(i) Tessa said she received a phone call from the mining company to say that they were commencing blasting on Union Hill. Dave Ingle explained that all potentially affected residents had been informed of the testing that was taking place.

(ii) Gail Henry elaborated on the minutes from 4 August by explaining that Historic Places Trust (HPT) will evaluate the Cultural Heritage Assessment (when complete) and rank the options. HPT will provide input to WCCC to assist the decision making process. HPT can provide other specialists to help answer questions. It will be helpful for the WCCC to understand the archaeological and resource consent process around the relevant heritage sites. Gail advised that HPT will not be “making a decision” about the pumphouse. It will provide information and its opinion to contribute to the decision making process.
It was agreed that we would set up a session regarding the Cultural Heritage Assessment and the “Heritage” and “Resource Consent” parameters that will affect the WCCC input into Pumphouse recommendations for the meeting on 15 September 2003.

(iii) Dave Ingle indicated that it may assist if the mining company were to make a presentation to the WCCC once the Cultural Heritage Assessment has been received (hopefully 15 September 2003).

(iv) Don Lockwood asked about the minutes and how they are checked for accuracy. After brief discussion it was agreed that no increased formality in the minutes process is required. If any problems arise with the minutes from each meeting these will be raised and addressed at the following meeting.

(v) Kit Wilson advised that the minutes of the WCCC meeting of 4 August 2003 are available on the Go Waihi, Hauraki District Council, Museum and Martha Mine websites. Minutes from the previous meetings will soon be posted also.

Kit reminded people about the mine tour next Monday 25 August 2003. Those interested are to phone Donna at Newmont Ph (07) 863 9827.

Kit asked permission to take a photo of the meeting for Doreen to add to her presentation to West Coast (Strongman Mine)

(vi) Collette Spalding said that recently there has been a Chemical smell from the area of Roycroft St. She had asked Council what it is and is waiting for a response. It was suggested that the smell might be that of ‘High Cane’ which may be currently being sprayed on kiwifruit at present.

2. Updates from the various working groups.
Tangata Whenua
John McIver gave a strong presentation regarding the context from which Tangata Whenua see their relationship with the land, the history of the Waihi situation and the issues that arise from the conflict between the philosophy of Maori as Tangata Whenua and the effects of the taking of land for mining and the mining itself.

Handouts from John are attached to these minutes. The themes that we have recorded from this presentation and how it relates to the work of the WCCC are:
i) The taking of land for mining purposes represents another example of the clash between the colonisation of Aotearoa and the Maori understanding of how land rights, sovereignty and governership would operate under the Treaty of Waitangi.
ii) The taking away of the mountain Pukewa represents a huge loss in spiritual terms for Ngati Tamatera. They can no longer say “ko Pukewa toku maunga” and point to Martha Hill. The maunga is gone but the spiritual significance is not. This is a core issue for Ngati Tamatera who experience the hurt and loss themselves, and who in John’s words “have to account to others for the loss of the mountain/for the land that was lost.”
After John’s presentation, questions were asked around what could be achieved out of this WCCC process to give something back to Tangata Whenua for what was taken away. John’s response was;
i) Talk about was has happened is a good thing – it’s a start.
ii) It is important that there is an acknowledgement of what has happened
iii) “Rangatira” is there and stands as a tribute.
iv) Something like a Pa Site would be significant – would provide the notion of a shelter for visitors and represent what has gone before.
v) If something positive is done Tangata Whenua will be able to hold their heads up / to be proud.
vi) When asked about the motivation of Maori John said it was not about asking for anything, it was about wanting to see acknowledgement for past wrongs.
vii) John was asked about the Tangata Whenua view on future mining. His reply was that Tangata Whenua are “not so in favour of mining”.
viii) When asked if the sanctuary containing native plants and birds would be an answer. John said that it would be a good thing but that an acknowledgement of the historical concerns that explains why people can’t see the mountain. It would need to be more of a focal point and atone for that loss.
ix) John was asked if there were more ideas that could be included in the WCCC process. John said that there is a Hui a Iwi on 23 August 2003 and that he would raise the question at that meeting and feedback to the WCCC.

Waihi Maori Community
Tuihana Cunningham was to have given a presentation from the Waihi Maori Community perspective. Unfortunately Tui had to give her apologies. Tim and Sharon will talk to Tui about giving the presentation at the next meeting on 1.9.03.

Social Impact & Current Issues
Collette Spalding gave a comprehensive presentation on the Social Impact and Current Issues perspective related to the mining in Waihi. (copy attached).
The report is a combination of;
i) issues to be addressed,
ii) questions to be answered, and
iii) ideas of how the social impact can be addressed through the WCCC.
A discussion arose from the Social Impact and Current Issues report around the lines of communication and the process for accessing information and getting assistance from The Company, Hauraki District Council and Environment Waikato. Dave Ingle indicated that this was part of the purpose of the Golden Legacy Centre and that it is Doreen McLeod’s role to be the communication point with The Company for the people to approach with such issues. Keith Trembath said that HDC too have its point of contact for customer service and that if there was inaction on their part he would be happy to address that.
From the discussion however it seemed that the issue was not so much about a lack of opportunity to raise issues, it was more about things not changing despite the problems being raised. It is about actually making a difference for those people who are affected. This is something to be discussed further by the WCCC, we will put it on the agenda for 1 September 2003.
Rex Dillimore who is also a part of the social impact subcommittee spoke about land values and property sales in Waihi. From empirical information it seems that property sales are very good. Regarding property values, Rex said it will be very interesting to see what the results of the valuation process will be when they are published in September 2003. Steve Moore said he could access information about current house sales statistics for Waihi. It was agreed that it would be of interest to the committee to have this information at the next meeting.
Ruth Ordish pointed out that the learnings from the social impact of mining on the residents of Waihi should be utilised when the Company, the District Council and Environment Waikato set the parameters for any new mining consents so that the same problems are not repeated.

3. What further information is required and how is it to be obtained
i) Property sales Stats
Steve Moore will bring the statistics on recent house sales in Waihi to the next meeting
ii) Central Government
In response to a question about central govt being involved it was agreed that we would reconsider the role of central government when we reach the point of discussing how the recommendations of the WCCC can be funded and implemented.
iii) HDC Input
We discussed the merits of HDC indicating their views of the future for Waihi and the opportunity for the consultation process to dovetail with those views. It was decided that we would incorporate that input from HDC at a later stage in the process when the ideas of the WCCC are formed in at least a draft fashion.
iv) Tour of Union Hill
It is hoped that this tour will take place in the not too distant future. Eric is being encouraged to lead this and we think has agreed.


4. Other Discussion
Kathy Mason who gave her apologies for this meeting had emailed to Tim and Sharon the answers to 2 of the 3 questions that were raised on the last mine tour and needed research to answer. The answers are:

i) Rex Dillimore wanted to know the RL of the netball courts in relation to the proposed lake level. One of the surveyors did a check and the RL of the netball courts was 112 m above sea level. To put this in perspective the proposed lake level is 104 m above sea level, so the netball courts are around 8m higher than the lake level.

ii) Claire Mewes wanted to know the current employment numbers. As at July 03, they were: Permanent employees 87.3, Casual employees 8.3, Full-time contractors 168, Total 263.6. (Note that employees are recorded as full time equivalents, which explains the decimal points. Contractors are defined as non-employees filling the role of what would otherwise be a full-time equivalent position).

iii) Tessa McKenzie also wanted to know whether there was any likelihood of increased mosquitoes particularly if the Company went with the option of rehabilitating the hazard zones to lake creating the “lake fingers”. We will be addressing that shortly but Kathy does not have an answer at this stage.

5. Matters arising from previous meetings that had not been dealt with:
(i) We discussed again what a majority means (i.e. what percentage of the committee or of those present will be required for a matter to be passed by the WCCC). We discussed the circumstances in which such a vote may need to be taken. Some said that if 51% is good enough for parliament then it should be enough for us. Others indicated that if we had to have such a vote and it was that close then we would not have sufficient mandate to consider that the recommendation is representative. The decision we made about voting majority is.
ÿ We will attempt to reach a full consensus.
ÿ If we are unable to reach a consensus members of the committee will go back to the groups they are representing with the differing points of view, discuss the issues and come back to the committee for a second discussion and decision.
ÿ If we are still unable to achieve a consensus on any particular issue we will decide how the process will work at the time with the possibility of ultimately saying that the recommendation was agreed to by x % of the committee or that it represents the views of x % of the community.
(ii) We have agreed that the quorum for a WCCC meeting is 12.

6. What is our process from here?
The next three stages for our process are:
A) Meeting 1.9.03
i) Presentations from:
- Waihi Maori Community
- The Heritage Group
iii) Tim and Sharon will circulate a list of the ideas already listed. (this will also be placed on the WEB).
iv) Subcommittees will check with their groups for more ideas and input (hopefully this can be done before the 1 Sept meeting but if not we can revisit on 15 Sept).
v) At the 1 Sept meeting we will consider whether there are any gaps in our representation. That is, whether there are other groups of people in the Waihi Community that should have input into the ideas generation stage. (Please put some thought into this between now and the next meeting).
B) Meeting 15.9.03
i) HPT will do a presentation regarding Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) process.
ii) If it is available at that stage the mining Company will present the CHA.
C) Meeting 29.9.03
Discussions of options for the pumphouse and what process we will use as a committee to decide what option to recommend.

7. Meeting closed at 9.45 p.m.

Tim and Sharon