Engagement is happening in an inherently diverse, fluid and complex environment The environment within which Māori and infrastructure providers engage on infrastructure initiatives is inherently diverse, fluid and complex. • Māori are diverse and the differences between, and evolving nature of, Māori groups mean that it is unhelpful for infrastructure providers to make assumptions about what the priorities and aspirations of members of a particular group of Māori will be (even if the infrastructure provider has engaged with members of that group before). • The government infrastructure sector is also complex. Different government infrastructure providers have different levels of autonomy and different accountabilities, are subject to different funding controls, and take different approaches to how they undertake infrastructure initiatives. Relevant legislation changes regularly. These factors make it challenging for Māori groups who engage on a range of government infrastructure initiatives. The environment will continue to be complex and evolving. It would help both Māori groups and infrastructure providers to engage effectively in this environment if infrastructure providers improved the extent to which their personnel had visibility of: • what other parts of their organisation are engaging with different Māori groups on • what other infrastructure providers (and other government organisations) are talking to particular Māori groups about. Approaches to increasing the visibility of the engagement that is occurring with different Māori groups across the infrastructure sector need to: – be practicable to maintain over time – not place an unreasonable time or cost burden on Māori groups or infrastructure providers – enable mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) (including information about culturally sensitive sites and landscapes) and commercially sensitive information to be treated appropriately. Why Māori groups and infrastructure providers engage with each other New Zealand legislation, local authorities, mana whenua groups, and infrastructure sector participants give a very wide range of reasons why Māori groups and infrastructure providers should be, or are, engaging with each other in relation to infrastructure initiatives. Mana whenua groups’ reasons for engaging tend to include: • to fulfil inherited responsibilities and uphold their status (including as kaitiaki (guardians)) • to enable te ao Māori values to be integrated into infrastructure initiatives • to achieve broader outcomes for the group (including to ensure that the group’s social, and economic interests are taken into account). Infrastructure Staff’s reasons for engaging include some factors focused on achieving particular infrastructure initiatives. However, their reasons are not limited to that, and many of the reasons they give for engaging take a longer term view. Mana whenua groups, infrastructure sector participants and local authority websites all see engagement as part of the participants fulfilling their roles under the Treaty of Waitangi | Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty | Te Tiriti). Trust-based ongoing relationships There is a lot of debate regarding what the Treaty | Te Tiriti requires. However, there appears to be consensus between mana whenua groups, the New Zealand Courts and infrastructure providers that (whatever else it does or does not require) the Treaty | Te Tiriti obliges both Māori groups and government infrastructure providers to: • There is a reasonable degree of consensus between mana whenua groups and infrastructure providers that infrastructure providers should use publicly available sources to seek to understand a mana whenua group’s history, priorities, kawa and tikanga before substantive engagement occurs. • Generally, infrastructure providers do not develop written engagement strategies or plans for engaging with Māori groups (and instead are guided by a Māori group on how and the extent to which that group wants to engage on a particular initiative). • Infrastructure providers pay for Māori groups’ time, and meet expenses Māori groups incur, in engaging on projects initiated by those infrastructure providers (in the same way as infrastructure providers would pay for other specialist input). • Where possible, engagement includes multiple kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) meetings (unless a Māori group indicates that that is not required). • If differences arise between Māori groups during engagement infrastructure providers do not get involved in trying to broker agreement between those groups, but in some situations the parties will use mechanisms that allow those differences to be resolved between the Māori groups separately while other aspects of the infrastructure initiative continue to progress. • Infrastructure providers generally do not undertake formal reviews of how engagement with a Māori group went on a particular initiative or have a formal process for discussing with Māori groups how their feedback shaped an initiative (with several infrastructure providers commenting that those matters are addressed more informally as part of regular ongoing meetings with a Māori group). Three areas where there is notable divergence in views or practice are: • mana whenua groups appear to have a greater level of preference for entering into written relationship Memoranda of Understanding than infrastructure providers • differences in when and how any specialist Māori engagement staff employed by an infrastructure provider are involved in engagement with Māori groups • a lack of consensus as to whether which contracting and procurement model an infrastructure provider uses for a project has a substantive impact on Māori engagement. There are some issues that appear to arise in relation to many infrastructure initiatives. • Infrastructure providers often find it difficult to identify which specific Māori groups to engage with or who within a Māori group to engage with. • It is quite common for infrastructure providers not to identify that some areas of land affected by an infrastructure initiative are multiple-owned Māori land, resulting in the beneficial owners of that land not being engaged with. • Māori staff within infrastructure providers have multiple accountabilities – their accountabilities as employees/public officials and accountabilities to their iwi, hapū or Māori generally – which may lead to burn-out or other issues. • There are issues regarding the extent to which Māori groups and infrastructure providers can be open with each other when information relevant to an infrastructure initiative is mātauranga Māori (particularly information about culturally sensitive sites or landscapes), or commercially sensitive. • Infrastructure providers generally do not specifically budget or account for the costs of engaging with Māori groups. • The acquisition of land owned by Māori groups for infrastructure initiatives is a matter of particular concern to Māori groups and creates complex future obligations for infrastructure providers/the Crown when land acquired for a project is no longer needed.