The hidden cost of consultation

Today, we publish the first part of a six-month investigation into the Resource Management Act and 'consultation'. Our councils cannot tell us how much they spend on it. Our guess: millions of dollars a year. And we can state: the process has largely failed Maori, ratepayers, taxpayers and businesses. And lined a few pockets. Joseph Barratt reports.
Your council and developers pay millions of dollars each year to ask Maori what they think of almost every new structure larger than a carport or earthworks beyond a few postholes.
In fact, one Auckland city's council paid more than $60,000 for Maori to say what they thought about the 74 bridges in its area.
The Aucklander will attempt to unravel one of these cases where consultation has cost tens of thousands of dollars and untold hours in the Environment Court.
We have many more such examples. And we have evidence that some people are milking the system. One of the most surprising findings of our investigation is that it is not more
widespread.
It is all made possible under the controversial and soon-to-be-overhauled Resource Management Act 1991. All resource consent decisions are required to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
After an investigation lasting six months, The Aucklander can state: the consultation process has largely failed Maori, ratepayers, taxpayers and businesses. And lined a few pockets.
Auckland City Council is typical of local authorities in that it cannot provide a breakdown of Maori consultation costs. Most councils have work units that "facilitate consultation'' as well as work with Maori in other areas.
Auckland City Council's group is Pae Herenga Tangata whose job is to provide internal training in the council and facilitate consultation.
At Manukau City Council, Treaty Unit group manager Charles Berryman is likewise unable to give a complete breakdown of costs. However, he points out Manukau has a Treaty of Waitangi committee to get Maori input on council decision-making.
The council's annual plan lists the funding for the Maori liaison/Treaty of Waitangi at $1,026,000.
Mr Berryman also says the council has on-going relationships with five different iwi groups in a collective known as the Mana Whenua Forum. He says the forum has contracts with the council at a combined value of $150,000.
At the Auckland Regional Council, democracy services manager Bruce Thomas says it would be difficult to get an exact figure as there is no dedicated Maori consultation budget.
"Instead, consultation budgets are attached to each individual project.
"Some of these separate out Maori consultation while others include all consultation under the one cost code.''
However, the council also has a Maori relations team, Te Pae Hononga Maori, which Mr Thomas says "leads and guides'' the council's engagement with Maori communities. The team's budget this year is $909,000.
North Shore City Council can only say the base figure spent on consultation with Maori for 2008/2009 financial year was $288,819.
Waitakere City Council tells us that from 2007 through to the end of this year the budget for Maori engagement has been $80,000.
Waitakere also has a Maori relationship fund of $220,000 for this year. However, this money also goes towards other Maori-related issues.
MUCH MORE MONEY, however, passes from the hands of developers to Maori consultants to smooth the passing of resource consents.
The Aucklander has spoken with developers who talk of feeling threatened by the process, being pressured to pay thousands of dollars for cultural reports and appraisals or facing delays in the Environment Court.
One developer says he always consults with Maori before major projects. "The experience is typically good but there are some consultants out there that give it a bad name.''
Another developer secretly recorded a conversation with a Maori representative, who can be heard demanding cash and property for himself for his help with the consent process. It's a chilling record of a process that's clearly open to abuse.
Dr Manuka Henare, associate dean of Maori business at Auckland University, says the  Resource Management Act needs reforms to prevent these situations.
He says developers can too easily end up getting Maori views on matters which have nothing to do with them.
"Just because they have talked to a Maori and got them to write a cultural report doesn't mean they have consulted with Maori,'' he says.
However, he warns there are risks with the RMA reforms and says it's worth taking the time to make sure it's done right.
He says already local Maori face massive uphill battles if they are opposed to a development.
"It takes an extraordinary amount of resources [to challenge a development]. There are all the hidden costs. A lot of time and labour is put in.''
He says when the Government or councils do provide support, it never meets the cost and hours that go into preparing a submission or legal case.
Dr Henare says local Maori are rightfully nervous on the outcome of the RMA reforms after feeling they have been ignored through the super-city process, and losing the fight for separate representation.
"A LOT OF people put in a lot of effort to present plans and were trumped like that. It was a bruising experience for them.
He says consultation has greatly improved over the last 10-15 years. "They have built up a lot of goodwill over the years. It could all be lost if [RMA reforms] are mishandled.''
Ngarimu Blair is the heritage and resource manager for Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board in central Auckland, which has long-running Treaty of Waitangi and resource
management issues.
He says his experience is that the system hasn't worked. "We have very little say as it is.''
He says thousands of resource consents go through the region's local authorities each year. "We see 30. Auckland City Council has a staff of 2000 - we have two.''
Mr Blair says councils sometimes liaise with Maori who often don't have links to local iwi.
"They work as gatekeepers and it's just another layer of bureaucracy. We would prefer to deal direct with councils.''
Un-treasured island
One example raised by multiple developers is the Living Earth Ltd case, an application for the garden-supply company to operate a composting plant on Puketutu Island, near Auckland Airport in the Manukau Harbour.
The case went to the Environment Court in 2006 after opposition from local Maori including Saul Roberts, a representative from Te Kawerau a Maki Iwi Tribal Authority.
Living Earth had previously paid Mr Roberts and fellow consultant Te Warena Taua an unspecified amount to write a cultural report on behalf of Te Kawerau a Maki called "A Cultural Heritage Report for Living Earth''.
The report concluded: "There are no waahi tapu [sacred sites] on the site that will be affected by LEL's [Living Earth] development.''
The application soon made it to the Environment Court in a case brought by the Auckland Regional Council.
Official records show that the ARC had paid Mr Roberts two separate payments of $10,157 and $9472 to give evidence when the case went to the court.
This time, Mr Roberts represented the Makaurau Marae Committee, Ngati Te Ahi Waru and Ngati Te Akitai. He objected to the proposal and said he did not support the conclusion of the report that he'd co-authored.
When questioned about this by the judge, he said the Te Kawerau a Maki whom he
represented when writing the report did not have mana whenua over Puketutu Island.
Court documents show he also said he wasn't aware of the waahi tapu status of the island or the full extent of the proposal.
Mr Roberts also said he had raised the issue at the time but, as a junior, he had to accede to his elders' recommendations.
After further questioning by the judge, court documents show Mr Roberts conceded it was "less than honest'' for two people to co-author a report and then one of them to contradict that in court.
He also told the court that he had not visited the island since he was at university 15 years earlier.
Court documents show evidence from a Living Earth representative disputing Mr Roberts' claim.
The representative told the court Mr Roberts had visited the site several times with members of the committee and boundaries were explained.
He was "provided with detailed plans and maps that specify exactly where the site is''.
"Mr Saul Roberts has said to me on many occasions he supports what LEL does and has no problem with it being on the island.''
The company representative then said Mr Roberts needed more "encouragement'' to
convince other members of the marae.
In addition to offering employment opportunities to the marae, Living Earth would co-sponsor "a new nursery that was being established at the marae producing trees for the rehabilitation of the foreshore'', a project which "could be a long-term business opportunity for the marae''.
The witness told the court Mr Roberts' response was that "something more tangible was required''.
At the conclusion of this Environment Court appeal, Living Earth Ltd won its two-year battle to operate on Puketutu Island.
HIS HONOUR: Well, it's got your name on it.
MR ROBERTS: Mm.
HIS HONOUR: Your own personal name.
MR ROBERTS: Mm.
HIS HONOUR: Isn't it less than honest to have two people say this is not wahi tapu but one of them tells us that it is?
MR ROBERTS: I agree with you.
- Transcript, Environment Court appeal over Puketutu Island