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa cultural relationships with whenua, wai, and taonga are place-based and rohe-specific and cannot be effectively provided for through nationally standardised direction that fails to recognise local tikanga, mātauranga Māori, iwi and hapū authority. Centralisation also risks further marginalising iwi and hapū participation by shifting influence away from local decision-makers and into processes that are less accessible and less accountable to mana whenua.

KTB submits that the Bills must include enforceable mechanisms that enable and prioritise rohe-based, Iwi and hapū-led solutions, including decision-making pathways that reflect Te Tiriti partnership and uphold Treaty settlement integrity.

8. Te Mana me te Mauri o te Taiao and Te Mana me te Mauri o te Wai

KTB supports the principle that the oranga and mauri o te taiao, including wai, must be the primary and controlling consideration in any resource management framework. KTB submits that the Bills do not adequately embed Te Mana me te Mauri o te Wai as a foundational principle. In particular, the Bills are structured to allow national direction, infrastructure exemptions, and streamlined approvals to override environmental bottom lines and Treaty-consistent outcomes in practice.

KTB submits that any new system must explicitly recognize mauri as a core value and require that limits, methodologies and decision-making incorporate mātauranga Māori alongside western empirical science as an equitable determinative knowledge system.

9. Participation, Notification, and Affected Person Status

9.1 Hapū standing will reduce.

The Bills amend the requirements for identifying an affected person, limiting the instances where external parties are determined to be affected and have standing in relation to a permit application.

KTB submits that this is unacceptable and will create an ongoing barrier to the exercise of kaitiakitanga by undermining mana whenua standing and restricting Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa participation in decisions that directly affect our taonga, wāhi tapu, mahinga kai, and cultural wellbeing. This is particularly harmful given cultural effects are often cumulative and intergenerational, and the reduction in standing will also weaken the practical value of Treaty settlement redress mechanisms such as statutory acknowledgements.

9.2 Consultation is not a substitute for enforceable rights.

The Māori interests goal relies heavily on participation in national instruments and plans, but there are no guarantees Māori interests will be protected in these instruments, especially where decision-makers are only required to have regard to advice.

Kahukuraariki Trust Board opposes this approach. Consultation, participation, and advisory roles are not equivalent to enforceable rights and decision-making power. The Bills risk creating a system where iwi and hapū are expected to invest significant time and resources into engagement processes, while Ministers, agencies, and councils retain full discretion to disregard that advice without consequence.

KTB submits that this is inconsistent with Te Tiriti partnership and undermines Article II rangatiratanga. It also risks reducing iwi and hapū to a procedural “tick-box” within plan-making, while removing the legal protections that currently enable iwi and hapū to defend taonga, wāhi tapu, and cultural landscapes through statutory processes.

KTB submits that meaningful Treaty compliance requires enforceable duties, clear outcomes, and decision-making mechanisms that recognise and uphold iwi and hapū authority — not reliance on consultation alone.

10. Private Property Rights and Regulatory Relief Will Chill Protection of Wāhi Tapu

Pou Taiao notes that the Bills provide no detail about how sites of significance to iwi and hapū will be identified and protected, and that this is further limited by regulatory relief provisions which may require councils to compensate landowners impacted by protection of sites on private land.

Kahukuraariki Trust Board strongly opposes this framework. KTB submits that these provisions create a structural imbalance that elevates private property and economically driven interests above the constitutional standing of iwi and hapū as Te Tiriti partners, and above the Crown’s obligation to actively protect taonga, wāhi tapu, and cultural landscapes.

KTB submits that by attaching potential financial liability to the protection of sites of significance, the Bills will inevitably discourage councils from identifying and protecting wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga — not because the values are unimportant, but because the cost risk will be seen as too high. This is a chilling effect by design.

In practical terms, this framework incentivises councils and decision-makers to prioritise development certainty, commercial activity, and private landowner interests, while treating iwi and hapū cultural protections as optional, negotiable, or financially inconvenient. KTB submits that this is inconsistent with Te Tiriti, undermines Article II rangatiratanga, and is directly contrary to the purpose of Treaty settlement redress.

KTB submits that the Bills must be amended to ensure that the identification and protection of wāhi tapu and sites of significance to iwi and hapū cannot be avoided, weakened, or delayed due to compensation risk, and that the Crown must not create legislative settings that effectively price or disincentivise cultural protection out of the planning system.

11. Cumulative Reform Burden: A “Perfect Storm” for Hapū

KTB submits that these Bills sit alongside other major reforms that will place impossible demands on hapū capacity, resourcing, and wellbeing. The cumulative burden risks include but are not limited to:

• consultation fatigue
• bypassing hapū authority
• consolidating engagement through iwi-only pathways
• undermining hapū decision-making at the marae level.

Kahukuraariki Trust Board strongly opposes the Crown’s approach to reform sequencing and engagement. KTB submits that the Crown is advancing multiple overlapping reforms at pace, without adequate resourcing, without meaningful partnership, and without recognising that iwi and hapū participation is not an unlimited resource. This approach is structurally inequitable and will result in reduced participation by default.

KTB further submits that these reforms will alienate Kahukuraariki Trust Board from our own hapū, whānau and marae. The Trust is expected to uphold settlement redress, exercise kaitiakitanga, and protect te taiao on behalf of Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. However, where the new system reduces notification, limits access to information, and narrows standing and participation rights, KTB will be placed in an impossible position: we will be expected by our people to respond, consult, and protect, while the Crown simultaneously removes the practical mechanisms that allow us to do so.

This will create a harmful dynamic where the Crown’s reforms weaken not only iwi and hapū standing in the planning system but also weaken confidence in settlement outcomes and the ability of PSGEs to deliver on their responsibilities. KTB submits that this undermines Te Tiriti partnership, settlement integrity, and the long-term legitimacy of the new planning system.

KTB submits that reform must not proceed in a manner that exhausts hapū capacity, bypasses marae-based authority, and creates systemic barriers to iwi and hapū participation. KTB strongly opposes the Crown’s approach to reform sequencing and engagement. The Crown is intent on advancing multiple reforms at pace, without adequate resourcing, without meaningful partnership, and without recognizing that iwi and hapū participation is not an unlimited resource.Top of Form

Bottom of Form

12. Relief Sought (Amendments and Outcomes Requested)

Kahukuraariki Trust Board seeks the following amendments and outcomes:

12.1 Treaty settlement integrity (highest priority)

1. Insert a Settlement Integrity Clause into both Bills confirming that:
   • settlement redress must not be reduced in practice, and
   • where inconsistency arises, settlement legislation prevails.
2. Amend the Bills to ensure statutory acknowledgements retain equivalent effect and cannot be hollowed out through reduced notification thresholds.
3. Provide automatic affected person status of PSGE’s where activities occur within, adjacent to or affect statutory acknowledgement areas.
4. Require the Crown to develop a transition package for Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa that strengthens settlement redress where the new system would otherwise reduce its effectiveness.
5. Commit to amendments to the Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Act 2017 where required, to maintain and strengthen redress, as anticipated by the Crown’s own analysis.

12.2 Reinstate strong Māori and Treaty provisions.

5. Reinstate provisions equivalent to RMA sections 6(e), 6(g), 7(a) and 8, rather than relying on a single Māori interests’ goal.
6. Reinstate a general Treaty obligation equivalent to section 8 of the RMA.

12.3 Notification and affected person rights.

7. Amend the affected person and notification provisions to ensure iwi and hapū retain standing where cultural effects are reasonably possible, including cumulative and downstream effects.

12.4 Sites of significance and wāhi tapu protection

9. Amend regulatory relief/compensation settings to ensure they do not deter or disincentivise councils from identifying and protecting sites of significance to hapū and iwi.
10. Include enforceable provisions requiring the identification and protection of wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga, including on private land.

12.5 Resourcing and participation capacity

11. Provide statutory funding mechanisms to support iwi/hapū participation in:

• spatial strategies
• combined regional plans
• and permit processes.

12. Require councils and/or applicants to fund cultural impact assessment preparation and cultural monitoring.

12.6 Local solutions and hapū authority

13. Reduce centralisation and provide enforceable pathways for rohe-based, iwi and hapū-led solutions.
14. Ensure the new system recognises iwi standing and participation as Treaty partners, while also embedding clear requirements for engagement with affected hapū, cognisant of Te Tiriti O Waitangi obligations, and marae, to reflect the tikanga and rohe-based reality of mana whenua authority.

13.           Conclusion

Kahukuraariki Trust Board supports reform that improves environmental outcomes and planning efficiency. However, KTB strongly opposes the Bills as introduced.

The Bills substantially undermine the existing recognition of the relationship between iwi and hapū and te taiao under the RMA and have far-reaching implications for the ability of iwi and hapū to uphold our status, rights, and obligations as kaitiaki.

KTB submits that the Bills represent a clear regression in Treaty compliance and an unacceptable dilution of iwi and hapū standing. In particular, the Bills pose a significant risk to Treaty settlement redress and risk hollowing out the settlement mechanisms established in the Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Act 2017, leaving those mechanisms intact only in name while removing the practical pathways that allow them to operate meaningfully.

KTB further submits that because the Crown is choosing to replace the RMA framework that settlement redress relies upon, the Crown has an obligation to ensure settlement outcomes are not weakened in practice. This includes a duty to provide for transition remedies and legislative amendments where required, including through a review and strengthening of the Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Act 2017 to ensure settlement redress retains equivalent effect and is uplifted and enhanced where necessary.

KTB’s position is therefore clear:

• The Bills must not proceed in their current form.
• The Crown must implement the relief sought in this submission, including restoration of strong Treaty and iwi/hapū provisions, protection of notification and participation rights, and enforceable settlement integrity safeguards.
• Where the Crown’s reforms create gaps or diminish existing settlement mechanisms, the Crown must accommodate remedies through settlement legislation amendment and transition arrangements agreed with Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa.

Kahukuraariki Trust Board wishes to speak to this submission.

Signed:

Geraldine Baker
Operations Manager — Kahukuraariki Trust Board