Transpower New Zealand Limited Tauranga City Council Bay of Plenty Regional Council Statement of Evidence of Douglas Mcneill On

Under the Resource Management Act 1991

In the matter of an application for resource consents to realign the Hairini – Mt Maunganui A (HAI-MTM A) 110kV transmission line and construct additional poles

Between

Transpower New Zealand Limited Applicant

And

Tauranga City Council Territorial Authority

And

Bay of Plenty Regional Council Regional Council

Statement of Evidence of Douglas McNeill on behalf of Transpower New Zealand Limited dated 4 July 2018

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS A J L BEATSON AUCKLAND LEVEL 22, VERO CENTRE, 48 SHORTLAND STREET PO BOX 4199, AUCKLAND 1140, DX CP20509, NEW ZEALAND TEL 64 9 916 8800 FAX 64 9 916 8801

Executive Summary

1. My evidence focuses on how Transpower has engaged with iwi/hapū potentially affected by the Project.

2. Transpower understands that Ngāti Hē hapū, Ngāti Tapu hapū and Ngāti Tapu hapū have mana whenua over the Project area. Ngāti Hē, Ngāi Tūkairangi and Māori trustee land owners have been raising concerns in regard to the A-Line crossing their land since the line was installed in the 1950s.

3. The Project seeks to remove an existing constraint in the form of the A- Line from an important cultural and social facility for the Maungatapu community and from horticultural activities for the Matapihi community, and honour a longstanding commitment to the community/iwi to remove Tower 118 from the harbour.

4. Transpower has engaged with affected iwi/hapū extensively through multiple hui and commissioning Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA).

5. Transpower has proposed resource consent conditions for some matters raised. Other matters will be addressed in the context of Access and Construction Agreements and in ongoing relationship agreements with iwi/hapū.

6. Iwi/hapū have expressed support for the Project, providing matters raised in their CIAs are addressed.

Introduction

7. My full name is Douglas Ateremu McNeill. I am an Investigations Project Manager, contracting for Transpower. I have worked for 8 years at Transpower in a variety of roles, initially as a business analyst in process change within the Integrated Works Planning team that managed the transition of the business from an annual capital planning period to the current 5 year reset period.

8. In the past 4 years I have worked in the Investment Investigation Team which develops the business cases for projects. The Hairini-Mount Maunganui A-Line Alteration project is one of these. Others include the

11kV Switchboard replacement at Kawerau substation and the reconductoring of the Judgeford-Wilton section of the Bunnythorpe- Wilton A-Line.

9. Prior to working at Transpower, I worked in a number of consultancy roles that focussed on information technology projects that were primarily internet based and some of these were for Māori/iwi clients or focussed on Māori interests. This work followed a 28-year career in secondary school teaching - mainly in mathematics, economics and information technology, and for the final eight years, in Kura Kaupapa Māori and Wharekura.

10. In addition to my role as a Project Manager at Transpower, I am an iwi relationship advisor to Carey Baptist College and an advisor on Te Manatū Iriiri Māori (Māori Strategic team for Baptist churches). I whakapapa to Te Arawa (Tapuika, Tūhourangi, Ngāti Whakaue), am a trustee for the Tapuika Iwi Authority and am chairman of Tapuika Holdings Limited.

11. I have managed the Hairini to Mt Maunganui A 110kV transmission line (HAI-MTM A line or A-Line) realignment, and associated changes to the Hairini to Mt Maunganui B 110kV transmission line (HAI-MTM B line or B-Line) (the Project) from the inception of the Project’s formal investigation stage in March 2015.

12. The focus of my evidence is on how Transpower has engaged with iwi/hapū potentially affected by the Project. Evidence provided by Gavin Murray (Transpower Programme Delivery Manager) sets out the background to the Project’s inception. Some of my evidence will also overlap with that of Ms Selina Corboy, the Communications Advisor for the Project.

13. My experience and familiarity with iwi/hapū relationships in the wider Bay of Plenty area meant that I was well-placed to lead TranspoweThroughout my evidence I draw on my knowledge of the Project through my role as Project Manager. However, my evidence is also based on my broader experience in engaging with iwi/hapū and my specific interactions with iwi/hapū affected by the Project. The scope of my evidence is further detailed below.

14. I have declared a conflict of interest with the Project in that I am also of Tauranga Moana descent (Ngā Pōtiki / Ngāi Te Rangi).

Scope of Evidence

15. My evidence will cover the following matters:

(a) History of Transpower’s interactions with iwi/hapū on the HAI- MTM A and B lines;

(b) How affected iwi/hapū were identified;

(d) Summary of engagement with affected iwi/hapū;

(e) Summary of key concerns expressed by affected iwi/hapū;

(f) Proposed mitigation measures to address cultural impacts;

(g) Response to Submissions; and

(h) Conclusions.

16. I can confirm that my evidence is within the scope of my expertise. Where I rely on the evidence of other Transpower witnesses, I clearly state this.

Iwi/hapū

17. Tauranga Moana has three major iwi interests living within the environs of Tauranga harbour: Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāti Pūkenga.

18. My understanding is only Ngāi Te Rangi has hapū with mana whenua over the Project area. These are Ngāti Hē situated primarily on Maungatapu peninsula south of Rangataua estuary and Ngāi Tūkairangi and Ngāti Tapu situated on Matapihi peninsula, north of Rangataua estuary.

Iwi Hapū Marae

Ngāti Ranginui

Maungatapu: property directly Ngāti Hē above the marae is Ngāi Te directly affected by Rangi A0116 and A0117 Affected

Hungahungatoroa: by the Ngā iwi o Hold Ngāi property is outside project Tauranga mana Tūkairangi the project area Moana whenua Waikari: property is for the Ngāti outside the project project Tapu area area Ngā Pōtiki

Ngāti Pūkenga

19. Set out below is a brief description of each hapū affected by the Project.

Ngāti Hē hapū

20. Ngāti Hē is a hapū of the iwi Ngāi Te Rangi with interests primarily on the south of Rangataua estuary, but also on the north side. The marae is situated on Maungatapu peninsula and often referred to as Maungatapu marae (but its original name is Opopoti). Historically and with regard to this Project, Ngāti Hē’s major concern has been the use of the Public Works Act in the alienation of land for the construction of the A-Line and Kaitimako (initially named Hairini) substation. One of the Project objectives seeks to address the long-standing commitment to hapū to remove the line from Te Ariki Reserve Park which sits above and to the west of the marae. Ngāti Hē produced a CIA report in response to the Project.

Ngāi Tūkairangi hapū (and the Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust)

21. Ngāi Tūkairangi is also a hapū of the iwi Ngāi Te Rangi with interests on Matapihi peninsula situated to the north of Rangataua estuary. Ngāi Tūkairangi’s major concern has been the use of the Public Works Act in the alienation of land for the construction of the A-line. The Project seeks to remove nearly all of the poles (A0120-A0126) and associated conductor from off the large horticulture orchard block owned by Ngāi Tūkairangi Trust (all of whom are members of Ngāi Tūkairangi hapū). Ngāi Tūkairangi hapū also produced a CIA report in response to the Project.

22. Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust is a land management organisation with ownership by members of Ngāi Tūkairangi hapū.1 More particularly, Pole B0033D (on Pt Te Ngaio 1 block) and Pole A0128 (on Pt Ohuki 2D) are on Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust lands. Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust produced a CIA report in response to the Project development.

Ngāti Tapu hapū

23. Ngāti Tapu hapū is also a hapū of Ngāi Te Rangi with interests on Matapihi peninsula. Transpower met with the chairman of the hapū trust, Puhirake Ihaka, to provide information on the Project and its objectives. At this time Transpower offered the trust an opportunity to develop a CIA report. The offer was declined by the trust, on account of the close connection that Ngāti Tapu has with Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust and Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū. Mr Ihaka’s view was that the CIA reports from both of these entities would cover the interests of Ngāti Tapu.

How iwi/hapū affected by the Project were identified

24. Given the history of the HAI-MTM A and B lines, Ngāti Hē and Ngāi Tūkairangi interests in the areas affected by the Project were already known. Transpower recognises that mana whenua is most directly applied at a hapū level. However, we were also aware of the wider iwi interests of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāti Pūkenga in the harbour. These interests are identified in the Tauranga Moana Iwi

1 The Trust chairman, Tio Faulkner, explained that the Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust manages a disparate collection of 17 land plots which are best characterised as marginal or less- productive units of land, or with special classifications that make the land non-productive reserves 5

Management Plan.2 In addition, I was aware of them through my own iwi connections.

25. To ensure that Transpower had identified all iwi/hapū with mana whenua over the Project area a meeting was held with the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective. The collective comprises all 17 of the hapū and iwi from within the Tauranga City Council area.3 This meeting was arranged by Ms Corboy. It was held on 26 November 2016 and was attended by Ms Corboy and I on behalf of Transpower.

26. It was agreed at the hui with the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective that Transpower continue engaging with Ngāti Hē and Ngāi Tūkairangi, and should also extend an invitation to Ngāti Tapu to be involved, as these are the only hapū with mana whenua in the Project area.

History of Transpower’s interactions with iwi/hapū on the HAI-MTM A and B lines

27. The HAI-MTM A-Line was built in 1958. Part of the HAI-MTM-A-Line crosses residential and recreational areas on the Maungatapu Peninsula, including the sports field on Ngāti Hē land at the end of the peninsula (Te Ariki Park) before crossing Rangataua Bay in Tauranga Harbour. On the northern (Matapihi) side of Rangataua Bay, the line crosses a series of horticultural blocks owned by Māori trustee land owners.4

28. Ngāti Hē, Ngāi Tūkairangi and Māori trustee land owners have been raising concerns in regard to the A-Line crossing their land since the line was installed in the 1950s. Ngāti Hē and Ngāi Tūkairangi cited

2 See Tauranga Moana Iwi Management Plan 2016-2026. Policy 15 is focussed on power pylons in the harbour (15.1) and the poles on Te Ariki Park reserve (15.2). 3 Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective comprises: Ngāti Ranginui Iwi - Tauranga, Ngāti Kahu - Wairoa, Ngāti Hangarau - Peterehema , Ngāi Tamarawaho - Huria, Ngāti Ruahine - Waimapu, Ngāi Te Ahi - Hairini, Ngāi Te Rangi Iwi - Mount/Papamoa, Ngāti He - Maungatapu/Welcome Bay, Ngāi Tukairangi - Whareroa/Matapihi, Ngāti Kuku - Whareroa, Ngāti Tapu - Matapihi/Otamataha, Nga Potiki - Papamoa/Welcome Bay, Ngāti Kaahu Ki Mangatawa - Mangatawa, Ngāti Pukenga Iwi - Welcome Bay, Waitaha-a-Hei - Papamoa East/Te Puke, Tapuika - Te Puke/Te Tumu/Kaituna, Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketu - Te Tumu/Kaituna. 4 Māori trustee land owners refers to other small land trusts that have the A-Line crossing their property or in close proximity to it. 6

concerns with the construction of the A-Line over their land in Treaty of Waitangi Claims WAI 211, 342, and 668.

29. In 1995, Transpower constructed the B-Line. In the Project area on both the Maungatapu and Matapihi sides, this line is located on poles within the road reserve of State Highway 29A, undergrounded for a short distance on both sides of the estuary and is attached to the State Highway 29A bridge to cross Rangataua Bay.

30. The poles for the B-Line were designed and constructed to be able to support another circuit, with the potential future realignment of the A- Line in mind given the historic grievances of the Māori communities as previously outlined. The construction of this B-Line is discussed in the evidence of Mr Gavin Murray, Programme Manager Lines.

31. Since the construction of the B-line Ngāti Hē, Ngāi Tūkairangi and Māori trustee land owners have expressed their concerns on an ongoing basis that the A-Line has not been relocated off their land since the B-Line was installed.

Transpower’s approach to engaging with affected mana whenua

32. Transpower’s general approach to engaging with affected iwi/hapū included the following steps:

(a) having regular hui with affected mana whenua to discuss the Project;

(b) Formally engaging with affected hapū to understand the cultural impacts of the project by commissioning CIA and where necessary agreeing to specific measures to address adverse effects on affected hapū; and

(c) Where appropriate, developing Access and Construction Agreements (ACA) with hapū to allow Transpower access through properties to undertake Project works.

33. While these steps provided a broad framework to engaging with iwi/hapū, in practice the process was more flexible and multiple hui

have been held throughout the Project investigation stage to keep iwi/hapū informed. These hui are detailed below.

Summary of engagement with affected iwi/hapū on the Project

34. Unless otherwise stated, my evidence refers to face to face hui. Other interactions with iwi have included email and phone conversations.

35. A proposal for dealing with the issues of the A-Line crossing sensitive cultural lands was put to Ngāi Tūkairangi at a hui at Mount Maunganui Ocean Sports Club then to Ngāti Hē at a hui at Maungatapu Marae on 15 May 2013.

36. Tai Taikato, Hinerongo Walker, Mahaki Te Kani were three Maungatapu Marae trustees who were at the 15 May 2013 hui and (along with Kihi Ngatai) have been the primary contacts for informing the hapū of progress with the investigation through to approval of the business case and the submission of the resource consent for the Project.

37. The key difference between the proposal as presented to iwi/hapū on 15 May 2013 and the Project that now forms the basis of the resource consent submitted by Transpower is that Transpower now proposes to remove the tower in the estuary and to cross the harbour in a single span. This change required a second pole to be included in the scope works on the Matapihi side of the harbour in addition to the pole that was already proposed for construction on the Maungatapu side.

38. It is important to note that the height of the pole on the Maungatapu side of the peninsula (Pole 33C) for which consent has been applied for, has not increased compared to what was approved by iwi/hapū at the 15 May 2013 hui.

39. The proposal presented on 15 May 2013 was widely agreed by hapū. A subsequent hui occurred on 14 March 2014 at Maungatapu. The purpose of this hui was to establish a working relationship and secure affected party approval for the anchor block structures installed some

five years earlier as emergency works.5 These structures that support Pole A0117 (the pi-pole on Te Ariki park, near the cliff). Following the hui, hapū provided affected party approval.

40. The agreement of Ngāti Hē hapū to the proposal at the 15 May 2013 hui, then the securing of affected party approval for the anchor block consent at the 14 March 2014 hui which was signed on 7 July 2014, gave Transpower the confidence to initiate a formal investigation into delivering the Project.

41. The investigation project kicked off on 28 October 2014 and culminated in the delivery business case for the build component of the project and filing of the resource consent to build.

42. There have been numerous hui with mana whenua and other stakeholders to discuss the progress of different elements of the Project, including commissioning CIA reports. In all, there were 43 face-to-face hui with iwi/hapū organisations during the formal investigation stage, briefly these included (all of the following entities mentioned below belong to one of the three hapū with mana whenua over the project area):

(a) Ten hui with the Maungatapu Marae trust (Ngāti Hē). At the first hui on 29 July 2015, Tai Taikato, the chairman of the Marae Trust, reaffirmed that it would be the Marae Trust that would communicate directly with Transpower on progress with the Project and the Marae Trust would keep the rest of the hapū informed through hapū hui.

(b) Ten hui with the Ngāti Hē hapū trust, including three hui with the Ngāti Hē working group which came together in December 2016 to specifically assist with progressing the resource consent application for the anchor blocks and the associated CIA report.

(c) Five hui with the Ngāi Tūkairangi trust; two hui with Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū trustees; one hui with the Ngāi Tūkairangi

5 Given the works were carried out under the emergency provisions of the Resource Management 1991 affected party approval was not obtained. 9

trust, and one hui where the CIA was presented to hapū and Matapihi-Ōhuki trustees collectively.

(d) Eight hui with the Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust.

(e) Eight hui with the Ngāi Tūkairangi Trust (Orchard).

(f) Three hui with Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust. On 17 August 2017, a hui was held with all of the Ngāi Tūkairangi interests for the hapu to present the CIA. At this meeting Matapihi-Ōhuki trustee Chris Stokes told the gathering that their trust was prepared to have Pole 33D on their property because it allowed the Project to proceed and satisfies the wider good on both sides of the estuary.

(g) One hui with the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective.

(h) One hui with Ngāti Tapu Hapū Trust chairman, Puhirake Ihaka.

Summary of key concerns expressed by affected iwi/hapū and proposed mitigations

43. Ngāti Hē, the Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust and the Matapihi-Ōhuki Trust raised various concerns regarding the impact of the Project on their lands. Their development of CIAs allowed for their concerns to be documented and, where appropriate, specific measures to address adverse effects to be agreed. A description of each group’s key concerns and the mitigation measures agreed to are set out below.

Ngāti Hē

44. Ngāti Hē has requested that an earthworks monitoring protocol is implemented.

45. Transpower has an accidental discovery protocol that is in place whenever earthworks are undertaken and cultural monitoring is provided for in the proposed resource consent conditions.

46. Transpower provided Ngāti Hē with the opportunity to comment on the draft ecological assessment. Following this, Ngāti Hē requested that a

marine monitoring and translocation protocol be implemented for pāpaka (crabs) present during tower structure removal with an amended monitoring protocol developed prior to commencement of work there. While no pāpaka were identified around Tower 118 in the ecological assessment, Transpower has offered a consent condition requiring a suitable protocol to be developed so that Ngāti Hē representatives can undertake a walkover of the work area and relocate any pāpaka encountered prior to tower removal commencing.

47. During early consultation with Ngāti Hē, it was suggested that a Waharoa Marae entrance be designed and established to counter any visual impact of the new monopole structure (Pole 33C) impinging on views of ancestral maunga. Transpower has agreed to make a contribution towards a waharoa or carved entrance to the marae.

48. The Ngāti Hē CIA raises other matters that I understand go beyond the consent process. Those issues will be addressed in a relationship agreement, side agreement, ACA or assistance in making an application for funds from Transpower’s Community Care Fund.

Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust

49. The Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust has requested that members are included in as many remedial considerations as possible, planting is undertaken where poles are removed, karakia are observed to acknowledge ancestors and cultural monitoring is provided for. The Trust seeks that young people are included in the Project to ensure they obtain the knowledge necessary to better contribute to similar processes in the future, and internship opportunities have been suggested as one way to achieve this.

50. Transpower is committed to maintaining an ongoing relationship with Ngāi Tūkairangi and has offered consent conditions in relation to accidental discovery and cultural monitoring (including karakia). Transpower will provide for any reinstatement works as part of its ACA with the landowners.

51. If possible the Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust seek the removal of the transmissions lines from all the Matapihi blocks. While it is

acknowledged that the hapū would prefer the extent of the realignment to go further than what is proposed (i.e. remove from other blocks further to the north), this falls outside the scope of this realignment Project.

52. Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust has questioned whether compensation can be paid for damages to Maori land and requested that negotiations regarding this matter continue. Transpower is not able to address any historic compensation issues.

53. As an uri (descendant) of Ngā Pōtiki, I am aware of the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Deed of Settlement which was signed on 14 December 2013. Specifically, the deed settles all historical claims, including those that are associated with the lines that Transpower is proposing to alter as part of this Project. The Wai claims that are covered by the settlement are those referred to in the Ngāi Tūkairangi CIA report (section 8.2.2 of the deed includes Wai 211 and 668).

54. The Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū CIA concludes by stating:

The largest benefit is that Maori feel a sense of relief as land that was unfairly taken for development has now been returned that (will) be used effectively for cultural growth and for that reason, notwithstanding the recommendations for mitigating risks as outlined in Section 5, the Hapū are largely supportive of the realignment plans and seek ongoing input into the Project to address the recommendations suggested.

55. There are also a number of recommendations in the CIA that Transpower will address in the context of the ACA agreement required for Project works on Ngāi Tūkairangi Hapū Trust land.

Matapihi Ōhuki Trust

56. The Matapihi Ōhuki Trust CIA outlines some of the history of the establishment of the A-Line on land in the Matapihi area. The CIA acknowledges the benefits of the removal of the Tower 118 from the CMA and outlines some of the direct effects of the wider Project. The

CIA makes recommendations to address cultural effects and details landowner agreement matters associated with Project works.

57. The overall conclusion of the CIA states that:

The Matapihi Ōhuki Trust agrees to provide support towards the resource consent application for the proposed realignment project based on the agreements reached on recommendations as outlined…

58. The specific recommendations in the CIA are summarised below:

(a) The Te Ngaio Pā site is viewed as an area which has significant cultural, spiritual and historical values. In light of this, the Matapihi Ōhuki Trust would like to see enhancement and cultural recognition of this area, by removing pest plants, replanting of natives and the installation of pou and kōrero – interpretation panels outlining cultural significance. Transpower has agreed to implementing Stage 1 of an Ecological Management Plan6 that targets the removal of pest plants and replanting with native vegetation on Matapihi Ōhuki Trust land, specifically SEA 25 identified in the Tauranga City Council District Plan.

(b) The Matapihi Ōhuki Trust CIA identifies the rich heritage of their land and highlights the importance of ensuring correct processes are followed so the whenua is treated with respect. Transpower has offered consent conditions in relation to accidental discovery and cultural monitoring (including karakia) to ensure correct processes are followed and the Matapihi Ōhuki Trust is represented onsite when works are carried out on their land.

59. There are also a number of recommendations in the CIA that Transpower will address in the context of the ACA agreement required for Project works on Matapihi Ōhuki Trust land.

6 AEE condition 11. 13

Response to Submissions

Aroha Ririnui’s submission

60. Aroha Ririnui makes reference to historical grievance as set out in WAI 342 and covering Ngāti Hē and the cultural and social impact of Transpower occupation of Ngāti Hē lands, which she asserts has long been culturally offensive to tangata whenua and comments on the cultural impacts and socio-economic impacts on tangata whenua associated with the Project.

61. In response to Ms Ririnui’s comments on Wai 342, I refer to my comments set out in paragraph 53 above. Wai 342 is specifically included in section 8.2.2 of the Deed of Settlement – the claim has been settled and any call for further compensation is not valid. Further, the line is being realigned away from Te Ariki Park and the horticultural lands to the north of the estuary.

62. Ms Ririnui claims that there has been insufficient negotiations with tangata whenua and local residents of Maungatapu. In addition, she requests tangata whenua participation in all processes and decision making in regard to Transpower activities with Ngāti Hē land. Tangata whenua engagement has been set out in paragraphs 42. In all, there were 43 face-to-face hui with hapū/iwi organisations during the formal investigation phase.

63. Ms Ririnui requests a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Transpower and Ngāti Hē for compensation to help rehabilitate Maungatapu Pa. Transpower looks forward to developing a MOU with Ngāti Hē as a matter to be addressed outside of the resource consent process. Transpower’s scope to financially contribute to other projects in the community is by way of its Community Care Fund. The Community Fund is administered by a body independent of Transpower and the funds are contestable.

Kristi Whyte and Scott Cornor’s submission

64. Kristi Whyte and Scott Cornor submit they are aware of Transpower having a ‘side letter’ with Ngāti Hē regarding the removal of the poles

from their land by a set date regardless of the outcome of the consent process. They state this ‘selling point’ of solving a historic grievance should not be a consideration in the outcome of this consent application.

65. Transpower has made applications for consent for the Project. Transpower’s ability to implement the Project is linked to whether it obtains all necessary consents. In this regard, there is no ‘side letter’ of the kind described in the submission.

Theresa Wharekura

66. For completeness, I note that Theresa Wharekura supports the proposal as she is concerned about transmission lines encroaching on traditional whenua of Ngāti He hapū and Ngāi Te Ahi. The submitter considers that the presence of transmission lines has eroded whenua in relation to the Rangataua clubrooms and Whakaneke Point.

Recommendations for Conditions

67. I am confident that the proposed consent conditions, where relevant, will adequately address potential cultural impacts.

Douglas McNeill

4 July 2018