Waitaha and Ngai Tahu are at odds over consultation with Holcim (New Zealand) Ltd about plans for a new cement plant in the Waiareka Valley, North Otago.
The division emerged at an Environment Court hearing in Oamaru, where two Waitaha groups, Waitaha Taiwhenua o Waitaki Trust Board Inc and Te Runanganui o Waitaha Me Mata Waka Inc, were appearing as interested parties in appeals against resource consents granted for the plant and its associated quarries.
Ngai Tahu is adamant it is the statutory body with responsibility for the area, but the Waitaha Trust Board has told the court the Waiareka Valley is part of its ancestral lands and holds cultural and spiritual significance.
It said Holcim's proposal would adversely affect that, and it had not been consulted about the project. All consultation had been with Ngai Tahu and its Te Runanga o Moeraki.
Yesterday, Moeraki runanga witnesses defended that approach.
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu representative David Higgins emphasised the Moeraki runanga was the body that would be working with Holcim.
Mr Higgins rejected suggestions Waitaha's interest had not been taken into account.
"It is insulting to assume that I or any of those consulted by the [Waitaki District] Council and Holcim prior to these proceedings put aside our Waitaha ancestry and knowledge," he said.
"As a person of Waitaha descent, I consider that all the issues raised by the trust board have been considered by Te Runanga o Moeraki . . ."
Under cross-examination by Waitaha counsel Dr Joan Forret, Mr Higgins said he was not aware of any political unrest within the Ngai Tahu corporate structure in respect of Waitaha. If there was any, it was outside that.
Some individuals of Waitaha descent wished to retain that lineage and tended not to see the Ngai Tahu corporate structure as their corporate structure, he said.
Judge Gordon Whiting said the court had the situation of two parties representing Waitaha who wanted to retain their identity and interests and felt they were not adequately protected.
One condition required the Moeraki runanga be notified if there was a discovery of artefacts of importance. Judge Whiting asked Mr Higgins if there would be "any political consternation" if Waitaha was included in that.
"These are sensitive issues and the last thing the court wants to do is ride roughshod over and make them worse," he said.
Mr Higgins said he would need to take advice on that from the runanga, but suggested there was a way the condition may be worded which would satisfy any concerns.
Acting chairwoman of the Moeraki runanga, Koa Joy Mantell, said the first meeting with Holcim was held in April, 2006, marking the start of formal consultation over the development. Under the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act and Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act, the Moeraki runanga had that authority.
A memorandum of understanding was being prepared to formalise the relationship.
The runanga was satisfied with the consultation undertaken and that issues had been addressed, she said.
