Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a special one. It recognises the enormous significance of Mauao, Mount Maunganui, to the iwi of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, and also to Waitaha. The bill represents the successful culmination of many years of patient dedication by the kaumātua, Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana, and the iwi themselves. The bill will implement the negotiated agreement between the Crown, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, the trustees of the Mauao Trust and Waitaha. It recognises the mana of Mauao and provides for the transfer of the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve to Tauranga Moana iwi.
The bill represents what I consider to be a constructive and forward-looking outcome for Tauranga Moana Māori and for the wider community. Under the bill iwi will become the holders of the fee simple estate in Mauao. The Tauranga City Council will continue to be the management body, and the Crown will continue to discharge a set of duties and obligations relating to Mauao as if it is still the titleholder. Tauranga Moana iwi will advise on the day-to-day management of the Mauao historic reserve as representatives of the Tauranga City Council’s Mauao steering group. This combination of iwi ownership and joint management will ensure that management practices are both culturally and environmentally appropriate and maintain public safety and access. The bill also sets the platform for a longer-term benefit for the wider community, as all New Zealanders will stand to gain an enhanced appreciation of what Mauao means to the tangata whenua.
I take this opportunity to thank members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their careful consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank those who submitted on the bill for their contribution to this important process. The Māori Affairs Committee heard from a range of submitters and worked through the issues that those submitters raised. The key changes recommended by the committee addressed issues raised by submitters relating to clauses 7 and 8 of the bill. Submitters were concerned about the way in which the legal rights and obligations in relation to the Mauao historic reserve were reflected in these clauses. In particular, the bill as introduced noted that Mauao would be treated as if its fee simple estate were still vested in the Crown.
The question was then raised as to who is the real owner of Mauao under the bill and whether iwi were actually receiving the title to Mauao. To be clear, Tauranga Moana iwi will become the legal owner of Mauao. It will receive the fee simple estate in Mauao and be recognised as its registered proprietors. What will not transfer is the burden of responsibility, both financial and statutory, that comes with the management of a historic reserve. That responsibility will continue to be borne by the Crown. This was the intention behind clauses 7 and 8, and it was central to the negotiated agreement. The committee reworked these clauses after hearing from submitters, to make the distinction clearer and to emphasise that it is the iwi that will own the fee simple estate in Mauao.
I understand that Tauranga Moana iwi have recently reached a memorandum of understanding with the council that reflects the aspirations that iwi have to be more involved in the management of Mauao as a historic reserve in the future. I congratulate iwi and the council on taking this initiative in further strengthening their relationship. Under the bill the existing management arrangements currently provided by the Tauranga City Council will continue for the foreseeable future. I also want to assure the House that the existing management arrangements will continue for the benefit of tangata whenua and the wider community, which will continue to enjoy the maunga tūpuna of Tauranga Moana iwi.
The bill raises the profile of Tauranga Moana Māori, and in achieving that I salute the kuia and koro, and all the whānau for that matter, who have supported the progress of the bill. I also congratulate the Mayor of Tauranga and the Tauranga City Council on their foresight in enhancing iwi input into the management of Mauao by raising the status of its Mauao advisory committee to a steering group over the course of negotiations. The council has now signed a memorandum of understanding with the iwi rūnunga. It is a credit to both parties that they are working together in this way.
This bill will give greater recognition to the iwi—something long overdue—it will grow the community’s appreciation of the ongoing significance of Mauao to Tauranga Moana, and it will further strengthen the ties between our communities under the Treaty. I therefore endorse the recommendations of the Māori Affairs Committee. I wholeheartedly support the second reading of this bill and its quick passage so that the transfer of Mauao into the hands of iwi finally becomes a reality for the Tauranga Moana people. Kia ora tātou.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this
I am very pleased to stand in the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. National supports the bill, and I support all the remarks that have been made by the Minister of Māori Affairs this afternoon. Mauao, of course, as it is known to the Tauranga Moana iwi, is more commonly known as Mount Maunganui, and it is of hugely significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance to Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, and Waitaha, and this bill essentially sees the return of that maunga to the Tauranga Moana iwi. Therefore this measure is a reason to congratulate those iwi and to celebrate with them.
The select committee process that we went through in recent weeks was a pretty memorable sort of affair, I have to say. The Māori Affairs Committee went to Tauranga, where a very fulsome gathering of iwi elders was there to greet us, and I will come in a minute to the issue that most bothered them. I think one of the best things about being in Parliament when a transfer of this nature takes place is to go and visit with the iwi concerned to soak up the significance of it, although I think most of us were aware of that anyway—and I include in that my colleague Bob Clarkson, who filled in because he is a local member. He also has a very keen appreciation of the depth of association—the historical ties and spiritual association—of the Tauranga Moana iwi with their maunga. But in that they are not unlike other iwi, who all associate and identify themselves with their maunga or their awa.
It gave me an enormous amount of pleasure, though—and I just want to refer to this again—to see the reasonably large gathering in Tauranga. It was very respectful, but the iwi had mostly come to see the select committee about what they saw as a Clayton’s transfer of the fee simple to them. If I turn to the bill, as introduced, I see clause 7 reads: “For the purposes of any enactment … or rule of law, Mauao historic reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” That, in combination with clause 5, “Mauao historic reserve vested in trustees of Mauao Trust”, which included a statement that the fee simple was to be returned to the Tauranga Moana iwi, had become a matter of some concern, and I think considerable hurt, to them. It seemed to them that on the one hand the Crown was giving something back to them but was taking it away in the same breath. It was a matter of such moment to them that representatives of the three tribes all turned up to voice their concerns and to see whether the select committee could do something about it.
That is not always possible to do when one is on a select committee, because obviously the two major parties, the two major players in terms of most bills, have pretty set positions, and one does not always achieve the changes that one is sometimes asked to achieve. But, fortunately, in this case the arguments that were put forward were pretty potent—
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
Oh, of course, yes. Actually I failed to mention the third parties not because I was trying to imply that they were not influential but because the two big parties, in the sense of the traditional adversarial system, tend sometimes to dominate not just this Chamber but also the select committees. Although that did happen in this case, the two major parties and the two smaller parties, New Zealand First and the Māori Party, were all in agreement, and I think that is the main thing.
I think that the Tauranga Moana iwi will be very pleased to hear that all the parties assembled around the select committee table were in agreement. We took on board what the iwi said—that this felt like a Clayton’s transfer of their maunga back to them. The matter was of considerable pain to them. They asked us to please go away and consider the matter. That is what we did, and I am happy to say that, thanks to the input of all, a change has been made, as the Minister has outlined. Although on the face of it the words possibly do not necessarily convey that a significant change has been made, none the less I trust that the Tauranga Moana iwi are satisfied with and appreciative of what has been done to act on their request.
We have now made changes to the bill. As the Minister has conveyed, the fee simple passes to the iwi. But in fairness to the officials, one of the things that I think they were always concerned about was to ensure that the responsibilities and management obligations that go with being the owner of any piece of land—not the least of which is the Mauao historic reserve—did not transfer to the iwi. So Mauao will return to the Tauranga Moana iwi in a form that they feel is more of a proper return than it was previously, but, as has been noted, none of the obligations and responsibilities that are currently with the Crown in terms of the Reserves Act will be transferred. They will stay with the Crown, and in terms of the day-to-day management of the reserve, they will stay with the Tauranga City Council.
The select committee process was good. It was consensual, and everybody worked together to get a good result. This is again one of those moments in Parliament when an iwi, or a group of iwi, for whom an issue had been a gnawing pain in their side for a long number of years came to the Crown several years ago, to ask for the return of their maunga. The Tauranga Moana iwi have patiently come forward and achieved that. Iwi have to have the patience of Job, frankly, to get themselves through one end of a settlement like this one and out the other end while still feeling reasonably intact, but these people have done that, in their quiet, respectful, and very humble way. They have done it in a way that does them credit and makes me feel very proud, as a Māori, as Tūwharetoa, and as a member of this House. I am very proud that, ultimately, the right thing to do is being achieved more and more often in this place.
I congratulate the iwi from Tauranga Moana. I thank all my colleagues on the select committee. It is satisfying to achieve these transfers of land, and it is often fun, as well, especially when we know that after having discussions all around the table we will probably get a change that everybody can agree with, including, lo and behold, the Government members. The Government members are often the ones who hold the power in the select committees, but they too could see the utter sense and the justice of changing the wording of the bill in order to make the people feel that this is, indeed, a proper return of Mauao. So I salute the Tauranga Moana iwi, I salute their maunga, I salute their awa, and I look forward to the quick passage of this legislation through the House in order for the Tauranga Moana iwi to complete the long journey they have been on. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) Link to this
Tēnā koe te Whare, tēnā koe te Wahine e noho mai rā i runga i te tūnga teitei rā.
[Greetings to you, the House, and to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, seated there in your lofty position.]
I stand today to support the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I am particularly proud to support the second reading of this bill. It represents the final hurdle for the iwi of Tauranga Moana, who have waited so patiently since the initial delegation of kaumātua visited Ministers in Wellington asking for the return of this important taonga to them. I am pleased that the bill has progressed through the Māori Affairs Committee with the full support of all parties, so that the fee simple estate can be transferred to iwi.
I will pause here to pay a special tribute to the kaumātua who submitted on the bill before the select committee. They were the ones who began this journey and they will appropriately be the holders of the fee simple estate on behalf of iwi, which is befitting to their status and their mana. I also congratulate the rūnanganui of Tauranga Moana, the mandated body, on progressing this proposal as a source of kotahitanga for Tauranga Moana Māori. I would also like to mihi to our kaumātua for their role in guiding and supporting the rūnanganui and the Crown in our discussions over the past few years. The same kaumātua spoke in support of the bill when it came before the select committee. They urged us to return the maunga to them. They very clearly reminded us that iwi never ceded the mauri and the mana of Mauao.
I also congratulate the mayor and his officials once more on their foresight, vision, and support for this bill and the council’s willingness to strengthen its relationship with iwi and the trustees.
The submitters spoke overwhelmingly in favour of the return of Mauao. Many of them, however, objected to the way in which the Crown’s ongoing role was expressed in the old clause 7. The select committee has therefore considered these concerns and recommended to the House that appropriate changes be made. The key changes to the bill are the deletion of clause 7 and the incorporation of its intent in a new clause 8. Clause 7 of the bill as introduced provided for the general law to continue to apply to Mauao and to that effect it stated: “Mauao Historic Reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown.” The tone of the language used in the bill caused some concern among submitters but its intent was not well understood. The new wording has now been found and it still allows for the general law to apply as agreed by the parties, but in a less provocative way. New subclause 8(3) states: “Unless and until the reservation of Mauao historic reserve as a reserve is revoked under the Reserves Act 1977, the Crown continues to have, in relation to the reserve, the rights and obligations of the holder of the fee simple estate (including any obligations in respect of occupational health and safety, building, or rating liability legislation).” With these changes the bill will clarify which laws other than the Reserves Act will continue to impact on the management body of the Mauao Historic Reserve and which, in turn, will not become a burden or a liability to the holders of the fee simple estate.
The new wording also provides that Mauao will continue to be an iconic place for all New Zealanders to appreciate but, more than ever before, as a place of great significance as a taonga to the tangata whenua of Tauranga Moana. Despite the select committee’s recommended wordings, there is no intention to revoke the reserve status, and kaumātua specifically endorsed the scope of the agreement because it retains Mauao’s reserve status, which protects Mauao from commercialisation and alienation. The journey of this initiative, from its conception by kaumātua, through to its culmination in this bill, has involved numerous meetings and consultation hui to fine-tune the proposal. It has been discussed with the council, and consensus has been reached among four iwi. The original outcome sought is now about to reach fruition. I believe that the intention to strengthen kotahitanga among the tribes and build the relationship with the Crown is an honourable one.
As members are aware, the fee simple estate will transfer to trustees who will receive and hold the title to protect and preserve the mauri of Mauao and facilitate the maintenance of the natural physical and cultural integrity of Mauao under their trust deed. The existing management by the Tauranga City Council will continue, as appointed by the Minister of Conservation, under the Reserves Act to manage, control, and administer the reserve. Tauranga Moana iwi and the council have recently signed a memorandum of understanding that also provides for a new relationship with the Mauao Trust and the involvement of the trustees in the governance and management of Mauao.
There are real benefits here in the convergence of these goals in bringing together iwi and council in a more meaningful way, as each party brings their different areas of expertise together to manage the maunga. The mātauranga, or body of collective knowledge, that iwi hold in relation to Mauao has great potential to enrich the wider community as well. Vesting the fee simple estate in Tauranga Moana iwi gives greater recognition to this. It is not simply a matter of acknowledging their ancient history. It is the values and expertise handed down over the generations and held by iwi that are also important and increasingly relevant. The council should not be expected to manage Mauao as a historic reserve without the benefit of this expertise. Combined with the council’s infrastructure and administrative expertise, this bill should ensure that Mauao is protected and respected for generations to come.
As noted previously, the Crown and iwi acknowledge that this bill is not consideration for the settlement of any Treaty claim against the Crown. The enactment of the bill will not preclude any of the four iwi from seeking to further achieve their aspirations, to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in respect of Mauao.
Finally, as a Labour member of the select committee I want to express my gratitude, with a sense of integrity, for the collegiality of the whole of the select committee acting in unison towards ensuring that we were able to make critical and significant changes to the wording of this bill, which enhance the position of iwi and also the Crown in its final outcome. I support the passage of this bill as a point of unity for Tauranga Moana iwi and in recognition of the mana of Mauao itself. Nō reira, huri noa i te Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I endorse everything that the previous speaker, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, said in his excellent speech. To the outsider it may seem as though this is all dancing on top of a pinhead—what is in words? But the challenge for the Māori Affairs Committee, which, as the Minister said, worked in a very professional and collegial way, was to turn concepts into words that were acceptable to the tangata whenua of Tauranga.
Time and time again—in the very short time that I have been a member of Parliament—it seems to me that Parliament fails when it grabs hold of concepts and cannot adequately or professionally translate those concepts into words. An obvious example of that is the electoral finance legislation. Government members had a clear aim: they wanted to do in the National Party after the 2005 general election. But when it came to drafting the legislation, they shot themselves in the foot because they did not get the words right. As a consequence, that legislation is a shambles. The Minister of Justice makes a fool of herself every question time, the legislation will give rise to litigation, and yesterday we had the Prime Minister almost raising the white flag of surrender by saying that she knew it was a shambles and would have to be sorted out. She was acceding to what the Hon Peter Dunne had said about having a cross-party conference.
That is what happens when one does not get the words right, let alone the concepts. Of course, the Electoral Finance Act is ghastly legislation in concept as well. Therefore, it behoves members of Parliament, as legislators, to knuckle down and focus on the words.
Sue MoroneyCHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
Instead of cackling away like that, Sue Moroney could perhaps listen to what I say, because it is about a very important thing that we could all learn from.
We were dealing in this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill with a total agreement between everyone on the concept that we wanted this particular historic reserve to be transferred back in accordance with agreements made between the Crown and the tangata whenua of Tauranga, but the question was how the Crown would retain some kind of residual responsibility. When I looked at the way clause 7 had been drafted my immediate reaction was that this was not just a Clayton’s transfer but it was also insulting. It is worth just focusing carefully on the words, because it states that for the purposes of the enactment the reserve “must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown.”
That is totally unacceptable terminology, given the concept of what was trying to be achieved. I know that other members of the select committee, such as the good New Zealand First member, Mr Paraone, said: “Surely to goodness, this is a matter where we are agreed on the concept, and it should not be beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to come up with a form of words that are acceptable.” Therefore, as the honourable Associate Minister said a few minutes ago, clauses 7 and 8 were omitted from the bill and a new clause 8 has been inserted. I think it is a very good piece of work, and it captures exactly what all the parties intended—that is, although the reserve is transferred back to tangata whenua, the reserve status is preserved.
Clause 8 comprises a number of key ingredients so that it remains a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. For that purpose, the Minister continues to have the certain functions, obligations, and powers that the Minister has under the Reserves Act 1977. The Tauranga City Council continues to have a role in this. Importantly, however, the fact that the Minister retains certain powers does not entitle the Minister to exercise the power under section 26, which is the power to vest the reserve in some other person, or the power under section 15 to exchange the land comprising the reserve or part of it. As the Associate Minister said, clause 8(3) states, importantly, “the Crown continues to have, in relation to the reserve, the rights and obligations of the holder of the fee simple estate (including any obligations in respect of occupational health and safety, building, or rating liability legislation).”
Those words capture exactly the concept that everyone intended. I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on acceding to the wishes of the various submitters, and I congratulate the hard-working, diligent, and amiable members of the select committee on coming up with a form of words that were acceptable.
The Māori Affairs Committee is a collegial select committee. I do not want the Labour members on that committee to get into trouble, because if I say that they are collegial and are good to work with, then it could be reported back. Those members could be told to toughen up, as people on the Justice and Electoral Committee are told to do. That committee should be a good committee to work on, but sometimes it is poisoned by having far too great an adversarial approach to legislation, which gives rise to litigation.
As John F Kennedy said in his inaugural address, “civility is not a sign of weakness,”. We are a civil bunch on the Māori Affairs Committee—as the member for Te Tai Tonga would agree—but that does not mean to say that we do not knuckle down and do some good work. I think that this bill is an example of good work. I commend the approach of the Labour members on the Māori Affairs Committee to the Labour members on other select committees, particularly the Justice and Electoral Committee. If this amiable and collegial approach had been taken to the odious electoral finance legislation, then many of the problems we are now facing with that legislation would not have occurred.
With that little bit of sermonising in mind, I join with the previous speakers in supporting the second reading of this legislation. I hope that it can be passed through all its stages. I cannot really see why we could not have passed it through all its stages this afternoon, but that is a matter for the Leader of the House. None the less, I certainly hope that we get through the remaining stages as quickly as possible.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. E tika ana kia mihi hoki ki a koutou o Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, arā, ko Tauranga Moana Nui. Engari, kāhore anō au i wareware ki te mihi atu ki a koutou o Waitaha. Nā reira, koutou e mātakitaki mai, e hakarongo mai hoki, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora mai anō tātou.
[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is apt that I acknowledge you, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pukenga, from the Great Harbour of Tauranga. But I have not forgotten you, Waitaha, as well. So those of you watching and listening as well, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings once again to us.]
I preface my speech by acknowledging the tribes of Tauranga Moana, who are either watching or listening to this debate.
There is a saying within Māoridom: ahakoa he iti, he pounamu—although small it is a treasure. I make reference to the size of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. It is small in comparison with the many bills that come before this House. It contains only 16 clauses. Although many of us may think that it is not of too much importance, I assure members that for the people of Tauranga Moana it is a very, very important bill. It is my privilege to take a call on the second reading of this bill.
Many of the earlier speakers have alluded to what was originally clause 7. I too acknowledge the importance of that clause, which has become clause 8. It should be a reminder to Māori groups who are in the process of signing agreements with the Crown. The representatives of Tauranga Moana who appeared before the Māori Affairs Committee indicated that although they were not very happy with a particular provision, they had gone ahead and signed the agreement. They actually came to the select committee to seek the committee’s assistance to change that provision. This was not new to me as a member of that committee, given that we have had to consider a number of Treaty settlements. I acknowledge that this matter is not a Treaty settlement, but there are some similarities, in that after the iwi had signed their agreement with the Crown they came before the select committee to seek to change the agreement to what they would like it to be. However, due to the collegiality that previous speakers have referred to, we all agreed that we could achieve the same thing by changing the wording. I acknowledge the tenacity of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in pushing for this change.
I also acknowledge Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana, who acted at the behest of their elders. Some members of te rūnanga were not happy to sign, but their elders pushed them to enter into this agreement, and they did so although they believed that it should not be signed. I acknowledge them, because I think that when people take heed of what their elders say, even in the face of what they themselves think is right and wrong, their showing that respect ought to be acknowledged. Certainly, members of Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana exercised that respect.
I will raise another issue. There was a submission from a group known as Waitaha. I acknowledge the representatives of Waitaha, because in comparison with the rest of the submitters they were of a younger generation. I really had respect for the way they presented their concerns about this bill. They did it in the knowledge that many of the people in that same room did not support what they were saying. The way they presented their case was admirable.
Their cause has not been lost. I will read out clause 14(1) of the bill, “Waitaha statement of recognition”, which states “The Crown, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga acknowledge the statement of recognition of Waitaha in Schedule 3.” I will also read out schedule 3 so that it is placed in Hansard and so that the descendants of Waitaha will know that the efforts of their representatives at the select committee hearing were not in vain. Schedule 3 states: “This statement of recognition reflects the history to which Waitaha subscribes, but it does not recount that history in full. Waitaha’s history will sit alongside other iwi and hapū histories and altogether these histories make up the diverse relationships that are attributed to Mauao.
For Waitaha, that place is borne of the occupation of the maunga by Tutauaroa (the son of Waitaha), his son Taiwhanake, and Taiwhanake’s son Kinonui. Tutauaroa moved to Otamarakau, leaving Taiwhanake to maintain Waitaha’s presence on Mauao. Ngāti Ranginui and Waitaha occupied Mauao, later followed by Ngāi Te Rangi after the Battle of Kokowai. Mauao continues to be an integral part of Waitaha’s history and their tribal future.
For Waitaha, the enduring protection of Waitaha’s ancestral associations and historical connections with Mauao is paramount.”
The elders, the kaumātua and the kuia, who appeared before the select committee recognised that connection. They also recognised that they could not turn their backs on the connection that Waitaha was claiming to Mauao. I again congratulate the representatives of Waitaha on the stance they took.
It is important to reiterate that this bill is not as a result of a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. It stands outside of that process, and it will not impinge on the claims that will likely come from the people of Tauranga Moana.
In conclusion, I congratulate all those who were responsible for this bill, and I look forward to its third reading. But I ought to say that I support the comment made by a speaker from National that because of the size of the bill, there is not any reason why we cannot deal with the third reading now. However, there is due process to follow, and I am a supporter of due process. New Zealand First certainly supports the second reading of this bill.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kei ngā mema Māori o te Whare i te pō nei, tēnā tātou.
[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us tonight, Māori members of the House.]
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 a kōrero from a graffiti artist—a legal graffiti artist—called Graham Hoete or “GMAN”, founder of the clothing label REPZ and a master of the spray-can. The purpose of the hīkoi was to pay homage to the memory of Sir Edmund Hillary. In reflecting on his legacy, Hoete told the crowd that “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 byline for documents to transfer the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve from the Crown to Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga. It is apparently necessary for this bill to come forward in this way because the Reserves Act 1977 does not provide for a transfer of this nature.
I suggest that the three Tauranga Moana iwi want to believe 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 straightforward to me from their perspective—hand back the ownership of Mauao. Kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai; nothing more, nothing less. Would they look after it? Hell yeah, of course they would, such is the respect that 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, in the end, if one is the owner—kei a koe te tikanga—that is their business.
That is what I think Tauranga Moana people are after. 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 it is 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.
Its ownership is presumably different from that identified in the preliminary archaeological survey, which reports that the Mauao historic reserve constitutes a cultural landscape representing approximately 600 years of human occupation by Tauranga Moana iwi. The archaeological survey reports the first human settlement in the 13th century, the expelling of the Ngā Mārama people, the battle of Kōkōwai, and, finally, the Ngāpuhi incursion into the Bay of Plenty.
That is 600 years of history prior to the Tauranga City Council. One would have thought that that would give the three Tauranga Moana iwi a special status. Yet nearly a year ago, in May 2007, the chair of the Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana, the chairs of the three Tauranga Moana iwi rūnanga, and a representative of Waitaha indicated that “The draft agreement continues to impinge on and/or diminish our mana with respect to exercising our rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over Mauao.”
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. 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, as in the case of Mauao, to completely stifle the ownership interests of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga.
The most significant point of tension is focused on clause 7 of the bill, as other members have talked about, which has the effect of the Crown continuing to bear the rights and obligations as if it were the owner of the reserve. The 27 submissions repeatedly addressed their concerns around this clause, which retains the general provision in the law that the Mauao historic reserve is vested in the Crown. Submissions variously opposed Crown ownership and council control, as I heard when I attended the select committee hearing in Tauranga. The New Zealand Māori Council insisted that the land should be returned to iwi ownership without conditions, and without clauses that take it back out of iwi control.
Colin Bidois from Te Rūnanganui o Tauranga Moana suggested that clause 7 dilutes the fullness of ownership, whereas Maru Samuels of Ngāi Te Rangi explained that clauses 7 and 8 would work only if there was a joint management structure with iwi. The suggestion from Rahera Ohia of Te Au Mārō o Ngāti Pūkenga that clause 7 be either removed or amended to clarify its application and scope must be given serious consideration during the Committee of the whole House debate, as other members have alluded to.
Another recurring theme was around the mismanagement of communications undertaken during the passage of the bill. Brian Dickson of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi advised the committee that the negotiations led by Te Rūnanga o Tauranga Moana were ill managed and poorly communicated, leading to tensions flaring throughout the rohe. Another Ngāi Te Rangi submitter, Hauata Palmer, reinforced this 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 had lacked integrity and was fundamentally flawed.
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 other iwi may well have given up, but not the iwi of Tauranga Moana. They will continue to negotiate, to listen, and to hold strong to the line. They will continue to put forward their views about how this arrangement could work.
HuikākahuKawe of Ngāti Ranginui recommended that useful grounds for discussion might include environmental management, commercial development, and the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 upon Ngāti Ranginui. RāheraŌhia raised the question of whether the bill covers intra-Crown payments. The Mauao trustees themselves outlined issues they defined as being outstanding, suggesting that for the return of Mauao to have more substance the implications of the Foreshore and Seabed Act must be factored into the discussion, as well as issues around resourcing and compensation.
It is impossible to read through the submissions, to talk with the people, and to sit and spend time with those who have believed that Mauao will one day be returned to them and not feel their pain and disappointment. As one koroua expressed to me in providing advice about how we might vote: “Ko auakōreroanō, arā, ko te tūmanako ka whakahokia mai tōmātou maunga tūturu ki a mātou”, 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, as referred to by other members—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 the Tauranga City Council to establish a partnership management with them.
The Māori Party puts on record our admiration for the strong resolve and 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 Māori 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 7, 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 8 is sufficient to restore the faith of the people. But we will support the iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha in their decision to do what they can to advance their own affairs. The Māori Party will always promote the leadership of iwi in doing the best they can for their people, often under the most trying of circumstances. It is for these people that we support this bill at its second reading.
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this
I stand as the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee in support of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I preface my comments by saying that Māori members of the committee obviously have some links and ties to discussions surrounding the whenua, and we all declare a conflict of interest because of that. In this case in particular, as I was the chair of the committee, I reiterated that fact, given my links to Tauranga Moana, where my whenua is, and Matakana Island, which lies right beside Mauao, Mount Maunganui, where my tīpuna lie. I recall as a younger lad, at the age of 17—about 20-odd years ago, which makes me 37 now—running up the Mount as part of a normal routine. I was a bit slimmer then, and I think that nowadays I would gently amble up. I wanted to preface my contribution by indicating that conflict of interest.
The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration in December last year. The committee heard the public submissions on the bill in Tauranga Moana, and, I suppose, to that end, acknowledged that that was the first time the Māori Affairs Committee had agreed to meet during the adjournment to deal with this bill, which shows the willingness of all members in relation to the work on this bill.
It should come as no surprise that the submissions were overwhelmingly in support of the return of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi. Twenty-seven submissions were received, and 17 of those submitters appeared before us. They included kaumātua who are also the trustees; the iwi rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga; representatives of Waitaha; individual members of Tauranga Moana iwi; the Mayor of Tauranga, Stuart Crosby; and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. We were especially grateful to hear the views of kaumātua on the bill, given their lead role in this initiative and their responsibility on behalf of the iwi as holders of the fee simple estate once the bill is passed.
The key issues raised by submitters were in relation to ownership rights and obligations as reflected in clauses 7 and 8. The committee has considered submitters’ concerns that clause 7 does not provide for the return of full ownership of Mauao to iwi and that the wording was of concern because it stated that the reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown. It was felt by some that the land was being returned in name only, with all rights remaining with the Crown. We recommended that clauses 7 and 8 be deleted and that drafting changes be made to a new clause 8 to incorporate the intent of clause 7.
Mauao has the status of a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. Mauao comprises three parcels of land, which are Crown land over which the Minister of Conservation has certain powers, duties, and obligations. These include a power to appoint an administrating body to manage and control the reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. A clause is required in the bill to ensure—as the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides—that all general law will continue to apply to Mauao after the vesting takes place. The intention of the clause is for the rights and obligations under, for example, occupational health and safety legislation, building legislation, and roading liability legislation to continue to be responsibilities of the Crown. However, the Crown cannot know what laws may be passed in future that could have an effect on the owners of Mauao, as further rights and obligations could be created under laws that are yet to be made.
Under the current provision in the bill the Mauao trustees will not bear any of these present or future ownership obligations. If clause 7 is removed entirely, significant legal uncertainty will arise concerning what obligations the trustees may bear and what rights they might have as owners of Mauao. We recognise the offence caused by the original wording of clause 7 and have recommended that the intent of the clause be reworded in clause 8 to address this concern.
Several submitters recommended excluding Waitaha from the bill. We do not agree with the recommendation. It is very clear to us that Waitaha have a relationship with Mauao, having resided on Mauao for 700 years and because the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides for Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao to be recognised. We do note, however, that Waitaha was originally included equally in the proposal. Waitaha supported the final agreement on the basis of the statement of recognition of Waitaha and its ongoing representation at the management level.
The mayor has indicated that Waitaha’s status in the management of the Mauao historic reserve remains unresolved. Waitaha is represented on the council’s Mauao steering group and has been there for some time, but the recent memorandum of understanding reached between the council and the three Tauranga Moana iwi rūnunga does not currently recognise Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao.
There are clearly some issues to be ironed out around the management in future, including the matter of the involvement of the trustees. We do not, however, consider that any further changes to the bill, such as attaching the memorandum of understanding, are the appropriate way of addressing these. As we considered the submissions we discussed the suggestion that the bill be amended to provide for joint management over the Mauao historic reserve by the Tauranga City Council and the holders of the fee simple estate. The management of Mauao as a historic reserve has emerged as an important issue in this process. We considered a range of information, including the nature of the negotiated agreement, which is for the retention of the current management arrangements; the costs and infrastructure required to manage, control, and administer Mauao as a historic reserve; and the memorandum of understanding reached between the council and Tauranga Moana iwi, which reflects their aspirations in relation to Mauao.
We also heard from the Mayor of Tauranga City, who considered that iwi representation on the council’s Mauao steering committee effectively provides iwi with joint decision-making status right now. In accordance with the Mauao management plan and under the Reserves Act 1977 we heard from the Historic Places Trust, which submitted that a draft proposal is in the pipeline to register Mauao as a wāhi tapu in view of the very large number of sacred and historical sites on and around the maunga. As the council’s Mauao management plan is due to be reviewed in 2009, we are satisfied that any changes will only further enhance the protection of Mauao. As the mayor pointed out, the next logical step would be to formalise the Mauao steering group as a full standing committee.
Finally, as chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, I would like to recognise the efforts of the submitters in coming before us and sharing their views. I also appreciate the contribution of the members of the committee. As previous speakers have indicated, it was certainly a pleasure to be able to get consensus in resolving the issues that were brought before us by submitters. I also acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and to that end I stand in support of the second reading of this bill and its amendments.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
Tihei mauri ora. Tuia ki runga, tuia ki raro, tuia e herenga tangata, nō reira, tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Ki a Papatūānuku kei waho, tēnā koe. E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Ki ngā rangatira o te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā hoa o te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Chris Tremain tōku ingoa. Ko Tātara tōku maunga. Ko Tūtaekurī tōku awa. Ko Kel Tremain tōku pāpā. Ko tōku pāpā he tangata rongonui, he All Black. Ko Pam Tremain tōku māmā. Ko Simon rāua ko Mark ōku taina. Ko Angela tōku hoa wahine. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Behold the breath of life. Thread it above, thread it below, interweave mankind. Therefore, greetings to you. Greetings to the House standing before me, Mother Earth outside, Madam Assistant Speaker, parliamentary leaders, and fellow parliamentarians. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all. My name is Chris Tremain. Tātara is my mountain and Tūtaekurī is my river. My father is Kel Tremain, a famous person, an All Black. Pam Tremain is my mother. My younger brothers are Simon and Mark. Angela is my wife. Greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]
Madam Assistant Speaker, you may wonder why, in rising to speak to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, I begin with my mihi and acknowledgment of some of my whakapapa. You may ask that question. In that mihi I mentioned two places that are very significant to me. The first is Ōtātara, which is a mountain—a small mountain, for that matter—that sits behind Taradale and is the place where the Ōtātara Pā used to sit many, many years ago. It has now been purchased by the council and sits there in perpetuity.
The Tūtaekurī River flows quietly beside Ōtātara, and is also a place of significance to me and where I was born and grew up.
Just 2 weeks ago I had the pleasure of walking to the top of Te Mata Peak as part of a remembrance for Sir Edmund Hillary. Standing on the peak and looking around Heretaunga—Hawke’s Bay—at all the different land features that are part of Hawke’s Bay, I could see out to the east Waimārama Beach and Cape Kidnappers, and to the west the Kāweka Mountains. From up there I could see Ōtātara and the Tūtaekurī; to the south, Kahuranaki, and to the north, Waipātiki Beach and Ahuriri in Napier. All of these places have significance not only to me but to many, many people in Hawke’s Bay. They are significant to many Pākehā and obviously to many from Ngāti Kahungunu and other iwi from that region. Many of us have lived in New Zealand for more than a generation and have very strong ties to the land—the whenua. For many of us, and certainly for Māori, the land is our point of reference. It is the place that we know we can return to, and we feel at one with. It really provides our sense of identity. When we sit in a pub overseas on our OE, say in London or Australia, we miss not only our families—our whānau—but features of the land. That is what we remember and sometimes pine to return to.
Mostly these features are in public ownership and access is largely available to all. Where it is not, many Kiwis would like to see some of those features returned to public ownership, and tangata whenua in particular would like to see them returned to ownership by tangata whenua in fee simple title. Many of us want access to those areas. When I stood on Te Mata Peak most of the features I saw and just mentioned were in public ownership, and that gave us the ability to access those features.
Such is the case in Tauranga, at Mauao—Mount Maunganui—and this bill returns an important taonga to the iwi of Tauranga, while still guaranteeing access to it for all New Zealanders. It is critically important to many Pākehā that we still have unfettered access to those iconic features. That is especially important to me. I understand the significance of those features to local Māori—Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga. These tribes embarked on a journey when that land was put into Crown ownership in the 1880s, and they have sought to have the fee simple title brought back under their ownership. I acknowledge and respect what the Crown has achieved here, not only returning the fee simple title to the iwi but also maintaining access for New Zealanders going forward. I feel that is critical.
The Mauao land in Tauranga is iconic also to Pākehā. The translation of Mauao is “caught by the dawn”, and that is interesting. Mauao is an iconic maunga on the isthmus of the peninsula. The mountain is 232 metres high and has a 3.4 kilometre track around the base—
Hon Darren HughesMy reference says 3.4. It is a 45-minute walk to the top. Maybe the previous speaker Dave Hereora took a little bit longer to walk it.
Running! It is a national playground and has amazing platforms to view out to sea and all around. We can see why it is so iconic to New Zealanders when we know that in January alone some 110,000 people either walked on the track or visited that taonga. Throughout last year 700,000 Kiwis visited that place. So it is important real estate. It is important to all Kiwis, not just to Māori.
It is an important piece of real estate that is very important to all Māori. Many Pākehā see the mountain as iconic and part of their identity. The bill shows that we have been able to transfer fee simple title to Māori while maintaining ongoing access for all people. That is a good thing and I support it.
A similar situation arose a few years ago at Bastion Point in Auckland. In 1990 Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei reached a settlement with the Crown of their historical claims over the Ōrākei block, including Bastion Point, after the Waitangi Tribunal had issued the Ōrākei report in 1987. As part of that settlement, ownership of the reserve lands at Bastion Point and Ōkahu Bay was transferred to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, with Auckland City and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei jointly managing those lands for the use and enjoyment of the public of Auckland. The interesting thing is that that transfer was done many years ago, but, importantly, it has allowed unfettered access by Aucklanders and all New Zealanders to a key iconic piece of real estate, which they are able to access in perpetuity. I think that transfer of fee simple title while still maintaining access is where a partnership has been achieved, and that is an extremely good thing.
The way I see it, this bill is a benchmark for moving forward in terms of key iconic and culturally significant landmarks.
I have no problems at all with places of outstanding cultural significance being returned to tangata whenua, conditional upon unfettered access being available to all Kiwis. I see Bastion Point as a case in point where that has been successfully achieved—Aucklanders have had no problems with accessing it.
Most Kiwis increasingly identify with landmarks here in Aotearoa. As I mentioned, in Hawke’s Bay there are all sorts of different landscapes and features, and Kiwis increasingly relate to the land and wish to care for it. To this end, I say that although tangata whenua may claim first right, they do not have the only right. They do have first right but Pākehā need access to these key bits of land. In this bill we have seen a partnership in that respect. I think that this land is going to be enhanced by the relationship between iwi and the council. As my colleague pointed out recently, there is the ability for ongoing and better management by the iwi up there, which is fantastic.
I stand in support of the bill, and I close with the whakataukī I commenced with that, in short, means: “Bind it above, bind it below, bind us together.” In this case, I think we have been able to achieve that with a partnership on Mauao, in Tauranga. Tuia ki runga, tuia ki raro, tuia te herenga tangata.
[Thread it above, thread it below, interweave mankind.]