Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill: Second Reading

 This time last week, a crowd of some 350 people ascended the sacred mountain at the entrance to Tauranga Harbour, Mauao.

 

At the peak of the 232 metre high landmark, they were inspired by the korero of legal graffiti artist, Graham Hoete or GMAN – founder of the clothing label, Repz, and master of the spray can.

 

The purpose for the hikoi was to pay homage to the memory of Sir Edmund Hillary – and in reflecting on his legacy, Hoete told the crowd, “all things are possible to those who believe”.

 

As we consider this Bill to vest the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust, “all things are possible to those who believe.” might well have been a good by-line for the documents to transfer the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve from the Crown through to Ngai Te Rangi, Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga.

 

It is apparently necessary for this Bill to come forward like this, as the Reserves Act 1977 does not provide for a transfer of this nature.

 

The three Tauranga Moana iwi want to believe I would suggest, that the Crown will demonstrate respect for their mana, for their rangatiratanga and for their capacity to uphold the rights and responsibilities of kaitiakitanga.

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Hand back the title to Mauao, käore i ko atu käore i ko mai, nothing more nothing less. Would they look after it. Hell yeah, of course they would, such is the respect those iwi place on their association with Mauao. Would they look after the interests of all New Zealanders like the Crown says it does. Of course, but if you are the owner, kei a koe te tikanga, that’s your business. That’s what Tauranga Moana believe I think.

 

The iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha also seek to believe that a healthy relationship can be established between them and the Crown.

 

It is here, however, that believers may well start to have some reservations.

 

The reason is that for all intents and purposes, despite this Bill, Mauao remains as if in Crown ownership. The iwi of Tauranga Moana have not been transferred any ownership rights including the right to, at the very least co-administer their own maunga.

 

Instead the nominal owners are specified as the Crown through the Minister of Conservation, devolved to the Tauranga City Council.

 

Ownership which is presumably different to that identified in the preliminary archaeological survey which reports the Mauao Historic Reserve constitutes a cultural landscape representing approximately six hundred years of human occupation by Tauranga Moana iwi.

 

The archaeological survey reports the first human settlement in the 13th century, the expelling of the Ngamarama people, the battle of Kokowai and finally the Ngapuhi incursion into the Bay of Plenty.

 

Six hundred years of history prior to the Tauranga City Council, one would have thought, would have given the three Tauranga Moana iwi a special status.

 

And yet nearly a year ago, in May 2007, the Chair of Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana, the chairs of the three Tauranga Moana iwi runanga and a representative of Waitaha indicated, and I quote,

 

“the draft agreement continues to impinge on and/or diminish our mana with respect to exercising our rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over Mauao”.

 

Mr Speaker, although this comment was made while the agreement was in draft form, the sentiments are harsh enough to suggest that they represent the exact opposite of the view that was intended in the commitment to building healthy relationships.

 

And here is the rub. This is the consistent and universal tension working against such relationships with the Crown, when, the alleged rights of the Crown appear to, as is the case with Mauao, completely stifle the ownership interests of Ngai Te Rangi, Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga.

 

Mr Speaker, the most significant point of tension is focused on clause seven of the Bill which has the effect of the Crown continuing to bear the rights and obligations as if it were the owner of the reserve.

 

The twenty-seven submissions repeatedly addressed their concerns around this clause which retains the general provision in the law that the Mauao historic reserve was vested in the Crown.

 

Submissions variously opposed Crown ownership and Council control as I heard it when I attended the Select Committee hearing in Tauranga.

 

The New Zealand Maori Council insisted that the land should be returned to iwi ownership without conditions, and without clauses which take it back out of their control.

 

Colin Bidois from Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana suggested clause seven dilutes the fullness of ownership while Maru Samuels of Ngai Te Rangi explained that clauses seven and eight would only work if there was a joint management structure with iwi.

 

The suggestion from Rahera Ohia of Te Au Maro o Ngati Pukenga that clause seven be either removed or amended to clarify its application and scope must be given serious consideration during the Committee of the Whole house section of this debate.

 

Another recurring theme was around the mismanagement of communications undertaken during the passage of this Bill.

 

Brian Dickson of Te Runanga o Ngai Te Rangi advised the Committee that the negotiations led by Te Runanga o Tauranga Moana were ill-managed and poorly communicated – leading to tensions flaring throughout the rohe.

 

Another Ngai Te Rangi submitter, Hauata Palmer, reinforced this same point, concluding that the Crown had used the process to manipulate a preordained outcome, creating much turmoil and division along the way.

 

Colin Reeder confirmed these views, saying that the process imposed by the Crown has lacked integrity and was fundamentally flawed.

 

Mr Speaker, none of this helps much in igniting public interest that this Bill is indeed necessary, and can well make a difference.

 

Under the circumstances, I suspect that others may well have given up, but not the iwi of Tauranga Moana. They will continue to negotiate; to listen; to hold strong to the line.

 

And they will continue to put forward their views about how this arrangement could work.

 

Huikakahu Kawe of Ngati Ranginui Inc recommended useful grounds for discussion might include environmental management, commercial development and the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 upon Ngati Ranginui.

 

Rahera Ohia raised the question as to whether the Bill covers intra-Crown payments.

 

And the Mauao Trustees themselves outlined issues they defined as outstanding – suggesting that for the return of Mauao to have more substance, the implications of the Foreshore and Seabed Act must be factored in to the discussion, as well as the issues around resourcing and compensation.

 

Mr Speaker, it is impossible to read through the submissions, to talk with the people, to sit and spend time with those who have believed Mauao will one day be returned to them, and not to feel the pain and disappointment they have. As one koroua expressed to me in providing advice about how we might vote, he said “ko aua korero ano ara, ko te tumanako ka whakahokia mai to matou maunga tuturu ki a matou” meaning, “it’s the same old story. We hope that our mountain will be returned to us.”

“All things are possible to those who believe”. I mihi to the iwi of Tauranga Moana who have believed that the entire Mauao historic reserve would be returned – and that the process and outcome would uphold the mana of the three iwi.

 

What has been achieved is very much a Clayton’s settlement – ownership in title only. The Minister of Conservation has an overwhelming role in determining how this maunga will be managed in the future.

 

Despite this, and in spite of the inflexibility of the Crown in refusing to agree to any of the solutions put forward by the iwi, the iwi have begun negotiations with Tauranga City Council to establish a partnership management with them.

 

The Maori Party puts on record our admiration for the strong resolve and the passionate determination of the people. They negotiate Memorandums of Understanding at the local level, to try to improve their situation. They always wanted joint management of Mauao and although it was considered outside the scope of this Bill, we in the Maori Party recognise the courage of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in moving on.

 

Of course we are pleased that the Select Committee has recommended the removal of the offending clause seven which spelt out in explicit detail that full ownership had not been provided to the iwi. The jury is out as to whether the new clause eight is sufficient to restore the faith of the people.

 

We will support the iwi of Tauranga Moana, and Waitaha, in their decision to do what they can to advance their own affairs. The Maori Party will always promote the leadership of iwi in doing the best they can for their people under often the most trying of circumstances. It is for these people that we support this Bill at its second reading.