spinofflive
A group of people posing happily outdoors near a lake, with hills in the background. A red stop sign and a "no poop" symbol are overlaid on the image. Flags are visible, and it is a sunny day.
Image: Supplied, additional design: The Spinoff.

ĀteaApril 3, 2025

Rotokākahi protectors vow fight isn’t over as court greenlights controversial pipeline

A group of people posing happily outdoors near a lake, with hills in the background. A red stop sign and a "no poop" symbol are overlaid on the image. Flags are visible, and it is a sunny day.
Image: Supplied, additional design: The Spinoff.

A legal bid to stop Rotorua Lakes Council’s controversial sewerage pipeline near Lake Rotokākahi has failed, with the Environment Court saying the project is in the public’s interest. But opponents call it a desecration and are not giving up.

The Environment Court has dismissed a legal bid to stop Rotorua Lakes Council’s controversial sewerage pipeline near Lake Rotokākahi – prompting outcry from mana whenua, who say the ruling fails to protect one of the region’s most tapu bodies of water.

“The Environment Court, which is tasked with preserving the environment, has completely failed in its obligation to assist us in protecting the Rotokākahi environment with today’s ruling,” said Te Whatanui Leka Taumalolo Skipwith, Protect Rotokākahi spokesperson, in a statement released after the decision came out on Tuesday.

The ruling marks a pivotal moment in a saga that has seen protests, court action and police interventions around a pipeline designed to service Lake Tarawera communities by replacing failing septic tanks with a modern reticulated system. Now, the court has ultimately sided with the council, stating it had no doubt the sewerage reticulation project was in the public’s interest and improving the quality of freshwater in Lake Tarawera must be a given.

However, those standing in protection of Rotokākahi – an area where the bones of ancestors lie and considered wāhi tapu by local hapū Tūhourangi and Ngāti Tūmatawera – say the judgment feels like another chapter in the long history of development overriding Māori rangatiratanga.

In a blunt section of the decision, the court acknowledged the cultural offence of the “piping of paru through a tapu area” was considerable for the Māori community, but added that this offence “may not be so for the wider community”.

For Skipwith and many others, that difference cuts to the heart of the issue – little consideration of cultural values and indigenous sovereignty in how infrastructure projects are assessed.

Skipwith said the protectors were now “taking a closer look at the decision and will look to proceed to the High Court”.

He also expressed frustration at what he called the council’s “last-minute” recognition of the need for resource consent – a move that came just six weeks before the final Environment Court hearing. While the court acknowledged this delay was “very troubling”, it ultimately placed blame for the timing of the legal challenge on the applicants, stating, “a considerable amount of time was consumed in protests and injunction proceedings, rather than the pursuit of any action under the RMA”.

Aerial map showing three lakes: Lake Tikitapu, Lake Rotokākahi, and Lake Tarawera. A green route connects them, with a red section highlighting a particular area. North arrow and a scale bar are present. Forested areas and fields are visible.
Tarawera Sewerage Scheme map of the pipeline (Image: Rotorua Lakes Council).

The pipeline at the heart of the dispute

The Tarawera Sewerage Scheme has been in development for nearly a decade, aiming to connect approximately 440 properties around Lake Tarawera to the public wastewater network via a 23km pipeline. The final 1.4km segment – along Tarawera Road and close to Rotokākahi – has become the focal point of opposition from mana whenua.

The council argues the project is essential for public health and environmental protection. Current septic tanks, they say, are leaching up to 252,000 litres of untreated effluent into groundwater and the lake each day. As of September 2024, the project’s estimated $29.32 million cost was partially funded by $6.5m from the Ministry for the Environment, $750,000 from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and $1.5m from the Rotorua Lakes Council. The remaining cost is to be covered by the 446 benefiting property owners, with each Tarawera household currently expected to pay between $38,000 and $42,000. However, the council will consult this month on whether to spread some of this cost across the wider district, which already contributes to operational and maintenance expenses through a targeted wastewater rate.

Despite acknowledging the spiritual significance of Rotokākahi, the council proceeded on the basis that the works did not require resource consent – a position the court has now upheld, albeit with reservations.

Since August 2023, mana whenua and supporters have staged peaceful protests at the site, including a 100-strong hīkoi and land occupations, and taken court action. The movement was surprised by a heavy police operation one night in February this year, when 80 officers cleared protesters to allow contractors onto the site. Seven people were arrested.

“This is a tohu that the desecration of Māori land will come with its own private protectors, paid for with your money,” one protester told media at the time.

The council also erected fences and installed cameras around the site – security measures that became symbolic of the hard line the project was taking. The costs of these measures, originally expected to be covered by the funding already provided from central and local government, may now fall to ratepayers.

Compromise or compliance?

In January, facing continued opposition, the council introduced a set of mitigation measures co-developed with some mana whenua representatives. These included: double-sleeving of the pipe near Wairoa Stream culverts, appointment of a pou tikanga, emergency protocols to alert mana whenua if the pipe failed, budgeting for remedial action, and a long-term cultural monitoring group.

While seen by some as a gesture of good faith, others argued these measures were mere window dressing to distract from a deeper issue: the route itself.

The court’s ruling may clear the legal path for the pipeline’s completion, but the spiritual and political battle is far from over.

“This decision does not end our obligations to our ancestors,” said Skipwith. “We will continue to oppose this pipeline, whether in courtrooms or on the whenua.”

The council may be nearing the end of its engineering timeline, but for those who call Rotokākahi sacred, the battle is only entering its next phase.

This is Public Interest Journalism funded by NZ On Air.

Keep going!
Lawyers representing John Tamihere’s Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency appeared in Wellington’s High Court on Tuesday.
Lawyers representing John Tamihere’s Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency appeared in Wellington’s High Court on Tuesday.

ĀteaApril 2, 2025

John Tamihere takes government to court over lost Whānau Ora contract 

Lawyers representing John Tamihere’s Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency appeared in Wellington’s High Court on Tuesday.
Lawyers representing John Tamihere’s Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency appeared in Wellington’s High Court on Tuesday.

Lawyers acting for the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency chief executive have appeared in Wellington High Court to argue for a judicial review of the decision to award the North Island contract to another provider. Lyric Waiwiri-Smith reports.

John Tamihere’s challenge to the procurement process that saw his commissioning agency lose out on a long-held Whānau Ora contract is a case of concern over “major disruptions to services”, not the grumblings of a “disappointed commercial partner”, his lawyer told Wellington’s High Court on Tuesday morning.

Less than a month after Tamihere’s Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) was told it had lost out on receiving a part of Whānau Ora’s $155m commissioning contract, lawyers for the agency (formerly known as Te Pou Matakana) filed urgent documents in the court on Friday last week requesting a judicial review. Secretary for Māori development Dave Samuels and his ministry Te Puni Kōkiri, the agency responsible for Whānau Ora contracts, were named as the first and second defendants, alongside new contractor Ngāti Toa as the third.

WOCA was one of three providers, alongside Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu and Pasifika Futures, which had held a Whānau Ora contract since 2014. All three lost their contracts after changes to the procurement process saw the number of commissioned agencies increase from three to four, with services in the North Island to be split into two and locally focused, though WOCA’s lawyers claim the “vast shift” in the system was designed to ensure it would not be eligible for the next round of contracts.

Wendy Aldred KC, representing WOCA, asked the court to consider the contextual issues within the case, arguing her client was not simply a scorned former contractor, but a service whose evidence of reach and success had been overlooked. WOCA was “not just simply a funding vehicle”, Aldred said, but a “network of 113 service providers, providing crucial services to some of Aotearoa’s most deprived areas and most vulnerable whānau”.

“This is a contextual call for the court to make,” Aldred said, though Justice Boldt requested further clarification on what this context might be. “If this was a company like Spark seeking to put out a procurement process, you wouldn’t think that the outcome of that would be judicially reviewable either,” Justice Boldt said.

The Wellington High Court building from the front entrance.
Wellington High Court (Photo: Lyric Waiwiri-Smith)

Aldred drew on a 1,601-page affidavit filed by Maria Halligan, director of funding and contracting at Te Whānau o Waipareira, a subsidiary of WOCA, which included a history of the Whānau Ora contracts. Halligan included a 2010 Whānau Ora taskforce report, which recommended Whānau Ora be te ao Māori-led, to recognise the position of Māori in Aotearoa and te Tiriti o Waitangi.

A separate affidavit filed by Tamihere also covered a history of working with Whānau Ora, and evidence of WOCA’s success in reaching and supporting communities in need. Tamihere had highlighted the vulnerability of those his service supported, whānau who he wrote are “in for a very long winter because of the immediacy of this disruption”.

“So, the plaintiff argues that this is a classic exposition of the first defendant answering or meeting an obligation under Article 2 of the Treaty,” Aldred said. But, Justice Boldt pointed out, the contractors who have replaced WOCA are also Māori.

“You would have a case if the government said, ‘building on the success of our school lunches programmes, we’re contracting this out to Serco … we don’t need to be culturally relevant,” Justice Boldt said. “What we’ve got here are competing providers, all of them – as far as I can see – steeped in te ao Māori, and a decision by the ministry simply to prefer different ones.”

Aldred said the plaintiff had “no allegation of bad faith at this stage”, and preferred to see an application for interim relief progressed to halt Te Puni Kōkiri’s new contracts, which are supposed to come into effect on June 3. She offered that the plaintiff would be willing to foot the bill for financial damages lost as a result, an offer described by the defendant’s lawyer, Tim Smith, as “spectacularly naive”.

John Tamihere in 2020, when he was co-leader of Te Pāti Māori (Photo: Harry Cundy)

“What we’re talking about here is a competitive process, and you’re not happy with the result,” Smith told the plaintiff. He offered to Justice Boldt that Aldred’s position in broadening the commercial contexts of the case clouded the core matter, which is that “as you rightly said, all of the respondents in this context are Māori providers with excellent credentials”.

Smith told the court that if orders were granted in this context, it would only be “stopping the horse that has already started to run”. WOCA’s case hinged on the idea of a status quo not being upheld, Smith said, but the status quo was now the fact that WOCA was no longer the incumbent.

“Let’s just be honest about what’s going on: the main beneficiary of that is the applicant … it can’t be for the benefit of those downstream,” Smith said.

Justice Boldt said the weakest part of the plaintiff’s case, even if accepting the wider context brought forward by Aldred, was that the challenge “simply reverts back to ‘we are the best provider for these services, and why could anyone have chosen not to continue with us?’”

“All the arguments run by my learned friend are fundamentally flawed,” Smith responded.

“You’d be throwing a spanner in the works of a major policy rollout for the benefit of some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people.”

The case will return to the Wellington High Court on Thursday.