Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment Council/2012 Council Agenda... · Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment . Nathan Kennedy ... Cover Images The cover shows the ... Ngaati Puku

TCDC Aquaculture wharf proposal

Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment

Nathan Kennedy - Environment Officer Ngaati Whanaunga Environment Unit

March 2012

ii

TCDC Aquaculture wharf proposal - Ngäti Whanaunga Values Assessment

TCDC Aquaculture wharf proposal - Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment Nathan Kennedy - Environment Officer Ngaati Whanaunga Environment Unit 5 March 2012

Cover Images

The cover shows the existing aquaculture activities at the Sugarloaf wharf viewed from Ariki Tahi pa, with a recently unloaded mussel boat docked with attendant vehicles, another on stands receiving maintenance, and public boat launching facilities in the foreground being water blasted. Note that all cleaning and maintenance materials are currently disposed directly into the moana. The Ngaati Whanaunga emblem depicts Te Whare Tapuu - the house of Ngaati Whanaunga, with Ranganui above and Papatuanuku below. Note the use of double vowels rather than a macron here. This has been indicated by tribal elders to be the preferred practice for Ngaati Whanaunga in this regard.

Use of this report

This report has been produced by Te Rangahau o Ngaati Whanaunga, - the research unit of the Ngaati Whanaunga iwi authority – under contract to Thames Coromandel District Council. Ngaati Whanaunga remains the owner of the information in this report. Ngaati Whanaunga recognises the custodial rights of Thames-Coromandel District Council to the Maori Cultural Impact Assessment and Council's right to reasonable use of the information. The Maori Cultural Impact Assessment report shall not be released by Thames Coromandel District Council to any third parties without the prior written consent of Ngaati Whanaunga, which shall not be unreasonably withhold.

Address for Correspondence Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society P.O. Box 160, Coromandel Phone 0272909572 [email protected] http://www.ngaatiwhanaunga.maori.nz

iii


Mihi Ngaa puke Ki Hauraki, ka tarehua E Mihi ana ki te whenua E Tangi ana ki te tangata Ko Moehau ki Tai, ko Te Aroha ki Uta Ko Tiikapa te Moana, Ko Hauraki te Whenua Ko Marutuahu te Tangata Tihei mauri ora Ko te wehi ki te Atua o ngaa mano Tuauriuri, whaaioio Kii ana te rangi me te whenua i te nui o toona korooria Ngaa mihi ki a Ranginui e tuu iho nei raaua ko Papatuanuku e takoto nei! Kia tuu mai anoo nga aahuatanga o te taiao.

He tïmatanga koorero teenei i a maatou moo ngaa tikanga o Ngaati Whanaunga moo Tiikapa Moana Ko te wawata, te tuumanako, kia marama ake ai taatou, Ngai Maaori i ngaa tikanga, i ngaa kaupapa, me ngaa koorero a ngaa maatua tuupuna, kia kaha ake ai taatou ki te tiaki, te poipoi, te manaaki hoki i te taiao e noho nei taatou.

Naaku iti nei, Nathan Kennedy – Environment Officer Ngaati Whanaunga Environment Officer

iv


Acknowledgements Several people assisted with the gathering of information and preparation of this report. In particular I want to acknowledge our rangatira Toko Renata Te Taniwha for sharing his knowledge of many of our tribal areas. Also Mike Baker and Tipa Compain for their ongoing assistance in research in support of this report, and to the two of them and Honey Renata for assistance with editing drafts of the report. The research also relied heavily on earlier Treaty of Waitangi claims related research, and we acknowledge the many years of work undertaken by the Ngaati Whanaunga Claims Committee in this regard.

He Maimai Aroha Ko te hunga kua whetuurangitia, i ngaa marama, i ngaa tau, ko Dianne Rawiri Steele, Ko Te Rore Neho, Ko Yvonne Mikaere, Ko Te Haumarangai Connor. Ko raatou i para i te huarahi i whai nei maatou ngaa mahuetanga iho o raatou. Ko raatou i whakatookia te aute, ko o raatou tapuuwae he tirohanga ake moo apoopoo, ko Whanaunga Kiitahi e Kohikohi ki te rangi koea koea Translation - To our illustrious leaders who join the multitudes of stars in the heavens, those not only of years gone by such as Dianne Steele, Te Rore Neho, and Yvonne Mikaere, but in recent months Te Haumarangai Connor. For they, through their hard work, have created the pathway which Ngaati Whanaunga, their next legacy, are able to follow. Through them Ngaati Whanaunga have created our future leadership, and consider their footsteps of the past with a eye to the future. And so, as a example of their unity in the clusters of stars in the heavens, we admire their achievement.

v


Executive Summary Ngaati Whanaunga was asked to produce this values assessment by Thames Coromandel District Council in order to familiarise Council with the issues and perspectives of the iwi in relation to the proposed construction of new wharfing infrastructure for the aquaculture industry. Additional wharf facilities are deemed needed in anticipation of substantial growth within the aquaculture industry, with potential additional demand from possible finfish farming within Tiikapa Moana. It is noteworthy that most of the initial sites considered, and all of the preferred locations are within the rohe of Ngaati Whanaunga. The purpose of this report, from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective, is to inform Council of the values, issues and concerns of Ngaati Whanaunga in relation to the proposal for additional aquaculture related infrastructure within our moana, the coastal marine area within our tribal rohe. Our thoughts go first to our tupuna (forefathers), and the tikanga handed down to us, mana whenua - mana moana. This whakatauaaki refers to the enduring mana of the iwi over our ancestral lands, and over our ancestral waters, and reminds us of the persistent struggle by our tupuna to defend our taonga tuku ihu - those treasures handed down by the ancestors, in this case our moana, the foreshore and seabed. We are particularly mindful of current Treaty of Waitangi claims negotiations with the Crown, and the implications of the current wharf investigation in terms of pending settlements. Ngaati Whanaunga along with our Marutuahu and Hauraki cousins have steadfastly claimed that the Foreshore and Seabed belongs to us. We watch with interest as Council investigates placing additional structures in our tribal waters, anticipates new reclamations, and substantial dredging of Tiikapa Moana. We are mindful also that Council is seeking ownership or alternative means of securing earlier reclaimed land at Arikitahi. Council has held no discussions with the iwi regarding this, and these are issues that should be resolved before we move toward any new development. That said, this report provides a summary of issues and opportunities arising from a new wharf from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective, and recommendations as to how we expect to meaningfully participate in the process. We look forward to ongoing engagement, with a view toward a positive outcome for all parties.

vi


Table of Contents TCDC Aquaculture wharf proposal ...................................................................................................... i Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment.............................................................................................. i

Cover Images ............................................................................................................................... ii Use of this report .......................................................................................................................... ii

Mihi ..................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iv He Maimai Aroha ............................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2. Ngaati Whanaunga: Mana Whenua - Mana Moana .......................................................... 3

Marutuahu ................................................................................................................................... 3 Tiikapa Moana ......................................................................................................................... 3 Hauraki ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Te Tara o te Ika a Maui ............................................................................................................ 6

Ngaa Hapu o Ngaati Whanaunga - Ngaati Whanaunga hapü and Tiikapa Moana ..................... 6 Ngaati Karaua .......................................................................................................................... 6 Ngaati Kotinga ......................................................................................................................... 6 Ngaati Puku ............................................................................................................................. 7 Ngaati Raamuri ........................................................................................................................ 7 Ngaati Rangiuira ...................................................................................................................... 7

Ngaati Whanaunga Treaty of Waitangi claims ............................................................................. 8 Mana whenua and reclamation.................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3. Ngaa Tikanga .................................................................................................................. 11 Kaitiakitanga .............................................................................................................................. 11 Mauri .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Tapuu ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Rahui ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Maatauranga Maaori.................................................................................................................. 14

Taunahanaha ......................................................................................................................... 14 Waahi Tapuu and Waahi Taonga - Culturally significant and sacred places ............................ 15

Waahi Pakanga - Battle Sites ................................................................................................ 16 The death of Tipa ............................................................................................................... 17

Papakainga ............................................................................................................................ 19 Mahinga maataitai - Kaimoana areas .................................................................................... 19 Tauranga Waka – Waka Landing Places ............................................................................... 21

Chapter 4. Statutory considerations.................................................................................................. 24 The Resource Management Act 1991 ................................................................................... 24

Transfers, delegations, and joint management - Sections 33, 34, and 36 ......................... 25 Reclamation provisions ...................................................................................................... 25 Existing wharf consent duration .......................................................................................... 26

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ................................................................................ 26 The 2011 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act ...................................................... 27 Māori Aquaculture Settlement Act 2004 ................................................................................. 29 The Conservation Act and Reserves Act ............................................................................... 29

Assessment of relevant provisions within RMA statutory instruments ....................................... 30 The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapuu, and other taonga ..................................................................................... 30

vii


Waahi Tapuu .......................................................................................................................... 33 Landscape and Natural Character ......................................................................................... 36 Kaitiakitanga .......................................................................................................................... 39 Treaty of Waitangi .................................................................................................................. 41 Mana Whenua ........................................................................................................................ 43 Mauri ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Integrated management and cross boundary issues ............................................................. 45

Chapter 5. The aquaculture industry and the wider community ........................................................ 48 Maaori and the aquaculture industry ......................................................................................... 48 Community effects ..................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 6. Potential Wharf Locations .............................................................................................. 51 General observations and preferences...................................................................................... 51 Council, Industry, and Ngaati Whanaunga views regarding wharf location ............................... 52

Aquaculture and the Auckland Region ................................................................................... 55 Analysis of the TCDC preferred options ........................................................................................ 58

Arikitahi - The Sugarloaf......................................................................................................... 58 Kaimoana ........................................................................................................................... 58

Puhi Rare - Windy Point ......................................................................................................... 59 Waahi Tapuu ...................................................................................................................... 60 Kaimoana ........................................................................................................................... 60 Intersection of Te Kouma Road and SH 25 ........................................................................ 62

Koopuu .................................................................................................................................. 62 Dredging ............................................................................................................................. 63 RAMSAR site...................................................................................................................... 63

Coromandel Wharf extension ................................................................................................. 64 Consideration of wharf options in the planner's report, and alternatives to the preferred locations .................................................................................................................................... 65

Te Kouma .............................................................................................................................. 66 Natural character ................................................................................................................ 66 Boating community ............................................................................................................. 66 Ngaati Whanaunga land ..................................................................................................... 67 Decision to dismiss Te Kouma premature .......................................................................... 67

Wharekawa - Stevenson's Quarry ......................................................................................... 67 Chapter 7. Issues and opportunities for Ngaati Whanaunga ............................................................ 70

Issues ........................................................................................................................................ 70 The alienation of ancestral lands and waters ..................................................................... 70 Reduction and contamination of the mahinga maataitai ..................................................... 70 Impacts on the mauri of ancestral waters ........................................................................... 71 Trade-offs between the interests of parties ........................................................................ 71 Tikanga and Maatauranga Maaori ...................................................................................... 71 Manawa - coastal and marine vegetation ........................................................................... 72 Waahi Tapuu and taonga ................................................................................................... 72 Ongoing involvement formalised ........................................................................................ 72

Opportunities for Ngaati Whanaunga ........................................................................................ 72 Opportunities for our people to reconnect with their türangawaewae ................................ 73 Joint management arrangement ......................................................................................... 73 Restoration and reseeding of kaimoana beds .................................................................... 73 Relinquishment of the current never-ending boat ramp consents ...................................... 73 Mechanisms to protect waahi tapuu and waahi taonga ...................................................... 73

viii


Reduction of pressure on SH25 ......................................................................................... 73 Restoration of natural character of the coast ...................................................................... 74 Displaying correct Maaori names and histories .................................................................. 74 Ownership of reclamations ................................................................................................. 74 Creation of reserves ........................................................................................................... 74 Improved capacity and efficiency for the industry, including Ngaati Whanaunga ............... 75 Provision of waka facilities for Ngaati Whanaunga ............................................................. 75

Chapter 8. Summary ......................................................................................................................... 76 References ....................................................................................................................................... 78

1


Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Ngaa puke ki Hauraki, ka tarehua E mihi ana ki te whenua E tangi ana ki te tangata

Ko Moehau ki tai, ko Te Aroha ki uta Ko Tiikapa te moana, ko Hauraki te whenua

Ko Marutuahu te tangata

The hills of Hauraki stand enshrouded by stars, I greet the land,

I cry for the people, Moehau the mountain to the coast, Te Aroha mountain inland

Tiikapa is the sea, Hauraki is the land Marutuahu is the ancestor

This Maaori Values Assessment considers the current investigation by Thames Coromandel into potential locations for additional wharfing infrastructure to service the aquaculture industry. It responds, from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective, to issues raised in the Preferred Location Options Report (Dunbar-Smith 2011) regarding site location. However, while that report focuses on four "preferred locations", this document takes a wider view. It is noted in terms of the background to Ngaati Whanaunga engagement in this project, that Council has been investigating this matter for several years prior to involving Ngaati Whanaunga or any other Hauraki iwi. This is disappointing but typical, and argued here to be a significant failure in terms of identifying initial sites that might be either desirable or unacceptable in terms of Maaori values. Prior to speaking to tangata whenua Council had engaged with Regional Council, the Department of Conservation, and local communities for potential wharf sites. In contrast the timing of Maaori consultation is declared in a previously prepared scoping report to be because of the high number of Iwi and Hapu groups within the Hauraki area. While this clearly makes sense in terms of administrative convenience for Council, it places Ngaati Whanaunga in catch-up mode and renders us only able to respond to Council's preferences, rather than identifying our own. An introduction to the history of Ngaati Whanaunga and Marutuahu is provided in Chapter 2, including consideration of our relationship with Tiikapa Moana (The Hauraki Gulf), Hauraki (including the Thames Coromandel District), and Tamaki Makaurau (the Auckland region). Specific consideration is given to Ngaati Whanaunga mana whenua - mana moana, tribal authority over our ancestral lands and waters. Toward this end particular lands of several Ngaati Whanaunga hapü are described to the extent that these relate to the various potential wharf locations. This history provides a background and context to the subsequent discussion of Ngaati Whanaunga tikanga in Chapter 3, with a focus on those tikanga considered to be most relevant to environmental resource management of the moana and coastal marine area, and particularly to the proposed activity. Following this we present an assessment of statutory provisions relating to Maaori in Chapter 4, considering the way in which these will have a bearing on the current proposals. This is a significant investigation, and demonstrates the extent to which Maaori values and interests are

2


protected and provided for within the range of statutory instruments operating within the Thames Coromandel District. Chapter 5 considers the many levels on which this proposal effects us. It discusses the interests of Ngaati Whanaunga and Hauraki Maaori as players in the aquaculture industry, and also considers implications of the proposed activities for our people as members of the wider community. Chapter 6 then looks at the various potential wharf locations from a Ngaati Whanaunga point of view. While, as is pointed out above, we are rendered unable to approach this exercise with an open mind as to a preferred wharf location from our perspective, we consider first the eleven sites initially identified as potential locations, and then the four that have been proposed as preferred locations. We find that we hold different views to both of the consultants that Council has engaged to date, and observe that their conclusions are influenced Council's desire to retain future aquaculture development within its district. This, we argue, renders the selection process and preferred locations at which it arrives wanting in terms of a sustainable management approach, fails to take into account the cross boundary issues arising from both the growth of the industry into the Auckland Region, or the Ngaati Whanaunga and Marutuahu tribal rohe and the long term planning and resource management implications of this. Chapter 7 reverts back to a necessarily narrower view, in that it is constrained by the pre-selection of wharf locations, and puts forward what Ngaati Whanaunga sees as being the significant issues arising from these, as well as identifying potential opportunities for the iwi. Finally Chapter 8 summarises the preceding chapters, and reports our overarching conclusions. Note the inclusion of Ngäti Whanaunga tribal whakatauaki at the beginning of each chapter. These reflect the widely observed Mäori aphorism Ka titiro whakarunga, Ka ahu whakamua, which tells us that we walk into the future unprepared if we fail to learn from the lessons of the past. This is a key principle of kaitiakitanga, The whakatauaki included draw on tribal wisdom that have served to guide us in the past, and are considered relevent as an introduction to each chapter. As discussed in the preparation of the contract providing for this MVA, discussions were held with Ngaati Maru in the course of conducting research regarding the potential for the views of both iwi to be included in a single report. It was decided however that the potential for contrasting views regarding some locations might be problematic. It is understood that Council has held separate discussions with Te Patukirikiri and Ngaati Maru regarding their respective interests, and that those groups have indicated an intention to engage further should wharf locations within their areas of interest be chosen. Accordingly this MVA reflects only the views of Ngaati Whanaunga.

3


Chapter 2. Ngaati Whanaunga: Mana Whenua - Mana Moana

Ahakoa te iti, ka nui te wehi Though we are few, let the heart dread

The above noted whakatauäkï refers to the fact that historically Ngäti Whanaunga was a relatively small tribe in terms of population, but were renowned warriors, and this is reflected by our massive tribal rohe. Whanaunga was the youngest son from the first union of Marutuahu, born of the marriage between Marutuahu and his Paremoehau. His descendants, Ngaati Whanaunga, played a prominent role in establishing Marutuahu mana over much of Hauraki, Tiikapa Moana, and Tamaki Makaurau (modern day Auckland city), participating in most if not all the major battles with earlier tangata whenua.

Marutuahu

Ngaati Whanaunga is one of the iwi of the Marutuahu confederation. The Marutuahu confederation is generally accepted as being comprised of four iwi who claim descent from the eponymous Tainui tupuna (ancestor) Marutuahu; Ngaati Maru, Ngaati Tamatera, Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngaati Paoa. At the time Marutuahu arrived in Hauraki several iwi had occupied different parts of the region for centuries, including Te Uri o Pou, Ngaati Hako, Ngaa Marama, Ngaati Huarere and Ngaati Hei. Through intermarriage and conquest the combined Marutuahu iwi established their mana over most of the lands occupied by these earlier peoples, with Te Uri o Pou and Ngaa Marama being driven permanently from the area, Ngaati Huarere being destroyed as a discrete iwi, and the lands and tribal authority of Ngaati Hako and Ngaati Hei being substantially reduced. By the 18th century the Marutuahu iwi had become firmly established as the dominant people within the region (Turoa and Royal 2000; Cooper and Compain 2002). Kaumatua Taimoana Turoa described the Marutuahu rohe (often reported as synonymous with that of “Hauraki”) in a report prepared for the Waitangi Tribunal;

The peripheral boundary of the Hauraki can generally be described as commencing at the sunken reefs of Ngä Kuri-a-Wharei offshore of Waihi Beach on the eastern coast, progressing west inland to Mount Te Aroha, thence to Hoe-o-Tainui. It then follows north along the range line of Te Hapu-a-Kohe and the Hunua Ranges to Moumoukai and Papakura. The northern boundary includes parts of the Tamaki isthmus, Takapuna, Whangaparaoa and Mahurangi before terminating at Matakana river estuary south of Cape Rodney. The seaward boundary includes parts of the island of Aotea (Great Barrier), and then southward to its beginning at Ngä Kuri-a-Wharei. Included within those margins are the inner gulf islands of Tikapa Moana and those (except for Tuhua Island) offshore of the eastern coastline of Te Tai Tamawahine (Turoa 1997).

This rohe is often referred to in the tribal expression "Mai Matakana ki Matakana" - from Matakana in the north to the sunken rocks named Ngaa Kuri a Wharei near Matakana Island. Tiikapa Moana

Tiikapa Moana - the Firth of Thames - is of great significance to Ngaati Whanaunga, and to all Hauraki Maaori. Tiikapa is an important aspect of our whakapapa and tribal identity, as evidenced

4


by the widely used Marutuahu mihi, with which this report is opened. As reported in the 2005 State of the Hauraki Gulf Report (Hauraki Gulf Forum 2005):

The Hauraki Gulf, known to Maori as Tikapa Moana, or Te Moana Nui a Toi, is integrally linked by whakapapa in a long chain of being back to the beginning of time: to Papatuanuku (Earth); to Ranginui (Sky); to Tangaroa (Sea); and to Te Kore (Nothingness).

Ngaati Whanaunga elders and tribal knowledge holders, along with those of other Hauraki iwi, presented evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal as to the significance of our tribal rohe. A recurring theme was the cultural and practical importance of Tiikapa Moana, as recounted in the Tribunals Hauraki Report (Waitangi Tribunal 2006):

In traditional Maori imagery, the Coromandel is the jagged barb of the great fish of Maui, Te Tara o te Ika, also called Te Paeroa o Toi. The peninsula is also seen by Tainui people as the ama (outrigger) of their waka, with the 900-metre high peaks of Te Aroha and Mount Moehau marking the prow and stern respectively. The total land area is 5059 square kilometres (1.25 million acres), but there is an almost equal area of ocean and it should be recognised that the seas and tidal foreshores of Tikapa Moana north to Great Barrier (Aotea) and the Mahurangi coast were as important as the land to the tangata whenua of the region. Theirs was a maritime empire, based upon harvesting the seas and foreshores and traversing the sheltered waters for complex exchanges between tribes.

The total land area of the rohe is over 5000 square kilometres (1.25 million acres), but there is an almost equal area of ocean and it should be recognised that the seas and tidal foreshores of Tiikapa Moana north to Great Barrier (Aotea) and the Mahurangi coast were as important as the land to the Marutuahu iwi. Ours was a maritime empire, based upon harvesting the seas and foreshores, and traversing the sheltered waters, with complex relationships and exchanges between tribes. Hauraki

Hauraki means literally “warm wind”, and refers to the favourable north wind for which the area was known. Hauraki is thought to be amongst the earliest inhabited areas in Aotearoa. Evidence of this includes archaeological material including a pearl shell fishing lure found at Tairua, being the only example of its kind known in Aotearoa, linking back to the earliest arrivals from the Marquesa Islands (Monin 2001). Historic evidence suggests that the frost free microclimates and fertile soils found on Hauraki offshore islands provided the original nurseries where food plants (particularly kumara and taro) brought from Hawaiki were acclimatised before knowledge was gained to enable these to be successfully cultivated on the mainland. Ahuahu (Great Mercury Island) part of the rohe of Ngaati Whanaunga, is among the most important of these (Turoa 1997). Hauraki was (and remains) highly prised for its rich resources including kaimoana (seafood), forests and associated wildlife, arable lands, and mineral resources including basalts suitable for making weapons and tools. As a result the area has been strongly contested since earliest times.

5


Figure 1. The rohe of the combined Marutuahu iwi (blue hatch) shown in relation to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and (pre Auckland Council) council boundaries

6


Te Tara o te Ika a Maui

Most of the sites identified in the two previously prepared aquaculture wharf scoping reports are located on the Coromandel Peninsular. The peninsular is described in a range of Maaori metaphors, depending upon tribal perspective. As described in the previously cited Waitangi Tribunal report reference, Maaori tradition likens the North Island to a whai (stingray), being the fish that Maui and his brothers fished up. Within this view Hauraki Maaori see the Coromandel as the jagged barb of the great fish of Maui, Te Tara o te Ika a Maui. According to a Tainui world view the Coromandel Peninsula is likened to the ama or outrigger of a canoe, with its prow located at Te Aroha and stern reaching out to the moana at Moehau. This view is recalled in the following Tainui pepeha:

Ko Mokau ki runga Ko Tamaki ki raro Ko Mangatoatoa ki waenganui Ko Pare Waikato Ko Pare Hauraki Waikato taniwha rau!

Pre Tainui Hauraki traditions recall the early Polynesian voyager Toi-te-Huatahi, who visited the area, and after whom several Hauraki places are named. This tradition describes the peninsular as Te Paeroa o Toi, the long mountain range of Toi. Each of these metaphors continue to be used today.

Ngaa Hapu o Ngaati Whanaunga - Ngaati Whanaunga hapü and Tiikapa Moana

Ngaati Whanaunga at the time of the Native Land Court was made up of at least 12 hapü. Several of these exercised authority over and occupied several of the various locations considered as potential aquaculture wharf sites. These hapü are briefly introduced here. Ngaati Karaua

Ngaati Karaua descend from Karaua, the son of Whanaunga, and has its own hapü. Ngaati Karaua claim ancestral rights to land along the eastern seaboard of the Coromandel including Whangamata, Whitianga, Ahuahu (Great Mercury Island in the Mercury group of islands) and Kuaotunu across to Waiau (Coromandel) and Te Kouma, and finally south in the Hauraki plains and north in the Moehau region. On the eastern side of the Moehau peninsula at Whangamata Ngaati Karaua were successful in permanently driving Ngamarama out of that region and pushed them south towards Tauranga. Ngaati Kotinga

Ngaati Kotinga are the descendants of Kotinga, grandson of Whanaunga. Their land interests were spread from Wharekawa (west), across to Whangamata and Omahu on the eastern side of the Coromandel Peninsula. Ngaati Kotinga also have interests at Koopuu and across the Waihou River at Orongo.

7


Ngaati Puku

Ngaati Puku descend from Kotinga's brother Puku, and were based in the Wharekawa (west) region on the western shore of Tiikapa Moana. Ngaati Puku kainga were at Pakareke, Waharau, Ohinemahoe and Hawareware. Ngaati Puku hold mana whenua at the Stevenson's Quarry location. Ngaati Raamuri

Ngaati Raamuri are the descendants of Raamuri, another of Whanaunga's grandsons. Ngaati Raamuri influence extends from the Hauraki plains, and the hapü occupied a range of locations to the northern part of the Moehau peninsula. Ngaati Rangiuira

Ngaati Rangiuira are the descendants of yet another grandson Ngaropapa, and Rangiuira. Rangiuira was a woman of rank of Ngaati Hako, who was given by Ngaati Hako along with land in the Hauraki plains, for services in battle. Ngaati Rangiuira land interests were mainly in the Hauraki plains. The descendants of this union formed a part of the Ngaati Whanaunga grouping that expanded further north into the Waiau, Te Kouma and Manaia region.

Figure 2. Adaption of Map of Potential Wharf Locations - Figure 7 from KTB report (Baldwin 2011) to show potential locations in relation to Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral land interests

In short, the Ngaati Whanaunga hapu that resided on the western shores of Tiikapa Moana are; Te Mateawa, Ngaati Puku, Ngaati Kotinga and Ngaati Rangiaohia. Ngaati Kotinga, Ngaati Raamuri, Ngaati Ngaropapa, Ngaati Rangiuira and Ngaati Tauaiwi asserted rights in the Hauraki Plains.

8


Ngaati Karaua and Ngaati Kotinga are the hapü in the vicinity of the mouth of the Waihou River including Koopuu, while Ngaati Karaua was the main hapü in the Waiau and Te Kouma area. There are many important whakapapa links between Ngaati Whanaunga and various Hauraki iwi, and those from further afield. These underlie the complex overlapping interests, relationships and use rights in Hauraki and across the Marutuahu tribal area.

Ngaati Whanaunga Treaty of Waitangi claims

Ngaati Whanaunga today, like our Marutuahu cousins, as a consequence of Crown policies, have been marginalised within our own territory and are landless by comparison even with other Maaori (Belgrave, Tulloch et al. 2002). As observed by historian Michael Belgrave in his report to the Waitangi Tribunal in support of the Marutuahu claims (Belgrave 2002):

In the years since the Court was established, Marutuahu have seen their original land base all but eliminated. The title created by the Court, together with a persistent Crown policy of acquiring land fundamentally undermined their customary relationships with the land, with each other and a social structure which was essentially collective. Combined, they were key drivers of the massive loss of land suffered by Marutuahu over a period of more than 100 years.

Ngaati Whanaunga has been pursuing a Treaty of Waitangi historical breaches claim for more than ten years. We, along with other Hauraki iwi, took claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, which reported the following overall conclusion (Waitangi Tribunal 2006):

We conclude that Hauraki Maori have been marginalised in their own rohe by the transfer of land and resources to others, including Maori of other iwi. Moreover, we find that this outcome, particularly the wholesale purchasing of Hauraki lands, was the consequence of policies and laws deliberately introduced and sustained well into the twentieth century, and that this falls short of the Treaty requirement that land and other taonga be acquired through informed consent. In this context, we note particularly that :

• the Crown has conceded that Hauraki iwi lost large areas of land during the raupatu of the 1860s and have received very little compensation, either in land or money ;

• the Crown has also conceded that the MacCormick commission of 1939 to 1940 found that Maori who sold the freehold of land already subject to gold-mining cessions were not well advised and that a substantial sum should be paid in redress, which sum has not been paid ; and

• most Hauraki land was acquired by the Crown under pre-emptive (monopoly) right, and Hauraki Maori generally did not have the option to lease their land or to sell it on an open market, nor to make well-advised community decisions on the terms and conditions of sale.

In these matters, and other matters discussed in our report, we find that Treaty principles of dealing fairly and with utmost good faith have been breached, that substantial restitution is due, and that the quantum should be settled by prompt negotiation.

9


We are currently in the late stages of direct negotiation with the Crown toward settlement. Toward this end Ngaati Whanaunga and the Crown signed a Framework Agreement in October 2010, and entered into an Agreement in Principle Equivalent (AIPE) in July 2011. The AIPE deals with Ngaati Whanaunga and Crown intentions and expectations relating to, amongst other things, Co-management of Crown owned and administered Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands and waters, the return of lands and other important resources as both cultural and commercial redress, and with Crown statutory acknowledgments. Appendix 4 of the AIPE is a list of Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands, and notably many of the lands associated with the initial list of investigated wharf locations, and all of the lands on which the preferred options sit, with the exception of the Coromandel site, are listed in Appendix 4.

Claims settlements are immediately relevant to this investigation in that they include requirements that councils record statutory acknowledgements made in settlements within their RMA statutory policy statements and plans. Furthermore, the Crown will be pressed to think seriously before allowing any of the Marutuahu tribal rohe to be alienated at this late stage of Treaty negotiations, when all Ngaati Whanaunga lands of significance are being negotiated with the Crown. Recent arrangements with the Crown regarding the governance and management of the Waikato River are of interest to Hauraki Maaori as we negotiate with the Crown regarding our involvement in the management of our rivers and coastal waters. The Waikato River set in place the Guardians of the Waikato River, and the Waikato River Statutory Board. Toward this end the Marutuahu iwi have, in association with the other iwi of Tamaki, been negotiating the return of our waa hapuu - our harbours and river mouths. This follows the recent formal return of our maunga (mountains) there. This discussion is ongoing, and is scheduled to continue in relation to our ancestral harbours and rivers within the Waikato Region.

Mana whenua and reclamation

Several of the proposed wharf locations would require the reclamation of foreshore and seabed land. Ngaati Whanaunga has consistently maintained that we own the foreshore and seabed within our rohe. We and our Marutuahu cousins have taken some of the earliest recorded legal actions against the Crown, asserting our ownership of our lands along the Thames foreshore and elsewhere within our rohe. The value attached by Marutuahu to their foreshore rights was expressed by our Marutuahu tupuna Tanameha Te Moananui and others from Pukerahui in 1869:

You, the Government, have asked for the gold of Hauraki; we consented. You asked for a site for a town; you asked also that the flats of the sea off Kauwaeranga should be let; and those requests were acceded to.

And now you have said that the places of the sea which remain to us will be taken. O friends, it is wrong, it is evil. Our voice, the voice of Hauraki, has agreed that we shall retain the parts of the sea from high-water mark outwards. These places were in our possession from time immemorial; these are the places from which food was obtained from the time of our ancestors even down to their descendants… O friends, our hands, our feet, our bodies are always on our places of the sea… The men, the women, the

10


children are united in this, that they alone are to have the control of all the places of the sea...(Committee on Thames Sea Beach Bill 1869)

In his 1871 judgment Judge Fenton refused to grant ownership of our ancestral lands below mean high water springs, despite declaring that he was confident that such ownership could be proven, because of the consequences of making such a declaration in terms of the Crown's own intention to own the foreshore. In an effort to circumvent the ownership issue Fenton found that Marutuahu had exercised exclusive use of the area as a fishery, granting them ongoing exclusive use of the area, saying:

I cannot contemplate without uneasiness the evil consequences which might ensue from judicially declaring that the soil of the foreshore of the colony will be vested absolutely in the natives, if they can prove certain acts of ownership, especially when I consider how readily they may prove such , and how impossible it is to contradict them if they only agree among themselves... it appears to me there can be no failure of justice if the natives have secured to them the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of all the rights and privileges over the locus in quo which they or their ancestors have ever exercised: and the Court so determines…(Chief Judge Fenton 1984)

Seabed land parcels reflecting mana whenua interests were also surveyed for the Coromandel Harbour, referred to as the Kapanga Paru Moana Foreshore blocks in 1872. Some of these survive today, with one being an esplanade reserve vest in Council. While Te Kouma land blocks were surveyed without inclusion of the adjacent coastal marine areas, Te Kouma has consistently been argued to be Ngaati Whanaunga heartland and an area of the highest significance to the iwi. As a matter of principle Ngaati Whanaunga asserts ownership of those areas of foreshore and seabed previously described, and including Ariki Tahi, Puhi Rare, and Koopuu. For any reclamation on these ancestral lands and waters Ngaati Whanaunga seeks that these vest in the iwi, rather than the Department of Conservation or Thames Coromandel District Council.

11


Chapter 3. Ngaa Tikanga

He whakakaha ki te pupuri i ngaa tikanga pai Hold fast to good principles

Chapter 3 provides an overview of Ngaati Whanaunga tikanga and world views considered to be important in terms of the current proposal.

Kaitiakitanga

Mana whenua, tribal authority over ancestral lands, brings with it responsibilities including a duty of care to protect and preserve ancestral lands and waters, and to hand them on to succeeding generations in a healthy condition. This is the essence of kaitiakitanga, as explained by Ngaati Whanaunga rangatira Toko Renata;

The key is that our relationship with Tikapa Moana is about a balance between rights and obligations. We consider that our obligations as kaitiaki extend, perhaps most importantly, to future generations. This is about passing down our traditions and tikanga with regard to Tikapa, in particular how Tikapa Moana should be treated, and how we can ensure that the generous gifts of Tikapa Moana will continue to be available for those future generations (Waitangi Tribunal, 2001).

Kaitiaki were traditionally spiritual guardians of particular places or things for the gods (Marsden, 1992). While this continues to be the case, today we increasingly think of kaitiakitanga in terms of the responsibilities of tangata whenua toward their environment. As articulated by the Waitangi Tribunal in its Whanganui River Report;

It [kaitiakitanga] denotes the obligation of stewardship and protection. These days it is most often applied to the obligation of whänau, hapü and iwi to protect the spiritual wellbeing of the natural resources within their mana (Waitangi Tribunal, 1999).

The primary function of kaitiakitanga has been described as being safeguarding the mauri of ngaa taonga tuku iho – the life principle or force of those treasures handed down to us by our ancestors. The following extract from Matiu McCully and Margaret Mutu emphasises this obligation:

In order to uphold their mana, the tangata whenua as kaitiaki must do all in their power to restore the mauri of the taonga to its original strength. In specific terms, each whänau or hapü is kaitiaki for the area over which they hold mana whenua, that is, their ancestral lands and seas (McCully and Mutu, 2003).

The previous Chief Maaori Land Court Judge Joe Williams provides an insightful explanation of some of the more down to earth aspects of kaitiakitanga, which are still practiced today:

Kaitiakitanga also requires the observance of conduct respectful of the resources in question. Thus each hapü or iwi had and has clear prescriptions as to the manner in which fishing activity may be undertaken. It is common for example that the first fish is returned. It is also common that no gutting of fish or shelling of shell fish is allowed to occur below high water mark. The reason is that the dumping of fish or shell fish remains into the sea would provide both a spiritual and physical pollution of the sea and hence a detraction from its tapu (New Zealand Law Commission, 2001).

12


Ngaati Whanaunga sees our participation in the investigation and planning for the proposed wharf facilities to the fullest extent possible as being consistent with our kaitiaki obligations. By this means we will seek that the project is not allowed to further compromise the relationship of Ngaati Whanaunga with our ancestral coastal areas.

Mauri

Mauri is the vital energy force that gives being and form to all things in the universe, providing the interconnection between humankind and the natural environment. Decisions made and controls imposed were focused on sustaining the mauri to ensure that the balance was maintained between people and the natural and spiritual worlds (Hauraki Maaori Trust Board, 1999). Respected Marutuahu kuia Betty Williams gave the following account of mauri and the part it plays in the natural world:

Natural taonga have evolved from the union of Papa and Rangi (Earth and Sky). They include flora, fauna, air, water, soil, minerals, humankind, natural phenomena, sun, moon, planets, etc., etc. Natural taonga exist through mauri, the vital life essence and energy force that gives everything existence and being. Mauri interconnects everything in the Universe.

The human being is merely an extension, a re-arrangement of the same living matter, in terms of Mauri and the basic elements which make up water, soil, minerals, flora, fauna, air, etc. Natural taonga have an intrinsic value in terms of their own existence and being, and their value to the interconnected nature of the natural environment, to the integrity of the Earth, and to human survival (Williams, 1998a).

As previously discussed under the heading Kaitiakitanga, a primary responsibility of tribal kaitiaki is the maintenance of mauri. In relation to the current proposal this relates to the mauri of Tiikapa Moana and its harbours. I refer to a submission of Betty Williams against the previously proposed Coromandel Marina (Williams 1999):

Mauri Tu Mauri Ora - When the life-force is respected it is well Mauri noho mauri mate - When the life-force' is violated it dies

Dredging, reclamation, and construction works within the coastal marine area create the potential for the degradation of mauri. Accordingly Ngaati Whanaunga will continue to press for the smallest possible extent to works within Tiikapa Moana, and in particular will seek that best practice methods are utilised in all aspects of wharf construction and maintenance. We will seek the agreement of protocols aimed at minimising effects on mauri and dealing with any such effects in a culturally appropriate manner.

Tapuu

Tapuu is regularly translated as untouchable, sacred, and associated with the gods (Marsden, 1977; Williams, 1998b; Durie, 2000). The laws of Tapuu are considered by some to play the most influential role in regulating Maaori society. Mason Durie observes that tapuu is seen as linked to a code for social conduct based essentially on keeping safe and avoiding risk, and relates this back to environmental responsibilities:

13


Explanations of tapu as primarily religious in nature appeal to those who seek spiritual answers for societal conduct. The more temporal view holds sway where survival and health maintenance are seen as the main challenges for tribal societies. But common to both views is the acceptance of tapu as [a code] for social conduct and adaptation to the environment (Durie, 2001).

Regarding environmental management we are concerned with two important aspects of tapuu, tapuu as sacred, and tapuu as unclean. Tapuu is dealt with by the use of prohibition preventing contact with human waste or other potentially toxic material. It is for this reason that people must avoid contact with treated waste water, and that it must pass through Papatuanuku before entering any waterway, to prevent the tapuu impacting on the mauri of the water, as Selwyn Hayes explains;

Discharge of sewage into the sea, no matter how well treated, is highly offensive to Mäori. Although in physical terms the discharge may not pollute the sea, it would harm the spiritual relationship Mäori have with the sea, and the obligation of the kaitiaki would not be fulfilled (Hayes, 1998).

In relation to Tiikapa Moana and the proposed wharf facilities and associated works there are a two primary concerns in terms of tapuu. Firstly the presence of toxic material within the coastal marine area; initial investigations have determined the presence of a range of pollutants present within mud on the seabed, particularly at the Koopuu and Coromandel sites. Secondly the potential for encountering köiwi and human remains both on land and within the coastal marine area. As described elsewhere in this report this is a very real possibility at any of the preferred locations. Waahi tapuu are sacred places, these are of great spiritual significance to tangata whenua and their tapuu state requires that inappropriate activities are not undertaken in their vicinity. While recorded waahi tapuu are not known directly within preferred wharf locations, several are known to be nearby. It will therefore be important to ensure that any personal involved in the construction process are kept safe by ensuring they do not inadvertently transgress tapuu areas, identifying and protecting all waahi tapuu areas, and educating the public regarding the potential for unrecorded waahi tapuu to be present along the lengths of coastline involved.

Raahui

Raahui are closures of certain areas or restrictions on the taking of particular resources. They may be imposed in response to tapuu (for example a death in the area), to demarcate property rights and indicate restrictions on who may use a certain place or resource, or as a conservation measure to protect a diminished of threatened resource. Barlow describes raahui intended to preserve property rights, rather than primarily for the wellbeing of the resource:

Access may be restricted to fishing grounds, pigeon reserves, wild berries, or eels to conserve them for special occasions of the tribe. At times in the past when there was an important hui in our village, one of our elders would go and catch eels for the hui, and he was the only one allowed to catch those eels (Barlow, 1993).

14


Another form of raahui are those imposed in response to tapuu, including following a death, but also other tapuu. The purpose of such tapuu is twofold, out of respect for the tapuu and the mana of the deceased, and also to ensure the safety of people who would encounter the tapuu. As an example of the latter for example, Ngaati Whanaunga recently sought that raahui be imposed for the Whangamata Waste water irrigation for times when treated human waste is being sprayed. Rahui in response to tapuu are recorded in Ngaati Whanaunga oral traditions. We recall that when the rangatira Te Ika a Waraki was killed at Tautahanga that a raahui was imposed that lasted for several years. Today it is still common for raahui to be imposed for approximately one month following a death, the extent of the raahui being determined by the circumstances. For example following a drowning a section of a river may be closed for swimming or food gathering. Several years ago following the death of a climber on Moehau a raahui was imposed over the top of the maunga for a month. We see raahui as the appropriate response to pollutants encountered in the course of construction or dredging for the proposed wharf. This would likely involve a formal closure of the affected area to access, kaimoana gathering and fishing. This would be put in place via the appropriate ceremony, and can be given statutory support by the Ministry of Fisheries.

Maatauranga Maaori

Maatauranga Maaori is commonly translated as Maaori knowledge, but is a wider concept than this. Maatauranga refers to Maaori ways of knowing and of conceptualising our world. The following extract confirms the important position whakapapa holds in terms of a Maaori world view, and provides an explanation of the changing use of maatauranga;

Mätauranga Mäori is created by Mäori to explain their experience of the world. Mätauranga Mäori was traditionally created with the view that the earth was Papatuanuku, the sky was Ranginui and the world in which we currently reside is called Te Ao Marama. Mätauranga Mäori, like Kaupapa Mäori, is not new. It has been created and maintained for centuries in this country. What is new is to see it in contrast to other disciplines of knowledge, including Western forms of knowledge (Institute of Indigenous Research and Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare, 2000).

Taunahanaha

Taunahanahatanga – equivalent to the English nomenclature - is the practice of naming places, thereby over time imbuing the landscape with significance. The long and rich history of Hauraki and Tiikapa Moana is reflected and recorded in the many names of streams, bays, wetlands, headlands, rocks and any other natural feature. The names and their meanings are recorded in traditions, waiata (songs), mooteatea (laments) and whakatauaaki (sayings / proverbs) and have been handed down for generations. They are therefore a living record linking us with the places, often through recollections of the deeds of tupuna that occurred at these places. As recorded by local scholar Taimoana Turoa (Turoa and Royal 2000):

Like other tribal districts there was not one piece of their territory with which the people were not familiar. There was no natural feature which defied description and appropriate naming. Ranges, ridges, promontories and streams identified tribal and personal boundaries. Prominent peaks, rivers and seas assumed a personification of great reverence. Every topographical feature, however insignificant, promoted commemoration

15


of ancestors. deeds, events, phenomena and the acknowledgement of ätua, the gods of creation. Whenever and for whatever reasons the appellations were applied, most were motivated by the assertion of mana whenua or authority in a particular geographic region. Often these rights were established in the ceremonies entitled uruuru-whenua ('to enter the land' )' and references to these ceremonies formed an integral composition of tribal oral history instrumental in validating evidence to claimed lands.

However, over the last century and a half tangata whenua have witnessed the deliberate and extensive replacement of our names with English ones. This has been observed to be an intentional act of colonial domination, intended to undermine indigenous identity. However in recent decades we have seen renewed efforts by Maaori to reinstate traditional place names, as observed in the article Decolonising the Land - Naming and Reclaiming Places (Belshaw 2005):

In modern society we are experiencing a growing movement from within Mäoridom that seeks to reinstate the original Maori names for places, where currently street and placenames have no association to the original area. In many ways it is an attempt to decolonise the land, revive forgotten histories and reclaim mana whenua.

Ngaati Whanaunga has sought the reinstatement of our ancestral placenames over many years. This was an important aspect of our Treaty claim (Kennedy 2002), and we have argued for appropriate renaming of Thames Coromandel District Council administered reserves as part of Council's statutory processes (Kennedy 2007). The correct names for lands of the various proposed wharf locations are provided below, and we will be seeking that these are identified and appropriately displayed in the course of these developments, for example the naming of a wharf and any reserves arising out of the process. The current proposal presents an opportunity to educate agencies involved and the public regarding the values and world-view of Ngaati Whanaunga and neighbouring hapü and iwi. Ways in which this can be achieved include this report, and the placement of appropriate historic accounts and other educational signs. There is specific recognition of maatauranga Maaori is various statutory instruments, these are considered in the next chapter.

Waahi Tapuu and Waahi Taonga - Culturally significant and sacred places

Waahi tapuu - often translated as sacred sites, and waahi taonga - culturally significant sites, are highly valued by tangata whenua and every effort is made to ensure their protection. While no discrete waahi tapuu are thought to be immediately located within the footprints of any of the prospective wharf sites being considered here, there are some immediately adjacent to them or in close proximity. This is the case for the Sugarloaf, Koopuu, and Coromandel wharf. The Wharekawa and Puhi Rare locations have more remote but equally significant waahi tapuu, which would not be immediately impacted by wharf construction as proposed in preceding reports, but which never-the-less would require consideration in terms of associated effects such as industry traffic.

16


Furthermore, much of the coastline under consideration as wharf sites are known to have been the location of battles, and their remains a high potential for the discovery of köiwi - bones and human remains.

Figure 3. Existing car park encroaching on Arikitahi pa.

Waahi Pakanga - Battle Sites

Much of the Thames coast including the stretch from Manaia to Coromandel and beyond is waahi pakanga. These are places up and down the coast that have been the sites of substantial conflicts, resulting in a high potential that human remains might be encountered anywhere along the coast. Several waahi pakanga are referred to in this document, and some that are still categorised as waahi tapuu are currently degraded and receiving neither restoration or protection. While waahi pakanga are sometimes known to be discrete areas, they may also extend along significant distances, for example where fighting continued across where a retreating group was being pursued. This is the case for the coastline from Manaia to Coromandel. Esteemed Ngaati Whanaunga kaumaatua Hetaraka Te Haumarangai Connor spoke about the presence of köiwi around the Te Kouma coastline on the Waka Huia television programme in 2010, saying:

At Te Kouma there are many strange places where you must tread carefully, caves you would not like to go into. There are also bones there that have been trampled into the mud (Morgan 2010).

He was referring to the numerous waahi pakanga (battle sites) left from the series of battles that are known to have taken place there. He explained this as being a result of the dead of the defeated parties being left where they fell and trampled into the foreshore by the victors. Toko Renata, in interviews held during the research for this report, also spoke of the presence of köiwi dotted along the whole coastline from Manaia to Coromandel. He said that when he used to work for the (then) Ministry of Works, he had on several occasions uncovered köiwi when

17


undertaking works that extended into the foreshore from Te Kouma, along the Ladies Mile, and right up to Coromandel. He had also been required to attend on several occasions after inadvertent excavation or storms had exposed köiwi, and our kaumaatua were called in to reinter them.

Figure 4. Illustration of the area of the historic tapuu associated with Ariki Tahi Pa, resulting from the battles that took place there. Note that the pa was substantially excavated and bisected by Te Kouma Road.

The death of Tipa

While Ngaati Whanaunga participated in many early battles important to establishing Marutuahu mana in the region, one battle is particularly relevant here in that it relates to the Ariki Tahi Pa, being a preferred location for the proposed wharf. Ngaati Whanaunga claimed rights in the Native Land Court at Te Kouma and Waiau (the Coromandel area) as a result of the successful sacking of Arikitahi pa at Te Kouma and the death of Ruamano at Whangapoua, under our ancestor Hongi Hika (not to be confused with the famous Ngaa Puhi leader). Accordingly the battle is described here. Tipa is the eponymous ancestor of the Ngaati Paoa hapü Ngaati Tipa, he is said to have killed a grandchild of Taingahue of Ngaati Huarere. Taingahue sought assistance from the Ngaati Huarere chief Ruamano to kill Tipa. Ruamano killed Tipa at Te Ruaki pa, at Waitakaruru and later ate him – purportedly by himself. Ruamano and his people were pursued by a taua (war party) of Ngaati Whanaunga. Tauaiwi, of Ngaati Whanaunga arranged and led the war party because Tipa was his father-in-law.

18


The initial assault against Ngaati Huarere was unsuccessful and Marutuahu suffered heavy losses as the Ngaati Huarere numbers were superior, and Tauaiwi was killed in this assault. Ngaati Whanaunga retreated and were later joined by Ngaati Hura of Ngaati Paoa, under their chief Pukeko. Hongi Hika of Ngaati Whanaunga was the commander of the new war party. This time Ngaati Whanaunga were successful and defeated Ngaati Huarere at Arikitahi pa at Te Köuma, however, Ruamano and some of his supporters fled to Whangapoua, pursued by the Marutuahu force. There Ruamano was captured and killed at Raukawa pa. Ngaati Whanaunga historian Tukumana Te Taniwha wrote that Ruamano was the last chief of Ngaati Huarere, and that after his death all of Hauraki came under the authority of the Marutuahu tribes:

Ka mau a Ruamano, ka pätua, ka mate i a Ngäti Whanaunga. Ka mutu te rangatira o Ngäti Huarere, kore rawa he rangatira o taua iwi, o Ngäti Huarere, e ora anä i muri i a Ruamano. Ka riro nei a Hauraki katoa i a Ngäti Marutuahu. Ka noho ngä hapu katoa i raro i te mana o Marutuahu. Ka whakapiri ngä morehu ki raro i ngä rangatira o Marutuahu (Te Taniwha 1929) Ruamano was captured [at Raukawa pa at Whangapoua], dispatched and killed by Ngäti Whanaunga. There ceased to be anymore chiefs of Ngäti Huarere after Ruamano. Hauraki was taken over by Marutuahu. All of the hapu were under the mana of Marutuahu. The survivors remained under the chiefs of Marutuahu (translation G. Cooper) (Cooper and Compain 2002).

Figure 5. The existing sign on Ariki Tahi recounting the history of the pa

19


Koopuu, Coromandel, and Stevenson's quarry are all also sites of historic battles that took place at pa sites in the vicinity of the identified potential wharf sites, and extending into the moana. Papakainga

Ngaati Whanaunga have numerous traditional papakainga along the coast of Tiikapa Moana. Some of these were permanent settlements, while others were occupied seasonally as our peoples moved according to seasonal resources, and in an effort to maintain ahi kä - keeping our fires burning on the land as a means of asserting mana over those places. Papakäinga are often found in close proximity to defended pa sites, providing accessible refuge during times of conflict. The physical evidence of many of our ancestral papakainga has been completely or substantially destroyed. Historic papakainga are widely acknowledged as being of high cultural, historic and archaeological value (Rolleston and Awatere 2009), and provide an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of traditional Maaori society (Furey 2000; Phillips 2000). We also have present day aspirations for papakainga, as a means of returning our people to their traditional lands. This aspiration is acknowledged and supported by Thames Coromandel District Council, and numerous local authorities include papakainga provisions within their statutory plans. Ngaati Whanaunga traditions recall a papakainga of up to 2000 of our people approximately where the present day settlement is situated near Hanson's wharf. Others of our papakainga on the shores of Tiikapa Moana at the time of colonial contact were located at Koopuu, on Whanganui Island on the Coromandel Harbour, at Waiau (Preece's Point), at Kauaeranga, at Mechanic's Bay in central Auckland, and at Wharekawa adjacent to Stevenson's Quarry. The exact extent of each of these could not be determined within the scope of this research, and it may be necessary to undertake further investigation in this regard, including interviewing key hau kainga (local) peoples, desktop investigation, and an on the ground survey, in the vicinity of the ultimate wharf location. Mahinga maataitai - Kaimoana areas

A concern for Ngaati Whanaunga, relating to both existing and proposed wharf facilities, is their potential impact on our kaimoana. There are a range of kaimoana that might be effected by both construction, use and ongoing maintenance of the various proposed potential wharfs. These include tio - oysters, kütai - indigenous mussels, pupu - cats eye, and kararu or titiko - the mud snail. Around the headlands of Te Kouma we have long harvested Tipa (scallops). We have traditional tuangi (cockles), kokota (black pipi) and pipi beds close by to most of the potential wharf locations within Tiikapa Moana, the location of which are carefully protected. These are present within the Manaia, Te Kouma, and Coromandel harbours. We would have particular concern at the prospect of dredging associated with a wharf either cutting through our kaimoana beds, and the effects of disturbed sediment and other contaminants. Similar dredging at Whangamata associated with the Whangamata Marina was proven to substantially impact on our kaimoana there. That this would happen was stated to the Environment Court, and our concerns dismissed without comment. As we had predicted the dredging resulted at

20


various times in the discolouration of the flesh such that we were unable to harvest for several periods of more than a month on each occasion. Despite various communications to the local and regional councils and the Department of Conservation (Ngati Whanaunga Environment Unit 2009) to investigate this, each party repeatedly refused (Gaukrodger 2009; Tikkisetty 2009; Wishart 2009), saying there was no proven impact from the marina activities and that the consent conditions did not require such monitoring. Council will understand if we have little faith that similar damage would not occur to our kaimoana here, and that Council has shown clearly in the past that it will not voluntarily act to investigate and protect our kaimoana. The various kaimoana described above are an important aspect of the manaakitanga of Ngaati Whanaunga and our cousins, for which Hauraki Maaori are renowned. Their continued availability is of paramount concern to Ngaati Whanaunga. As acknowledged in the recently released Maaori Values Supplement, produced as a resource for the RMA Making Good Decisions courses (Majurey, Atkins et al. 2010):

The particular food sources associated with tribal areas are a source of mana for iwi/hapü of that area. Häkari (feasts) were (and still are) a key part of showing manäki (hospitality) and mana towards visiting tribes. For coastal tribes, ensuring that the mahinga kai and mätaitai were offered as part of the häkari was, and still is, very important.

We are aware of destruction that has been caused in recent years by the aquaculture industry to our kütai - the original indigenous mussels. There are beds of kütai at Waipapa Bay which extend around both Windy Point and Ariki Tahi. These beds have been severely impacted by boats mooring and using the wharf. Furthermore it is difficult for us to access the locations with the substantial mussel industry boats. Any wharf development should provide for a full submarine investigation including kaimoana and biodiversity. We propose also a programme to maintain and reseed and restore the beds that have been impacted by mussel boats. Subsequently it will be necessary to take measures to prevent the ongoing loss of mussels lost overboard when approaching and while tied up at the wharf so that in future these no longer contaminate the local variety kütai beds. Ngaati Whanaunga and Marutuahu tupuna have long fought to protect our kaimoana and mahinga maataitai (seafood gathering areas). The action taken by Marutuahu in relation to the Thames Foreshore fisheries are discussed previously, and have been opined to establish the most significant legal precedent for Maaori ownership of the foreshore in New Zealand (Boast 1996). Tio (oysters) are another kaimoana of particular importance to Ngaati Whanaunga. Both rock oysters and pacific oysters (dredge oysters) are prized and collected from much of the coastline of Tiikapa Moana, with manawa (mangroves) providing an important tio habitat. Ngaati Whanaunga tupuna Hohepa Mataitaua from Te Kouma petitioned the Government,

complaining of European strangers’removing oysters and other shellfish in great quantities, to the

manifest injury of the Maori people (Waitangi Tribunal 2006). The Oyster Fisheries Act 1866 resulted largely from Maaori complaints about Pakeha intrusion into customary fisheries, a principal

21


objective was to put in place measures designed to assist in protecting and conserving the resource (Waitangi Tribunal 1992). Similarly, section 8 of the Fish Protection Act 1877 provided that:

Nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to repeal, alter or affect any of the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, or to take away, annul or abridge any of the rights of the aboriginal natives to any fishery secured to them there-under.

The drive for such legislative protection resulted from ever increasing pressure on our kaimoana from settlers and, although one tends to think of such as a modern phenomenon, tourists. The following extract from a 1904 book describes one yachtsman's observations regarding oysters at Te Kouma, which even in the late 1800's was a popular anchorage (Allom 1904):

The state of the oyster foreshores at Te Kouma and Coromandel is deplorable. And it is the more particularly to be regretted when one remembers that this district, formerly famous for the quality and quantity of its oysters, has been closed to the oyster-pickers and the public for more than five years. I take the opportunity of mentioning this because it is well known that I have made somewhat of a study of the subject, and because I know that our yachtsmen, in most cases inadvertently, not wilfully, I allow, are with others, responsible for some portion of the blame. I Is it not a fact that wherever they go upon our coasts, they explore every nook and corner, and are as reckless as to the consequences, so jar as the oysters are concerned, as the oystermen themselves?

The above extract is typical of Pakeha attitudes of the time, no consideration is given to the fact that the oysters to which he refers are Ngaati Whanaunga property. However such statutory protection of Maaori rights to kaimoana was short lived, being repealed by the Sea Fisheries Act 1894, and the state of Hauraki kaimoana continued to deteriorate. Ngaati Whanaunga remained concerned at the state of our tio at Te Kouma, and Mataitaua again appealed to the Government to intervene and protect our tio at Te Kouma in 1917, but to no affect (Waitangi Tribunal 1988). Ngaati Whanaunga issues with the contemporary assumption by boaties of a right to Te Kouma are discussed further below in relation to the potential for the harbour to accommodate an aquaculture wharf. We continue to suffer from the overharvesting and other destruction of our coastal kaimoana, and an analysis of the various locations under consideration indicates that the current proposal has the potential to contribute further to this. Tauranga Waka – Waka Landing Places

Waka Tauranga are traditionally significant sites for Ngaati Whanaunga and other iwi, their status as taonga being acknowledged in statutory plans within the Waikato Region As previously summarised the proposed activity and structures are, from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective, tauranga waka. They are landing places for boats. Tauranga waka, dedicated waka landing places, are traditionally considered particularly important to Maaori. Names of locations at which ancestral ocean voyaging waka landed, including the Arawa and Tainui, are renowned in tribal histories, those places strongly valued and protected to this day.

22


Figure 6. Ngaati Paoa/Ngaati Whanaunga waka Te Kötuitui enters the Viaduct Basin with 20 other waka taua during the 2011 Rugby World cup opening ceremony. Note that these wharves service and accommodate all manner of craft - but no space is provided for our waka despite this being Marutuahu foreshore

Figure 7. Tauranga waka - the existing Sugarloaf wharf is, like its successor will be, from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective, Tauranga Waka.

Ngaati Whanaunga was historically known for our prowess at waka carving, and into the 1900s maintained a substantial fleet of waka, and had a large number of tauranga waka along our coastline. In the mid 1800s Ngaati Whanaunga assembled a taua of more than 40 of our waka taua

23


in response to threats to our mana whenua at Whangamata. Elsdon Best recorded the following reference by Hoane Nahi to Ngaati Whanaunga waka (Best 1976):

It was Ngati-Paoa and Ngati-Whanaunga who supplied the waka taua nunui [great war-canoes] that enabled Wai-kato to escape in the night [after the battle of Tikorauroha]: their names were 'Otuiti,' 'Okunui,' and 'Whenua-roa.' These canoes were very much larger than any I ever saw. 'Okunui' and 'Otuiti' would hold five ranks of men abreast, right from the bows to the stern—a row of men on each side would paddle, whilst three others sat in the middle ready to take the places of those who became tired. 'Whenua-roa' was not so large; only three men could sit abreast on the seats.

Yet today we have little land left in tribal ownership, and only one waka taua, Te Kötuitui. Te Kötuitui, of Whakatiwai marae, is a shared Ngaati Paoa and Ngaati Whanaunga waka. We also claim an interest in the Tauranga Moana waka, Te Araroa, which is housed at down-town Tauranga, in that the author's grandfather gifted the kauri from which it was carved. While the iwi aspires to carve new waka in our efforts to rekindle the reconnect with this tradition for which our ancestors were renowned, we have no formal tauranga waka at which to launch and store waka. In the Waitangi Tribunal's Report on the Wellington District (Wai 145) the Tribunal considered reclamation that had taken place within Te Whanganui a Tara (the Wellington Harbour) and found that the reclamation of substantial parts of the foreshore had deprived Wellington Maori of an important source of food, a place for landing waka, and a link between the land and sea. The Tribunal found that prior to the 1980s the Crown had failed to consult with or compensate Maori for the loss of access to the foreshore and the destruction of their customary fisheries, guaranteed to them under the Treaty (Waitangi Tribunal 2003). We see strong potential parallels with the current wharf proposals. Ngaati Whanaunga and Marutuahu tauranga waka have repeatedly been destroyed to make way for marinas and similar aspirations of the wider community. This was the case with the recent Whangamata Marina. Our tauranga waka in the vicinity of Te Kouma and Coromandel have long been built on. There have been a very few instances where the location of a significant tauranga waka has been a consideration in declining such developments, as occurred in relation to the previous Environment Court case regarding a proposed marina at Tairua, but we note that a revised marina application is now on the table for Tairua.

24


Chapter 4. Statutory considerations

E kore te paatiki e hoki ki toona puuehu You will not catch the flounder once you have clouded the water - Once bitten twice shy

The Resource Management Act 1991

The three most widely referred to Maaori-specific provisions in the RMA are sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8, these collectively are intended to recognise and protect Maaori interests and values. Section 6 sets out matters of national importance that must be recognised and provided for by decision makers. The provision within Section 6 most often relied on by tangata whenua to protect Maori values and interests has been Section 6(e), for which decision makers are required to; 'recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapuu, and other taonga'; and under section 6(f) to: 'recognise and provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development'. Section 6 was amended in 2005 to add the protection of recognised customary interests, including:

• that resource consent is not required for recognised customary activities • a process for managing the effects of recognised customary activities

Section 7 includes eleven “other matters” to which decision makers must have “particular regard”. Of particular interest to Maaori is 7(a), kaitiakitanga. The definition provided for kaitiakitanga within the Act is:

“Kaitiakitanga” means the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship

A definition is also provided for mana whenua:

“Mana whenua” means customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapu in an identified area: ,

Section 8 requires decision makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. While Treaty principles seem to be an evolving quantity, those of particular interest in terms of this investigation are those of active protection and partnership, including that obligation to act in good faith. In its 1993 Ngawha Report and again in its 1999 Whanganui Report the Waitangi Tribunal considered the RMA in detail in terms of the extent to which the Act provides for Maaori, observing:

As counsel put it, s6 imposes a mandatory obligation on decision-makers to "recognise and provide for" matters of "national importance". Section 7 has less injunctive force; decision-makers need only have "particular regard" to "other" matters (which in turn are presumably of less than national importance). Section 8 in turn merely requires decision-makers to "take into account" Treaty principles. All of these matters are subordinate to the over-riding importance of achieving the central purpose of sustainable management of resources (s5).(Waitangi Tribunal 1993)

25


The tribunal found that the Treaty did not contemplate that the rangatiratanga guaranteed to Mäori could be qualified by requiring it to be balanced against other interests, as the RMA 1991 appeared to do. Rangatiratanga was absolutely protected and was a qualification on the governance exercised by the Crown. Consequently, the RMA 1991 was inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty in as far as it did not require all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act to do so in a way consistent with, and which would give effect to, the Treaty of Waitangi (Waitangi Tribunal 1999).

Transfers, delegations, and joint management - Sections 33, 34, and 36

Ngaati Whanaunga asserts, as we have since our tupuna signed the Treaty at Waiau and in Tamaki, that we have never ceded ownership of our tribal foreshore and seabed. This remains our position n relation to the proposed activity. Accordingly we look to RMA sections 33, 34, and 36 as potential mechanisms for a degree of meaningful participation in the ongoing management of any wharf that is constructed within our rohe. Section 33 allows for councils to pass virtually any of its functions and powers under the RMA to (amongst others) iwi authorities. However, after 18 years there is not a single case of this happening. Section 34 offers an alternative which might be more palatable to councils and their wider communities, being a delegation rather than transfer of powers or functions. Delegations were initially only permitted to committees of the local authority, however a 2003 amendment extended the Act to allow delegations to (1) an employee, or hearings commissioner or (2) to any other person, with some exceptions as to what delegations might be made. The Act now also provides a framework for public authorities, iwi authorities, and groups that represent hapü for RMA purposes, to enter into joint management agreements about natural or physical resources (new sections 36B-E) (Ministry for the Environment 2005). There are currently few examples of delegations to iwi/Maaori, although some exist to council committees which include tangata whenua representation. However there is one notable Section 36B joint management arrangement, being between the Taupo District Council and Tuwharetoa. Entitled Te Whakaaetanga Ma Te Whakakotahinga A Röpu Whakahaere, the purpose of the agreement is:

The purpose of this Joint Management Agreement is to provide the basis o develop and confirm a relationship and understanding between the parties with regard to the administration of the Act in relation to multiply owned Maori land within the traditional rohe of Ngati Tuwharetoa Iwi within the Taupo District. The Act provides a basis for the parties to jointly perform or exercise any of the local authority’s functions, powers, or duties under this Act relating to a natural or physical resource. The agreement specifies those functions, powers, or duties; relevant area within the district; and scope of those specified duties and how the parties are to make decisions.

Reclamation provisions

We note that under section 105 Matters relevant to certain applications, the consenting authority will need to consider requiring an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip (105(2)). Ngaati Whanaunga is mindful of the status of Council owned and administered lands including reserves, and would be

26


resistant in any such lands here vesting in Council. We would be open to discussing other vesting

options, including the land vesting in the iwi or (as per Section 246) as a minimum in joint

management opportunities should land be vest in the Crown as a reserve. Recognising that the Crown might confer on Council or another party a lesser right than ownership, such as a lease, Ngaati Whanaunga will be determined to ensure that our ancestral ownership of any foreshore and seabed lands is recognised and provided for to the fullest extent possible.

Existing wharf consent duration

Finally, we note that the existing wharf was granted consent for an unlimited period. This took place in the early days of the RMA, and wi no consultation with Ngaati Whanaunga. The consent therefore represents a permanent alienation of Ngaati Whanaunga interests in this ancestral land, and was granted with no measures whatsoever taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate the substantial effects on the iwi. We will be looking for Council to surrender these consents as part of the current process in order for a realistic and equitable regime to be put in place should Sugarloaf be selected as the wharf location. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

Any activity undertaken within the Hauraki Gulf is subject to the provisions of the HGMPA. The over-riding purpose of the HGMPA is presented in Section 3 of the Act, being to:

(a) integrate the management of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (b) establish the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park: (c) establish objectives for the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (d) recognise the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf and its islands: (e) establish the Hauraki Gulf Forum.

Section 6 of the Act - Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) - sets out the Treaty of Waitangi related obligations on decision makers. Section 6(1) apparently imposes a higher Treaty obligation than that found in the RMA, similar to that in the Conservation Act; that the Act be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. However, despite the elevated Treaty requirements in section 6(1), the Crown has made clear (section 6(4)) that member councils’ Treaty obligations under both the RMA and LGA are not affected by the HGMPA:

Nothing in Part 1 or Part 3 or Part 4 limits, affects, or extends the obligations any person has in respect of the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) under any of the Acts listed in Schedule 1, and those obligations must be fulfilled in accordance with those Acts.

Notwithstanding 6(4), the HGMPA does impose additional obligations on councils under the RMA in that council plans may not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Act, (section 9(2) and (3)); and decision makers under the RMA are required to have particular regard to HGMPA sections 7 and 8, which are deemed have the status of a National Policy Statement in any deliberations under the RMA.

27


The other substantive section in terms of kaitiakitanga is Section 7 - Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf, subsection 2(a), in which the following are considered matters of national importance:

The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands includes the capacity— (a) to provide for— (i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands; and (ii) the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and communities:

Section 32 sets out the purposes of Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, which include 32(c), being: to recognise and have particular regard to the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and coastal areas, and the natural and historic resources of the Park. Finally, sections 44 to 48 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act provide for deeds of recognition of tangata whenua. However these have been argued as being of ‘decorative effect only’, because all they can do is ‘identify opportunities for contribution by tangata whenua to the management of an area by the Crown or a Local Authority’. In particular, they do not affect any person carrying out their duties under another Act, and must not be taken into account by such persons (Waitangi Tribunal 2001). The Hauraki Gulf Forum document entitled Governing the Gulf - Giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act through Policies and Plans (Hauraki Gulf Forum 2009) includes some useful advice as to how agencies with overlapping responsibilities can coordinate their approaches for better environmental outcomes. These include recommendations for greater participation by tangata whenua. The 2011 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act

Ngaati Whanaunga and our Marutuahu cousins opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed by the last Labour government, and see the 2011Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act as little better. Accordingly Ngaati Whanaunga, like the rest of Marutuahu, has to date not entertained seeking recognition of our customary rights under subpart 2 of Part 3, nor Customary marine title under subpart 3 or Part 3. Nevertheless Ngaati Whanaunga maintains that ownership remains with the iwi, and we will approach any activities that will impact on this ownership accordingly. On this basis it is noteworthy that in the absence of customary title being sought or secured by the iwi the provisions of Part Two, subpart 3, require customary interests to be taken into account were Council to seek any interest in reclaimed lands. The Dunbar-Smith report largely dismisses iwi rights being confirmed via the new Act (a Bill at the time of writing). For example, regarding aquaculture industry interests versus those of tangata whenua within Tiikapa Moana, the document reports:

The Government also states that the Bill guarantees and, in some cases, extends existing rights for navigation, ports, fishing and aquaculture. In general, it appears that existing aquaculture farms and the renewal of existing aquaculture permits (including the change of species) will be exempt from the RMA permission right accorded to an iwi group which can successfully claim customary title.

28


The existence of a existing aquaculture farm would appear to disprove any claim for “exclusive use without substantial interruption.” There is concern from some in the aquaculture industry about the potential status of new marine farms, and they are seeking clarification through the Select Committee process.

The report further considers the customary title provisions of the (then) bill, finding:

Customary title: The legislation provides for iwi to make a claims for "customary title" through the courts or in negotiation with the Government. If their claim succeeds, they will receive a deed giving title to a coastal area. While they will not be able to sell the property or block public access, iwi will have greater control, such as vetoing or initiating development, and permitting activities. They will also have the right to non-nationalised minerals, such as iron-sands, beneath it. To achieve customary marine title, applicants must prove that the group has had the exclusive use and occupation of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption, and that the area for which they are seeking title has been held in accordance with tikanga.

In relation to the lesser Customary Rights available in the Act, the report finds:

Customary rights: Groups such as iwi and hapu will also be able to gain recognition and protection for long-standing customary rights that continue to be exercised which are non-territorial (examples are collecting hangi stones, or launching waka). The threshold for proving customary rights is lower than for proving customary title.

The above-noted observation regarding the absence of exclusive use and occupation conditions that would support iwi claims for customary title are, in some locations, valid. However, as is currently being negotiated with the Crown, this lack of unbroken occupation is the case for most of the Marutuahu and Hauraki rohe, and has been confirmed by the Waitangi Tribunal to be substantially a result of Crown Treaty Breaches (Waitangi Tribunal 2006).

In order to address this issue it is proposed by the iwi that title for any reclaimed land resulting from a wharf development within our rohe should reside with Ngaati Whanaunga, with appropriate ongoing use arrangements by the aquaculture industry and Council (on behalf of the public) being negotiated prior to resource consents being lodged. We note in this regard that Part 30 of the Act provides:

Certain reclaimed land to vest in Crown (1) Subsection (2) applies to any reclaimed land that is formed from the common marine and coastal area as a result of a lawful reclamation. (2) The full legal and beneficial ownership in any reclaimed land to which this subsection applies vests in the Crown absolutely

Current applications by TCDC to have the existing reclamation at the Sugarloaf Wharf vest in Council are similarly objectionable to Ngaati Whanaunga. We note that the iwi has not been approached by the Department of Conservation regarding this land, and intend lodging objections to any transfer of title.

29


However, current claims discussions include negotiations regarding previous reclamations that we are seeking be vest in the iwi. This is not a matter that is off the table, and is consistent with Section 34 of the Act (Granting and disposition of interests in reclaimed land subject to this subpart). We note in this regard Part 35 - Eligible applicants for interests in reclaimed land subject to this subpart, whereby (1) A developer of reclaimed land subject to this subpart that has been, or is being, or is to be formed may apply to the Minister for the grant to the developer of an interest in that reclaimed land. We point here to Part 36 - Determination of application by Minister, by which the Crown must give consideration to claims including Treaty of Waitangi claims. Similar discussions should take place regarding any associated structures intended within the coastal marine area. As an indication, discussions within the iwi authority have resolved that that we would be looking for 1/2 iwi membership of any wharf management committee established. Council and industry people would collectively make up the balance. Māori Aquaculture Settlement Act 2004

20% of representative space entitlement (both pre commencement and new) is due to Iwi under the Māori Aquaculture Settlement Act. The Hauraki Deed of Settlement was given effect by legislation on March 2010 by the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Act 2010. That Act provided for the transfer of $19m to Hauraki Maaori for development in addition to delivering 20% of all new aquaculture space created in our waters. This amounts to a significant resource that is due to Hauraki Maaori, however, disputes between Hauraki and Waikato-Tainui, and ongoing discussions regarding our respective coastlines with Tauranga Moana and Ngaati Wai iwi have delayed these resources being released by Te Ohu Kaimoana to Hauraki. While these resources are keenly awaited by Hauraki the Pare Hauraki Fishing Trust already holds fisheries related assets and funds worth over $9 million, making Hauraki - independent of our share of nationally held fisheries resources - already a significant player in the fishing industry. It is noteworthy that while the fisheries resources that rightfully belong to Ngaati Whanaunga are currently held by either or both Te Ohu Kaimoana and the Pare Hauraki Fishing Trust, that provision exists within that Trusts Deed of Mandate for individual iwi to withdraw their share from the collective. The Conservation Act and Reserves Act

The 1987 Conservation Act provides for the Department of Conservation an active mandate of conservation advocacy, and provides it a range of powers with which to undertake this role. The Conservation Act includes a stronger Treaty of Waitangi obligation on the Crown, and on other

decision making agencies in certain circumstances under Section 4 - Act to give effect to Treaty of Waitangi, which states; This Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Depending upon which location is ultimately chosen Council may also have responsibilities stemming from the Reserves Act 1977. While the Reserves Act includes no specific Treaty of Waitangi reference, it is subject to the requirements within the Conservation Act, as the Reserves Act 1977 is one of the Acts contained in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act.

30


Assessment of relevant provisions within RMA statutory instruments

There are Maaori-specific provisions in the various statutory instruments that are to be taken into account for the purposes of assessing this proposal. These are discussed here. The Resource Management lays down Maaori-specific obligations on decision makers, primary amongst these are Section 6e, 7a, and 8. They are often replicated in statutory planning documents, and this is the case for the Waikato Regional and Thames Coromandel District planning instruments. Because of location of the proposed activities largely within the CMA I refer below to provisions within the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan, but not to the Regional Plan. Note that underlined text is my added emphasis. The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapuu, and other taonga

Section 6e of the RMA requires decision makers to recognise and provide for "the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapuu, and other taonga". The section recognises this relationship as a matter of national importance. This is the strongest of the three Part 2 directives relating to Maaori. Section 6e is apparently concerned with the relationship of Maaori with their taonga, rather than on the taonga themselves. I consider briefly statutory plan provisions based on Section 6e, considering whether provisions are concerned mainly with those taonga that are significant to tangata whenua, or with the relationship between them. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act has this Maaori relationship as one of its purposes. In addition, Section 7.2. like the RMA recognises this as a component of the gulf’s national significance:

Section 7. Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf— (1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance. (2) The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands includes the capacity— (a) to provide for— (i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands

Objective 3 of the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement includes provision for both the relationship of tangata whenua with their taonga, and separately for the taonga themselves:

To take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki and provide for tangata whenua involvement in management of the coastal environment by: - recognising the ongoing and enduring relationship of tangata whenua over their lands, rohe and resources; - promoting meaningful relationships and interactions between tangata whenua and persons exercising functions and powers under the Act; - incorporating mätauranga Māori into sustainable management practices; and - recognising and protecting characteristics of the coastal environment that are of special value to tangata whenua

31


The Environment Waikato Regional Policy Statement replicates RMA Section 6e at subsection 2.1.5, incorporating an objective and implementation method both adopting the wording of 6e. Section 3.15.2, entitled The Region's Heritage. The section's single objective is:

The protection of regionally significant heritage resources, and allowing subdivision, use, and development of other heritage resources, while ensuring that there is no net loss in the Region.

There is also a single policy, being to Ensure the protection of significant natural and cultural heritage resources.4 Section 3.15.3 deals specifically with Maori Heritage. The issue identified is:

Maori heritage resources are of significant spiritual and cultural value to tangata whenua, and are an integral part of the Region’s heritage. Subdivision, use, development, and interference have the potential to degrade and destroy Mäori heritage resources.

There is a single objective, being: The protection of heritage resources of significance to Maaori, and a single policy - Protection of Maori Heritage, which reads:

Seek to avoid accidental or intentional damage or interference to heritage resources of significance to Maori.

Of the five implementation methods four are considered relevant here, these are:

1) Through district plans and resource consents and in accordance with tikanga Maori, provide for the protection of identified significant heritage resources, while recognising the right of tangata whenua not to publicly identify all significant heritage resources. 2) Provide information and practical guidance to resource users on the significance of heritage resources to tangata whenua and strongly encourage applicants to consult with the appropriate tangata whenua groups prior to submitting applications for resource consents. 3) In consultation with tangata whenua, territorial authorities, and other interested parties identify and make appropriate provision for sites and areas of Mäori spiritual and cultural value where public access should be restricted. 5) Encourage territorial authorities and consent holders to notify relevant iwi authorities and cease work in areas where unidentified burial grounds or waahi tapu sites are disturbed or destroyed.

The Waikato Regional Coastal Plan includes some provisions that offer protection to taonga, such as Section 2.3.1, Policy - Tangata Whenua Values; "Recognise and take into account historical, spiritual, cultural and traditional values of tangata whenua in relation to activities in the CMA". Of interest to Ngaati Whanaunga here are the methods of implementation:

17.1.1 Establishing a Working Relationship 17.1.2 Transfer/Delegation of Functions 17.1.3 Identification of Areas/Characteristics of Special Value 17.1.5 Marae-Based Meetings

Policy 2.4.2 - Protection of Sites reads; "Work with tangata whenua to protect those sites in the CMA which have been identified as having cultural and spiritual significance, including ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapuu and other taonga".

32


It is noteworthy that the Regional Coastal Plan includes consideration of the finantial contribution a resource consent recipient should be required to provide in relation to losses and effects on tangata whenua. In 14.1.4 Policy - Calculation of the Amount, a table provides directions for assessing levels of payment that should be required:

CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIAL VALUE TO TANGATA WHENUA - where a proposed activity is likely to adversely affect characteristics of special value to the tangata whenua within the CMA, including, waahi tapu, tauranga waka, mahinga maataitai, and taonga raranga. The full actual costs involved in protecting, maintaining or restoring characteristics of special value to tangata whenua, including, but not limited to, the protection, restoration, or enhancement of their relationship, culture, and traditions with that place or area; or the full actual costs of compensating for any permanent loss to these characteristics.

As with 2.3.1 a number of methods for implementation are listed as Other Methods:

17.1.2 Transfer/Delegation of Functions 17.1.3 Identification of Areas/Characteristics of Special Value 17.1.4 Consultation on Consent Applications 17.1.5 Marae-Based Meetings 17.1.8 Tangata Whenua Values

Thames Coromandel District Plan relevant provisions concerned with the taonga with which Maaori have a relationship, rather than with the relationship itself, include Section 8 of the HGMP Act. Remembering that under the RMA the HGMP Act is to be interpreted as a national policy statement. The Act's Management Objectives, intended to recognise the national significance of the gulf, its islands and catchments, include:

(c) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of those natural, historic, and physical resources (including kaimoana) of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments with which tangata whenua have an historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship:

The TCDC Plan at 215.3 lists 3 Maaori objectives, intended to reflect RMA Sections 6e, 7a, and 8 (Thames Coromandel District Council 1999). Section 215.3.1 addresses both protection of taonga Maaori and of the relationship of Maaori with them, it reads:

To provide for the social, economic and cultural well-being of Tangata Whenua, and their health and safety, by protecting and enhancing their existing resources and Taonga and enabling appropriate access to them.

Definitions of taonga The definition of taonga has received considerable attention now, including deliberation by the Waitangi Tribunal and courts, and includes, for example, kaimoana beds and non physical taonga such as te reo Maaori (the Maaori language) and the airwaves. Council will be required to take a wide view as to what constitutes taonga in this instance, and this MVA will assist in this regard. The Waikato Regional Policy Statement and RCP both adopt a definition for taonga put forward by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 1992):

Taonga means treasure, property: taonga are prized and protected as sacred

33


possessions of the tribe. The term carries a deep spiritual meaning and taonga may be things that cannot be seen or touched. Included for example are language, waahi tapu, waterways, fishing grounds and mountains.

Waahi Tapuu

As previously noted, Waahi tapuu are specifically mentioned within Section 6e of the RMA, where decision makers are required to recognise and provide for the relationship of tangata whenua with them. Several of the above-noted provisions refer to waahi tapuu bundled either within heritage sections or within Section 6e related provisions. The following are waahi tapuu-specific provisions within relevant plans. Waahi tapuu is included within the 2010 National Coastal Policy Statement Policy 21 Enhancement of water quality:

Where the quality of water in the coastal environment has deteriorated so that it is having a significant adverse effect on ecosystems, natural habitats, or water based recreational activities, or is restricting existing uses, such as aquaculture, shellfish gathering, and cultural activities, give priority to improving that quality by: (e) engaging with tangata whenua to identify areas of coastal waters where they have particular interest, for example in cultural sites, wähi tapu, other taonga, and values such as mauri, and remedying, or, where remediation is not practicable, mitigating adverse effects on these areas and values.

The Regional Policy Statement defines waahi tapuu as follows:

Waahi tapu means sacred site: these are defined locally by the hapu and iwi which are the kaitiaki for the waahi tapu. Typically includes burial grounds and sites of historical importance to the tribe. In order to protect particular sites from interference and desecration, some tribes will refuse to disclose the exact location to outsiders.

The RPS indicates that waahi tapuu are considered in sections 1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.5, 3.6.1.3, 3.15.1, 3.15.2, 3.15.3. Waahi tapuu are largely considered in combination with other taonga as per RMA 6e, for example in the objective "The relationship which tangata whenua have with natural and physical resources recognised" (Issue 2.1.5), and associated Policy One: Maori Culture and Tradition:

Ensure that the relationship tangata whenua have with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga is recognised and provided for in resource management decision making. Implementation Methods: 1) Consult with tangata whenua over the management (including the identification and protection) of waahi tapu or any other significant sites or taonga which are located in the Waikato Region. 2) Consult with tangata whenua over RMA policy and plan preparation, consent applications and other procedures of local authorities which may affect the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

34


3) Make appropriate provision in regional plans, district plans and resource consents for the recognition of the relationship tangata whenua have with their ancestral lands, water sites, waahi tapu and other taonga..

Similarly within heritage sections. For example under 3.15.3 Maori Heritage, the following issue is identified:

Maori heritage resources are of significant spiritual and cultural value to tangata whenua, and are an integral part of the Region’s heritage. Subdivision, use, development, and interference have the potential to degrade and destroy Mäori heritage resources.

While the wording does not include waahi tapuu, the associated Principal Reasons for Adopting does:

The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga must be recognised and provided for as a matter of national importance under the RMA. Therefore it is important that sites with heritage value for Maori are protected from accidental or intentional damage or abuse. This is part icularly true with some waahi tapu sites where the precise locality of certain features is carefully guarded information.

There is a single policy - Protection of Maori Heritage, which reads: Seek to avoid accidental or intentional damage or interference to heritage resources of significance to Maori.

There are 5 Implementation Methods, again, only one of which actually refer to waahi tapuu, but all are clearly intended to provide for their protection:

1) Through district plans and resource consents and in accordance with tikanga Maori, provide for the protection of identified significant heritage resources, while recognising the right of tangata whenua not to publicly identify all significant heritage resources. 2) Provide information and practical guidance to resource users on the significance of heritage resources to tangata whenua and strongly encourage applicants to consult with the appropriate tangata whenua groups prior to submitting applications for resource consents. 3) In consultation with tangata whenua, territorial authorities, and other interested parties identify and make appropriate provision for sites and areas of Mäori spiritual and cultural value where public access should be restricted. 4) Investigate delegation or transfer of functions, powers and duties to iwi for the administration of heritage resources, and where appropriate undertake such delegation or transfer. 5) Encourage territorial authorities and consent holders to notify relevant iwi authorities and cease work in areas where unidentified burial grounds or waahi tapu sites are disturbed or destroyed.

The Regional Coastal Plan adopts a different definition to the RPS, being that published by the PCE in 1992:

Waahi Tapu: A particular category of ancestral land or water which are held in the highest regard by tangata whenua. They can include places, sites, areas or objects that are tapu, sacred and special to an Iwi.

35


Policy 2.3.1 - Tangata Whenua Values - does not specifically mention waahi tapuu, reading: "Recognise and take into account historical, spiritual, cultural and traditional values of tangata whenua in relation to activities in the CMA. However the Explanation and P rincipal Reasons for Adopting does:

Tangata whenua have traditional practices to ensure the sustainable management of coastal resources. The RMA provides significant opportunities for the involvement of tangata whenua and recognition of their relationship, and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga. Environment Waikato needs to recognise this and take it into account in decision-making.

Previously mentioned in relation to taonga, Policy 2.4.2 - Protection of Sites reads: "Work with tangata whenua to protect those sites in the CMA which have been identified as having cultural and spiritual significance, including ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga". The associated implementation methods are previously listed. The RCP includes Policy 3.3.2 - Protection of Heritage Values, which reads "Ensure the protection of the Region’s heritage resources, including historic places, areas, sites and structures from any adverse effects of use and development". The TCDC District Plan includes numerous references to waahi tapuu, in both the Tangata whenua and Heritage sections. 214.3 OBJECTIVE:

To conserve, protect and enhance the buildings, items, streetscapes, trees, landscape features, archaeological sites and Wahi Tapu, which are of recognised significant cultural, historic, architectural, aesthetic, scientific or special heritage value in the District and to ensure that new works do not compromise those values.

There are 2 policies that refer to heritage values but not waahi tapuu specifically. Section 214.5, Methods, includes 16 Rules by which the which the objective is to be achieved. While most are of some use in terms of protecting waahi tapuu, those specifically relating to Maaori are:

.3 Serve heritage protection orders, either alone or in conjunction with an iwi authority to protect a place of special interest or character and area surrounding it. .4 Involve iwi and local communities in the identification and management of heritage resources. .5 Maintain registers of heritage items, including archaeological sites, cultural sites, waahi tapu, trees, and buildings. These registers form part of the District Plan.

215.2, Issues, includes;

1. The main issues raised by tangata whenua in the District which Council can respond to in this District Plan are: • Protection for water, waahi tapu, sacred areas and taonga;

The associated policies do not specifically mention waahi tapuu, but the listed methods include:

4. Seek an exchange of information on waahi tapu, taronga, taonga raranga mahinga mataitai and other places of significance. 5. Adopt in appropriate circumstances, following the relevant RMA procedures, the transfer of Council's functions, powers or duties to a properly constituted tangata

36


whenua entity (as a public authority under the RMA) in relation to the management (including the identification and protection) of places of significance including waahi tapu. 6. Set up a referral system to tangata whenua for those seeking resource consents so that information can be exchanged and better management (identification and protection) of waahi tapu can occur. 7. Establish a register or maps of publicly known waahi tapu to afford a level of protection and work with tangata whenua to identify more sites for protection in this way as well as using the silent file where appropriate. 10. As appropriate, publish brochures which inform members of the public who undertake earthworks including procedures in the event that koiwi, cultural materials or artefacts and waahi tapu are found.

Again, there are other heritage provisions that provide for protection of waahi tapuu where these are not specifically mentioned. 215.7 Environmental Results Anticipated, includes:

Recognition and protection of ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and taonga. Section 221, Land Disturbance And Earthworks, also recognised the potential for impacts on waahi tapuu, including the following provisions:

221.2, Issues: 1 The District is valued highly by its communities and visitors alike for its remote, scenic, cultural, natural and physical environment. If not carefully managed, activities that involve land disturbance or earthworks could adversely affect these values by: • Degrading ancestral taonga and waahi tapu;

221.4 Policies: 1 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse impact of land modification caused by land disturbance or earthworks in the following areas: 1.7 Waahi Tapu and other places of significance to tangata whenua 1.8 Areas of historic and archaeological significance

221.5 Methods: 1 Set rules which avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of earthworks and land disturbance by: • Consultation with tangata whenua where waahi tapu sites are involved; • Requiring the consideration of heritage and archaeological values of an area.

There are additional provisions relating specifically to waahi tapuu at Whitianga Waterways and Tatara Valley". Furthermore, under the heading 432 Activity Status, earthworks within the vicinity of an archaeological site, waahi tapuu or waahi tapuu area listed in a Heritage Register" are determined to be a discretionary activity (432.4). Landscape and Natural Character

Maaori have a culturally distinct view of the concepts of landscape, and of natural character to non-Maaori New Zealanders. This stems from a substantially different world view in which human kind is not separate from the environment and in a position of dominion over it, but rather genealogically related to every element, with associated familial and reciprocal obligations. Only one of the three statutory instruments considered below includes any reference to Maaori within its landscape and natural character section, and this does not speak acknowledge this distinct perspective.. The 2010 NZ Coastal Policy Statement, at Objective 2 reads:

37


To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values through: - recognising the characteristics and qualities that contribute to natural character, natural features and landscape values and their location and distribution; - identifying those areas where various forms of subdivision, use, and development would be inappropriate and protecting them from such activities; and - encouraging restoration of the coastal environment

But there is no specific recognition of the existence of distinct Maaori perspectives relating to these matter. The Regional Policy Statement at 3.5.4 - Natural Character and Coastal Processes - identifies the following issue, which considers a distinct Maaori relation with the landscape, but not a distinct Maaori perspective relating to it:

Inappropriate subdivision, use and development within the coastal environment results in loss of natural character. Policy Two: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Recognise the particular relationship tangata whenua have with the coastal environment and ensure those relationships are taken into account when decisions relating to the use, development and protection of the coastal environment are made. Implementation Methods: 2) Encourage applicants to consult with tangata whenua prior to submitting applications for coastal permits.

Natural character and landscape issues are dealt with in the Regional Coastal Plan within Section 3 Natural Character, Habitat and Coastal Processes. The section includes limited recognition of Maaori-specific issues. Additionally the introduction notes that; "While natural character is closely linked to the environment in its natural state, the amenity, historical and cultural values people associate with the coast are also important considerations". Several of the Plans Natural Character related objectives and policies include no recognition of tangata whenua, in clear contradiction of earlier statements as to the importance of the coast to Maaori. However, there is recognition in the methods relating to 3.1.4 Policy - Inappropriate Use and Development, which reads:

Consider any application for use or development which: a) does not have functional need for location in the CMA; or b) could be located in an alternative area where natural character is already modified or compromised; or c) contributes to sprawling or sporadic use or development to be ‘inappropriate’.

Implementation methods (Other Methods) listed are:

17.2.6 Environment Waikato: Works and Services 17.2.7 Protection and Restoration of Natural Character in the CMA 17.2.8 Tangata Whenua Values

Also in 3.1.4A Policy – Use of and Occupation of Coastal Space, which reads:

38


Recognise that the use, occupation and development of coastal space is appropriate in the CMA to meet the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of communities, in particular maintaining and enhancing recreational opportunities, provided that: 2. The following policies in this Plan are taken into account: Policy 2.4.1 Kaitiakitanga Policy 2.3.1 Tangata Whenua values

The following implementation methods are listed as Other Methods:

17.1.3 Identification of Areas/Characteristics of Special Value 17.2.8 Tangata Whenua Values

3.1.4B Policy - Use of and Occupation of Space for Marinas reads:

The use of and occupation of space for a marina in the CMA is considered appropriate where it is located in an area where the following criteria can be met:

3.1.4 includes the following d) Adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki have with their identified ancestral taonga such as water, lands, sites, waahi tapu and kaimoana are avoided as far as practicable, and if avoidance is not practicable, adverse effects are mitigated and provision made for remedying those effects, to the extent practicable

There is no acknowledgement in the section of an alternative or different Maaori perspective on either natural character no landscape. The TCDC District Plan includes Objective 212.3:

.1 To recognise, protect or, where appropriate, enhance the outstanding natural features and landscapes of the District. .2 To recognise, protect or, where appropriate, enhance the natural character of the District.

Unlike the RPS example given above there is no mention of Maaori in this section of the Plan. It has the following 5 landscape and natural character related policies (212.4):

1. To ensure the outstanding natural features and landscapes of the District are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development, particularly where significant landscape change may result. (The key landscape elements for the District identified on Maps and in the Background to the Issue comprise the outstanding natural features and landscapes of the District). 2. To protect existing landscape values within the coastal environment and to encourage and provide for appropriate development, which will remedy the adverse effects of past land uses and enhance the natural character and amenity values of the coastal environment. 3. To promote the restoration and enhancement of existing degraded landscapes and ecosystems. 4. To ensure activities or development reinforce or enhance the landscape character of an area.

39


5. To recognise the landscape values within the natural, cultural and built environments of the District’s towns, villages and countryside.

Neither the Policies, Methods, nor the Reasons include a single reference to Maaori. This might result from potential Maaori provisions here being included in the Maaori-specific sections, but this is an inadequate explanation. However, Policy 212.4.2 is of interest here in that it supports opportunities for Ngaati Whanaunga cultural and amenity values relating to our coastal places to be enhanced as part of any wharf development within our rohe. The various current statutory instruments make no distinction between Maaori and non Maaori perspectives on landscape and natural character. However there is a substantial jurisprudence now establishing that decision makers under the RMA must consider distinct Maaori perspectives. For example, in the case Ngaati Maru Iwi Authority Inc v Auckland City Council (2002) Justice Baragwanath granted the iwi leave to appeal previous Environment and High Court decisions in which arguments based largely on Maaori values had not prevailed. He said that tikanga Maaori and maatauranga Maaori had been accorded insufficient weight in those deliberations, observing that:

It is unnecessary on a leave application to do more than allude to the evolving international recognition that indigenous issues must now be viewed through a wider lens than that of western culture.

There are a growing number of Maaori landscape architects, who assert a distinct perspective on landscape. And an accompanying body of writing on this particular field of maatauranga Maaori. This issue is raised again in this report in relation to the TCDC reports commissioned on Natural Landscape as part of its District Plan review. Kaitiakitanga

Decision makers are required to “have regard to” Kaitiakitanga as one of the other matters in Section 7. The definition of Kaitiakitanga in the RMA is provided previously. The 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has a single Maaori-related Policy, Policy 2 - The Treaty of Waitangi, tangata whenua and Māori heritage. In taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), and kaitiakitanga, in relation to the coastal environment. Aspects of particular interest in terms of kaitiakitanga and the current project are listed:

(a) recognise that tangata whenua have traditional and continuing cultural relationships with areas of the coastal environment, including places where they have lived and fished for generations (d) provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement in decision making, for example when a consent application or notice of requirement is dealing with cultural localities or issues of cultural significance, and Māori experts, including pūkenga2, may have knowledge not otherwise available; (g) in consultation and collaboration with tangata whenua, working as far as practicable in accordance with tikanga Māori, and recognising that tangata whenua have the right to choose not to identify places or values of historic, cultural or spiritual significance or special value:

40


(i) recognise the importance of Māori cultural and heritage values through such methods as historic heritage, landscape and cultural impact assessments; and (ii) provide for the identification, assessment, protection and management of areas or sites of significance or special value to Māori, including by historic analysis and archaeological survey and the development of methods such as alert layers and predictive methodologies for identifying areas of high potential for undiscovered Māori heritage, for example coastal pā or fishing villages.

The Regional Policy Statement, at 2.1.5 Tangata Whenua Relationship With Natural and Physical Resources, includes Policy Two: Promote and Provide for Kaitiakitanga, being: "Have particular regard to the role tangata whenua have as kaitiaki and provide for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga". The following implementation methods are provided:

1) Consult with tangata whenua on a resource and site specific basis, and develop the meaning of kaitiakitanga as it applies to kaitiaki management of resources in the regional and local context.

2) Consult with tangata whenua, and identify opportunities for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga as it applies to resources in the Waikato Region.

3) Integrate the concept of kaitiakitanga into the preparation, implementation and administration of regional plans, and encourage this in district plans.

The Regional Coastal Plan includes 2.3 - Establish a Partnership - identifying the Issue:

To date there has been limited involvement of tangata whenua in coastal management decision-making and in the practical expression of kaitiakitanga. This lack of involvement has the potential to lead to conflict about the management of the CMA under the RMA.

2.3.1 Policy - Tangata Whenua Values and 2.3.2 Policy - Participation are both important in terms of kaitiakitanga but do not mention it specifically, but 2.4 Tangata Whenua Relationship with the Coast, which includes the following Issue:

In the past little recognition has been given to cultural, spiritual and traditional values of tangata whenua. This lack of recognition has meant the values tangata whenua hold in relation to the coast have been ignored.

Associated Policy 2.4.1 Kaitiakitanga, reads:

Have particular regard to the tangata whenua role as Kaitiaki, and provide for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga by tangata whenua in the CMA.

Implementation methods identified, being Other Methods, are: 17.1.4 Consultation on Consent Applications 17.1.5 Marae-Based Meetings 17.1.6 Consultation with Tangata Whenua and Promotion of Kaitiakitanga 17.1.7 Identification of Iwi Authorities

The method 17.1.6 - Consultation with Tangata Whenua and Promotion of Kaitiakitanga - reads:

Environment Waikato will consult with tangata whenua on a resource and site specific basis, and develop the meaning of kaitiakitanga as it applies to the management of resources in the CMA, and within this Plan. Environment Waikato will also consult with

41


tangata whenua to seek to identify opportunities for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga within the CMA. Principal Reasons for Adopting: The practical role of kaitiakitanga can be identified in terms of knowledge, willingness to assist on the identification of key participants within the tribal framework and interpretation of tikanga Maaori. These are roles that local authorities cannot assume or undertake on behalf of tangata whenua. Early and meaningful consultation is therefore an essential part of understanding and promoting the role that tangata whenua have as Kaitiaki.

The TCDC District Plan includes at 215.3.2, this objective: "To have particular regard to the kaitiaki role of Tangata Whenua and to how that concept can be practically expressed". While other TCDC policies discussed previously are of course relevant in terms of kaitiakitanga, it is Policy 215.4.4 that specifically refers to kaitiakitanga, reading:

To provide for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga by considering the transfer of powers under the RMA in appropriate circumstances to Tangata Whenua, their participation in the development of Council management policies and plans.

The potential for the transfer or delegation of powers to Ngaati Whanaunga in relation to the current proposal is discussed further below. Ngaati Whanaunga are kaitiaki of the majority of preliminary sites considered as potential wharf sites, and for all the preferred sites. This is a responsibility we take most seriously, discussion of our perspectives on kaitiakitanga are discussed in Chapter 3. We are interested to discuss further with Council the means by which the kaitiakitanga of Ngaati Whanaunga is to be given practical expression in relation to the currently proposed activities. Treaty of Waitangi

Section 8 of the RMA - Treaty of Waitangi – unlike sections 6 and 7 relates to only one matter, the principles of the Treaty:

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The Treaty provisions in the 2010 NZ Coastal Policy Statement are previously discussed above under the heading Kaitiakitanga above. The Treaty and Kaitiakitanga references of the RMA are bundled together, and none of the subsequent directives include any reference to the Treaty of its principles. The Regional Policy Statement includes subsection 2.1 Treaty of Waitangi and Matters of Significance to Mäori. Under 2.1.4 Treaty of Waitangi the only policy that specifically refers to the Treaty deals with identifying a mutual understanding of the principles of the Treaty. The following Implementation Methods are listed:

42


1) Seek, through consultation with tangata whenua, the identification of iwi authorities within the Waikato Region, who have the authority to speak on their behalf. 2) Provide opportunities and forums to: i) formalise a process of coming to a mutual understanding on the principles of the Treaty ii) seek agreement on the role of each iwi authority in resource management decision-making processes iii) seek agreement with each iwi authority on the ways in which the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will be implemented at a practical level within their rohe. 3) Through education programmes promote awareness of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Regional Coastal Plan mirrors the RPS approach, within Section 2.2 Treaty of Waitangi and Matters of Significance to Maaori identifies that Section 8 of the RMA states that Environment Waikato shall:

take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi when carrying out its resource management responsibilities. This directs Environment Waikato to acknowledge that tangata whenua have certain rights conferred on them by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and by the RMA, giving them a status which is of a different order to that of the general public.

Section 2.5, Treaty of Waitangi, identifies the following Treaty Principles related issue:

The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been defined by the Crown, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Courts, who have emphasised the evolving and fluid nature of Treaty interpretation. Tangata whenua and Environment Waikato may differ in their interpretations of the principles of the Treaty which may result in conflict in the management of the CMA.

2.5 includes the following objective; "Mutual understanding between tangata whenua and Environment Waikato on the application of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as they apply to the CMA". Two Treaty related policies are included, 2.5.1 - Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi - reads; "Mutual understanding between tangata whenua and Environment Waikato on the application of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as they apply to the CMA". There are two methods for the implementation of the policy: 17.1.5 Marae-Based Meetings, and 17.1.7 Identification of Iwi Authorities. Secondly, Policy 2.5.2 - Treaty Claims - reads; "Ensure that tangata whenua are informed where Treaty claims or customary rights may be affected by applications to use, develop or protect the CMA". Here four implementation methods are proposed: 17.1.1 Establishing a Working Relationship, 17.1.4 Consultation on Consent Applications, 17.1.5 Marae-Based Meetings, and 17.1.8 Treaty Claims. The TCDC District Plan includes a Treaty-based objective (215.3.3) which reads:

To take into account those principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that are applicable in this District and observe these principles in the management of the District’s natural and physical resources.

The Plan's single Treaty policy (215.4.1) reads:

43


To encourage a greater awareness and understanding in the community of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, current Treaty claims and the significance of cultural heritage places, sites, areas and events.

The policy, as written, would seem to be concerned only with raising public awareness with the matters included, rather than with Council's own Treaty obligations. Ngaati Whanaunga ancestors were signatories to the Treaty, signing both at Coromandel and Auckland, and continue to hold the Crown responsible for its Treaty obligations. We are mindful of the Waitangi Tribunal's statements regarding the inadequacy of the Treaty provisions within the RMA, particularly that the Crown is bound by the Treaty to give effect to Treaty principles, rather than to take them into account as part of a balancing exercise. Treaty obligations stemming from other legislation are discussed previously. Mana Whenua

While sections 6e, 7a, and 8 do not explicitly refer to mana whenua, the reference in 6e to “The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land. etc” by definition describes the tangata whenua relationship - the people of particular lands. Section 7a refers to kaitiakitanga, the definition for which is given in the Act as "the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship". A definition is also provided for mana whenua, being "customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapü in an identified area". There is a wealth of published writing on the subject of mana whenua as relates to the RMA, including by many Maaori scholars, and the Waitangi Tribunal (e.g. in its Report on Moriori and Ngaati Mutunga Claims in the Chatham Islands (Waitangi Tribunal 2001), which criticizes the mana whenua definition in the RMA. It is clear that when dealing with sections 6e and 7a decision makers need to consider the issue of tangata whenua and mana whenua, as the Act indicates that it is the tangata whenua, and no other Maaori group, whose relationship with the land, kaitiakitanga, and tikanga must be recognised, provided for, or regarded. The Regional Policy Statement includes several reference to mana whenua, for example Section 3.5.6 Integrated Management includes Policy Two: Recognition of Tangata Whenua: Recognise the particular relationship tangata whenua have with the coastal environment and ensure those relationships are taken into account when decisions relating to the use, development and protection of the coastal environment are made. There are two implementation methods:

1) Promote consultation with tangata whenua who hold mana whenua and mana moana in the coastal environment in the development of district and regional plans. 2) Encourage applicants to consult with tangata whenua prior to submitting applications for coastal permits.

The issue of mana whenua is particularly relevant here in that, as is discussed elsewhere in this report, all the preferred wharf locations are Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands, acknowledging that Koopuu is also an area of significance to Ngaati Maru and Coromandel to Patukirikiri.

44


Mauri

As discussed in Chapter XX, the protection of mauri is an obligation on kaitiaki of the utmost importance. Given that this is now widely acknowledged both in planning instruments nationally and by the Waitangi Tribunal and courts, there is a relative dearth of similar provisions within the plans of WRC/TCDC. The new National Coastal Policy Statement includes direction relating to mauri in relation to water quality:

Policy 21 Enhancement of water quality Where the quality of water in the coastal environment has deteriorated so that it is having a significant adverse effect on ecosystems, natural habitats, or water based recreational activities, or is restricting existing uses, such as aquaculture, shellfish gathering, and cultural activities, give priority to improving that quality by: (e) engaging with tangata whenua to identify areas of coastal waters where they have particular interest, for example in cultural sites, wähi tapu, other taonga, and values such as mauri, and remedying, or, where remediation is not practicable, mitigating adverse effects on these areas and values.

It is noteworthy that the earlier NZCPS did not specifically refer to mauri, and this might account for the minimal recognition in plans. According to the RPS mauri is referred to in the following sections: 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.10, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.10.1. There are numerous references to mauri in introductory sections of the RPS, including a substantial explanation within the 3.4.4 Significant Resource Management Issues. But there is less in substantive sections, the clear exception being Section 3.4.10 entitled Mauri. 3.4.10 includes an Issue, Objective, and Policy, which lists 5 implementation methods.

Issue: Maori consider that the disposal of contaminants to water has the potential to diminish the mauri of that water. Objective: Tangata whenua concerns relating to the mauri of the water recognised and provided for. Policy One: Effects of Contaminants Ensure that decisions about the discharge of contaminants associated with the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources are made in a way that recognises and provides for the mauri of water. Implementation Methods: 1) Ensure, in conjunction with territorial authorities, and through consultation with tangata whenua, that resource use and development practices recognise and provide for the mauri of water. 2) Provide recognition in regional plans and resource consents, through appropriate rules, criteria, conditions, guidelines and information, of Maori interests in the potential adverse effects of the discharge of contaminants on the mauri of water. 3) Through regional plans, in consultation with interested parties, investigate the establishment of water quality classes for water bodies which recognise the mauri of water.

45


4) Liaise with tangata whenua of the Region to ascertain appropriate mechanisms, as part of the Regional Information Gathering Action Plan, to determine whether mauri is being affected by the effects of use, development and protection of water. 5) Provide information and practical guidance to resource users on the significance of the mauri of water to tangata whenua and encourage applicants to consult with the appropriate tangata whenua groups prior to submitting applications for resource consents. Environmental Results Anticipated 1. The quality of water bodies maintained and enhanced. 2. Tangata Whenua are satisfied that their concerns in regard to the mauri of water, are being recognised and are being appropriately addressed in the Region as a whole. 3. The relationship of tangata whenua with water resources is better understood and iwi concerns and values are considered in the management of water bodies.

Mauri is also mentioned in the sections dealing with waste, liquid waste, and hazardous substances, but these contain no particular mauri related provisions, including mainly identification of impacts on mauri as an effect arising from these issues. Mauri is discussed in detail in the Regional Coastal Plan at a high level within introductory Section 2.1 Tangata Whenua Relationship with Natural and Physical Resources under the headings Waikato Views and Hauraki Views. Despite this, there are no objectives or policies relating to mauri within the Plan. There is a single mauri related reference relating to one method within Section 17.3 Water Quality (out of 15 methods) being:

17.3.11 Land-Based Waste Treatment Environment Waikato will work with territorial authorities to encourage the use of landbased waste treatment systems by jointly undertaking or supporting research into sustainable land-based treatment systems. Principal Reasons for Adopting: Land-based treatment for waste is considered to be more appropriate than disposal of waste into coastal waters. Land-based treatment ensures the mauri of the water is sustained and also contributes to improved water quality which benefits all users of the CMA. Improved management systems also reduce the likelihood of contamination from leachates (from, for example, septic tanks, rubbish dumps etc).

There is no mention of mauri in the TCDC District Plan. Integrated management and cross boundary issues

One of the functions of regional councils under Section 30 of the RMA, and for local councils under Section 31, is the achievement of integrated management of natural and physical resources. Section 80 of the Act requires local authorities shall consider the preparation of a combined regional or district plan under this section whenever significant cross-boundary issues relating to the use, development, or protection of natural and physical resources arise or are likely to arise. Aquaculture clearly represents such a cross boundary issue.

46


Policy 4 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement deals with integrated management. Emphasis is added to those aspects of particular interest to Ngaati Whanaunga in relation to this project.

Policy 4 Integration Provide for the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment, and activities that affect the coastal environment. This requires: (a) co-ordinated management or control of activities within the coastal environment, and which could cross administrative boundaries, particularly: (i) the local authority boundary between the coastal marine area and land; (ii) local authority boundaries within the coastal environment, both within the coastal marine area and on land; and (iii) where hapū or iwi boundaries or rohe cross local authority boundaries; (b) working collaboratively with other bodies and agencies with responsibilities and functions relevant to resource management, such as where land or waters are held or managed for conservation purposes; and (c) particular consideration of situations where: (i) subdivision, use, or development and its effects above or below the line of mean high water springs will require, or is likely to result in, associated use or development that crosses the line of mean high water springs; or (ii) public use and enjoyment of public space in the coastal environment is affected, or is likely to be affected; or (iii) development or land management practices may be affected by physical changes to the coastal environment or potential inundation from coastal hazards, including as a result of climate change; or (iv) land use activities affect, or are likely to affect, water quality in the coastal environment and marine ecosystems through increasing sedimentation; or (v) significant adverse cumulative effects are occurring, or can be anticipated.

The Regional Policy Statement considers integrated management and cross boundary issues in Section 2.2 Integrated Management, including Policy Two: Inter-Agency Integration and Cross Boundary. The policy features the following implementation Methods, that are considered of interest for the current project:

1) Encourage other resource management agencies to make provision, for the significant resource management issues stated in both this document and in any regional plans. 2) Encourage, when new significant resource management issues arise, consultation amongst affected resource management agencies with the view to developing appropriate joint actions to address these issues. 6) Advocate a collaborative approach to managing consent applications where the application for resource use/development crosses regional boundaries and/or has implications for neighbouring authorities. 8) Encourage joint resource management projects with territorial authorities, neighbouring Regional Councils, iwi authorities and other resource management agencies where there are clear benefits to all parties. 9) Consider the transfer of powers or the delegations of functions to public authorities where appropriate.

47


Section 13 of the Regional Coastal Plan, Cross-Boundary And Inter-Agency Management, anticipates integrated management across boundaries. Policy 13.1.1 - Consultation with Other Agencies reads; "Seek the consistent management of coastal resources by organisations with different functions in the coastal environment". Implementation methods listed are:

17.11.1 Plan Integration 17.11.2 Joint Hearings 17.11.3 Cross-Boundary Consultation 17.11.4 Discussion and Sharing of Information 17.11.5 Consideration of the CMA 17.11.6 Information on the Plan

The need for investigation across regional boundaries in terms of Tiikapa Moana and the current proposals is argued in Chapter 5, as is the need for Council to take a wider view in order to understand the implications of the proposals in terms of the expansive Ngaati Whanaunga rohe.

48


Chapter 5. The aquaculture industry and the wider community

Te puritanga hoki o ngaa pipi Hold fast to our prized kaimoana - the wellbeing of the people will be assured

This chapter provides a brief explanation of the Ngaati Whanaunga and Hauraki Maaori interest in fisheries and in particular the aquaculture industry within Tiikapa Moana. It goes on to consider our place, and that of our people, as part of the wider community, and to identify potential effects on the wider community of the proposed wharf.

Maaori and the aquaculture industry

The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 (MCACSA) was a response to successful legal challenges by Maaori against the Crown alienating their related interests in the moana. The purposes of the Act are twofold, being:

(a) provide a full and final settlement of Maori claims to commercial aquaculture on or after 21 September 1992; and (b) provide for the allocation and management of aquaculture settlement assets.

It requires the Crown to provide Iwi with the equivalent of 20% of pre‐commencement space and of all new space. It is noteworthy that, the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Act 2010 provided for the transfer of $19m to Hauraki for development and will continue to deliver 20% of all new aquaculture space created in our waters. However, disputes with neighbouring iwi have prevented the settlement funds being handed over, consequently Hauraki Maaori aquaculture funds and assets remain with Te Ohu Kaimoana awaiting the resolution of disputes. The collective Hauraki iwi, through the Hauraki Fishing Group, have made significant investment in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture industries. The net assets of the Group are currently reported to be about $21 million, and Hauraki are considered to own a significant portion of aquaculture interests within Tiikapa Moana (Pare Hauraki Fishing Trust 2011). Hauraki iwi are still developing mussel farms at Wilson 's Bay, and as members of a commercial consortium we are pursuing the establishment of an aquaculture management area in the Firth of Thames. The pre MCACSA collective fisheries interests of all Hauraki iwi have been vest in the Pare Hauraki Fishing Trust. Ngaati Whanaunga rangatira Toko Renata is the chairperson of the Trust, which is set to also receive the above-noted aquaculture resources. There are provisions within the Trust's constitution for individual iwi to pull their share of assets out should they wish to undertake their own fisheries activities. Even prior to this allocation Ngaati Whanaunga, as one of the 12 iwi of Hauraki, is a significant player in the aquaculture industry through the Hauraki Fisheries entities described above and Maaori half ownership of Sealords and other fisheries companies. Until about a decade ago Ngaati

49


Whanaunga were also direct participants through our half ownership with Ngaati Pukenga of a small mussel farm, until it was decided to sell these interests. Accordingly, Ngaati Whanaunga is a substantial player within the aquaculture industry, and have a direct interest in the selection of the best long term option for a new wharf location. Given the 20% of any new aquaculture area clause in the MCACSA 2004, our interests will increasingly expand into the Auckland Regional area of our rohe within Tiikapa Moana.

Community effects

Ngaati Whanaunga people are members of the wider community. Accordingly, we would share in the recreational, amenity and economic benefits of the Sugarloaf and other wharfs discussed on the scoping report. But Ngaati Whanaunga is a also distinct community of interest in terms of any wharf being located within our rohe. We are stakeholders in relation to an aquaculture wharf, in that we (along with our related Marutuahu and Hauraki iwi) own a significant portion of the aquaculture industry within Hauraki, and will receive a 20% share of any new aquaculture space allocated here. We have responsibilities in terms of both kaitiakitanga (guardianship and a duty of care as stewards) and manaakitanga (obligations relating to nurturing and providing for outsiders) in relation to both taura here (Maaori from other tribal areas living within our rohe) and manuhiri (non Maaori living within our rohe). Effects of particular concern to Ngaati Whanaunga include employment within the region, and those stemming from transporting produce on State Highway 25 to plants and markets in Tauranga and Auckland.

50


Figure 8. Mussel truck leaving the sugarloaf wharf

Many of our people still live on the northern Coromandel peninsular, and work within the aquaculture industry, but similarly Ngaati Whanaunga people reside in Thames, Kaiaua, and Auckland. Those on the Coromandel Peninsular have to deal with ever increasing numbers of trucks on local roads, mainly logging trucks, but also aquaculture. It is noted that this matter is considered in the scoping report, where it is observed:

The mussel trucks using State Highway 25 are highly visible due to their colourful product advertising. This visibility is a factor in the perception that there a lot of mussel trucks on the roads. However the numbers are comparatively small compared with other traffic volumes.

While the numbers of truck movements cited are no doubt correct (between three to six trucks (24 tonne) per day on SH25 to Thames), truck movements need to be considered cumulatively. State Highway 25 is already over burdened with logging trucks, and these generate a substantial nuisance and danger to other motorists, with a large number of accidents over recent years involving trucks. Furthermore, while industry growth is considered in various parts of the report, predictions are not included as to likely future truck movements along SH 25. We note the report anticipates growth from 25, 000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes of mussels by 2025, with similar growth possible in related industries such as oyster farming, and the additional potential volumes associated with finfish farming. Taking a precautionary approach then, we should be anticipating at least a tripling in truck numbers to 9 to 18 per day. Forestry operations are certainly not expected to reduce in coming decades, and might well expand. Additional aquaculture traffic is accordingly considered to represent a negative cumulative effect from those proposals on the Coromandel Peninsular, and we suggest should add considerable weight to the Koopuu and Stevenson's Quarry options.

51


Chapter 6. Potential Wharf Locations

He tara whai ka uru ki rote, e kore e taea te whakahokia A stingray's barb, deeply thrust in, cannot be withdrawn - Think carefully about your actions

In the following sections we consider each of the potential wharf locations, including some that have been dismissed in the Preferred Location Options Report. First some general observations are made regarding the activity of building and managing a wharf within Tiikapa Moana, following which consideration is given to the contrasting views of the aquaculture industry, local council, and Ngaati Whanaunga. After this the recommended preferred locations are discussed, and finally several of the locations that have been apparently dismissed are explored to the extent that these are considered to have merit from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective.

General observations and preferences

There are a number of observations and concerns held by Ngaati Whanaunga that relate to any potential wharf location. These can be generally characterised as relating to the size and nature of structures within the coastal marine area, dredging (both initial and maintenance), ongoing use and management, and effects from each of these on our significant places, the moana, and kaimoana. For each of the preferred locations one of the proposed structure footprints has been superimposed over aerial photography as part of the research for this report. It is observed that, in most instances, the various options for each site trigger similar concerns for the iwi. For example, none of the variations considered differed by encroaching directly on specific waahi tapuu, but several are within close proximity to significant places, and sensitivity will therefore be required as to their location and ongoing management. As previously discussed, there is a real potential for köiwi and waahi tapuu being encountered within the CMA. It will be necessary, regardless of which site is chosen, to undertake a comprehensive site investigation prior to the finalisation of wharf design. Additionally a stringent monitoring regime by Ngaati Whanaunga monitors will be necessary during all earthworks. Issues around the design and ongoing management of a wharf include what provisions will be built in for protection of our moana. One issue of concern in this regard is aquaculture industry boat maintenance. Currently boat cleaning and maintenance, including the use of a range of toxic chemicals, takes place in the CMA with no effort being made to protect the moana or our kaimoana. The position of the iwi authority is, as a general principle, that the smallest physical works that are practicable should be preferred. Our preference will always be for the least possible extent of dredging, including ongoing maintenance dredging, and reducing - to the extent possible - any reclamation required and the erection of structures within the coastal marine area. In this regard it is observed that while the industry might prefer the convenience provided by maximising berth numbers, it is reasonable to require that vessels coordinate their use of wharf facilities so as to reduce demand during peak periods.

52


The retention of the natural character of the coastline is also important to Ngaati Whanaunga. We would therefore generally oppose the various options relating to undeveloped locations, such as Puhi Rare and Piako River, preferring already significantly modified locations such as Ariki Tahi, Koopuu (subject to further investigation into the implications of dredging), Stevenson's quarry, or Auckland.

Figure 9. Unacceptable current practice of maintaining industry vessels within the CMA at Ariki Tahi

It is noted that the KTB report first indicates the intention to address the future growth of the aquaculture industry. But it fails to anticipate the future distribution of marine farming when, for example, estimating travel distances and sailing times to and from potential wharf locations. Various other concerns are reported here with the KTB report, and some of the conclusions drawn there are not supported by evidence, and are challenged here. This is the case in relation to both the Te Kouma and Wharekawa locations. Furthermore, some locations considered in the KTB report to have fatal flaws receive further consideration as preferred options in the Dunbar-Smith report, while others that are not found to be fatally flawed are dismissed. As previously discussed, there are Ngaati Whanaunga kaimoana grounds and gathering places in the vicinity of most of the potential wharf locations. The ecological investigations commissioned by Council to date are inadequate in that they only investigate the foreshore above mean low water springs. A fuller investigation will be required once a location is selected, and before final design and dredging extent is determined, in order to minimise any impacts of a wharf on our moana and kaimoana.

Council, Industry, and Ngaati Whanaunga views regarding wharf location

The preferred locations report discusses the interest of Council in retaining the aquaculture industry within its district, but Ngaati Whanaunga questions whether this is an over-all appropriate objective in terms of the sustainability of the aquaculture industry. Sustainable management is, of course, the core purpose of the RMA. However, if we set aside for a moment a council-aquaculture industry perspective and consider the Ngaati Whanaunga / Marutuahu rohe we are likely to reach different conclusions as to wharf location desirability.

53


Prior to initial consultation with Ngaati Whanaunga Council had commissioned several scoping reports, including a planners report that identified 17 potential wharf locations. These were mainly within the Thames Coromandel District, but three were outside. It is noted that most of the options are locations within Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands. However, prior to our engagement the project team had arrived at a shortlist of four preferred options, all within the Thames Coromandel District. From a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective the view taken in the investigation to date is too narrow. The Hauraki-Coromandel Development Group, and Thames Coromandel District Council, appear to have adopted as a starting point the presumption that the wharf will be within the Thames Coromandel District. Thames Coromandel District Council resolved in April last year that it would “lead the development of a business case and resource consent application for the provision of additional wharfing infrastructure to support the aquaculture industry, improve facilities for recreational boating and (if possible) to upgrade facilities for ferry operations”. This bias is further illustrated in the following extract from the recently completed Wharfing Infrastructure Options Report, under the heading Decision-making criteria - Strategic Fit:

Council has declared its support for economic development opportunities for the District. Aquaculture has been identified as an industry with significant growth potential and has therefore been identified as a priority for Council. The importance of aquaculture has been reinforced in the Blueprint project, the Council’s draft economic development strategy, and the recent Council endorsement of economic development as a key priority for the district. In order for the aquaculture industry to develop to its full potential, there needs to be an upgrade of the wharfing infrastructure. If the wharfing upgrade does not occur, then there is a risk that the industry may choose to go elsewhere to expand (such as Northland, Auckland or Bay of Plenty, or the South Island) (Dunbar-Smith 2011).

It is noted that an industry needs analysis was properly undertaken, and that industry views are one of the two general reason for locations outside of Thames Coromandel being dismissed, the other being Council's determination that facilities should remain within the district. As farms are currently located the needs of industry are better met by landing mussels in the middle of the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsular. We are mindful that the aquaculture industry, while being more than half owned by Maaori, is primarily concerned with its financial bottom line. Accordingly, we cannot rely on the industry making the most sustainable selection of aquaculture facilities for Tiikapa Moana. There are negative consequences of locating a new wharf on the northern Coromandel Peninsular. These include heavy traffic and associated environmental effects, public safety issues, social impacts and reverse sensitivity with tangata whenua current and historic uses of the areas, and the more recent expectations and amenities of local residents. Discounting potential sites essential on the basis that they are outside Thames Coromandel District is not consistent with an integrated management approach, and fails to address cross boundary issues, in particular that of the extent of iwi rohe.

54


Ngaati Whanaunga sympathises with Council's desire to secure the retention of the economic benefits of aquaculture activities within its district, but we take a wider view. The expansive rohe of Ngaati Whanaunga and other Marutuahu iwi across many council districts has been previously

Figure 10. Existing marine farms and applications within Tiikapa Moana

described in this report, and encompasses the whole of Tiikapa Moana - The Firth of Thames and Hauraki Gulf. Ngaati Whanaunga is not in principle opposed to the final wharf location being within Thames Coromandel District. But we are concerned that the investigation to date, apart from seeking the views of the industry as to where they see a wharf best locating, does not consider a range of relevant factors as to where a wharf should be located. We are concerned both with potential environmental effects from any aquaculture infrastructure within the Thames Coromandel District, and keen on opportunities such facilities might provide for our people at Thames or Coromandel. But we are not influenced by this in terms of our position on a preferred wharf location, as we are equally concerned about effects and opportunities for our people at Wharekawa (the western coastline of the Firth of Thames, or Tamaki Makaurau (the Auckland area), these also being Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands.

55


Aquaculture and the Auckland Region

It is noted that currently virtually all marine farms fall within the Waikato Regional eastern half of the Firth of Thames. However, the current proposal is reportedly aimed at addressing future growth within the industry, which will most certainly expand outside the district now that the aquaculture moratorium within the Auckland Region has been lifted. As shown above in Figure 10, there are already a number of marine farm applications being processed for within the Auckland region. Furthermore, at the turn of the millennium in the order of 6000ha of overlapping mussel spat-catching applications were lodged in the Firth of Thames area, largely within the Auckland region (Auckland Council 2011). It is clear that the aquaculture industry, while currently being largely Coromandel based, will expand substantially into Auckland regional waters in coming decades. Chapter 5 of the Draft Auckland Plan, Auckland’s Environment, reports a range of strategic directions for the region and associated priorities. Amongst these is Priority 3. Treasure our coastline, harbours, islands and marine areas, which includes the following directive:

Auckland Council to work with Waikato Regional Council (given their statutory planning responsibilities covering the whole Hauraki Gulf area) to prepare a Marine Spatial Plan for the Hauraki Gulf together with the Hauraki Gulf Forum, iwi, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, and stakeholders including aquaculture, commercial fisheries, tourism, recreation, and conservation interests and environmental science advisors.

This is the type of approach that is needed to a multi-council multi-agency analysis of future aquaculture needs, and it is the belief of Ngaati Whanaunga that the current process is lacking in this regard, and is therefore unlikely to identify an optimum wharfing infrastructure solution. This is particularly the case if the collective and potentially competing needs of various marine users are to be properly accommodated, and will result in a need for additional wharfing infrastructure to service Auckland regional aquaculture where this might otherwise be avoided. It is noted that preliminary consultation to identify potential locations and particular issues was carried out with the Marine Farming Industry, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Waikato Regional Council, Department of Conservation, and Te Kouma Landowners (Baldwin 2011). While one might have anticipated that the Department of Conservation may have brought a wider than regional perspective to the table, it is noted that both DoC and WRC were consulted with the intention only of obtaining their views with regard to the initial potential locations. Auckland Council and its predecessors were not consulted, and have not participated in the investigation to date. Similarly Tangata whenua were omitted from this early selection process. The planning consultant reports that "Due to the high number of Iwi and Hapu groups within the Hauraki area, it was considered that Iwi consultation should be carried out when a preferred location(s) has been identified". This was a short sighted decision and has resulted in a failure to properly consider all potential locations, and to do so encompassing a tangata whenua perspective at the important initial selection stage.

56


Figure 11. Marina and mooring locations in Tiikapa Moana (Map - Te Rangahau o Ngaati Whanaunga 2009)

57


It is stated clearly here that this MVA does not reflect an analysis from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective of what potential sites should be considered, this being a substantial task, and one which we would anticipate undertaking with our neighbouring and related iwi. It is outside the brief for this work, and Council cannot claim, at this time, to have considered any such Maaori perspective. Despite the above-noted failures the planers report does consider three options outside the district; Ports of Auckland, the Piako river mouth, and Stevenson's quarry at Wharekawa. However, only a cursory investigation of these has taken place, and each is dismissed largely because of being not supported by industry as a suitable option due to the distance from the majority of depots in Coromandel, and loss of industry facilities from District. Other potential locations outside TCDC, for example the Wairoa River and Beachlands were not considered. In this regard recent media attention is of interest regarding Ports of Auckland consideration into a substantial additional reclamation into the Waitemata Harbour. Public opposition into this proposal has resulted in, amongst other things, an investigation currently being undertaken into potential alternative port locations for the region within 45km of existing operations. Given the above-noted examples of potential future aquaculture facilities in the Auckland Region, which would possibly service existing and proposed marine farms within the Firth of Thames, there is a clear need for inter-agency cooperation into the current investigation into future wharf infrastructure requirements. We would not want to see a wharf located such that it did not optimally meet the needs of the industry and other users. We are keen to avoid the need for additional aquaculture wharfing infrastructure elsewhere in our rohe because Council here sought to secure local benefits. A consequence of this would be the further alienation of Ngaati Whanaunga and Marutuahu ancestral lands, being cumulative effects and compounding those caused by the numerous wharfs, marinas and similar marine facilities already present along our ancestral coastline.

58


Analysis of the TCDC preferred options The following section provides consideration of each of the preferred wharf location from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective. For each a brief historical description is provided, followed by consideration of potential cultural effects associated with a wharf at this location. Arikitahi - The Sugarloaf

Ariki Tahi is the name of the prominent pa site adjacent to the existing Sugarloaf wharf facilities. Ariki Tahi is a place of particular significance to Ngaati Whanaunga, to the wider Marutuahu, and to other Hauraki peoples. Its significance is discussed previously in Chapter 3. While Ariki Tahi is the name of the pa site, the early land block on which the existing wharf is located was traditionally named Waipao (see Figure 11 on the following page). The bay is known as Waipapa. Waipao, like the entire Te Kouma peninsular, is the ancestral land of Ngaati Whanaunga hapü Ngaati Karaua. The whole of the Te Kouma lands are of particular cultural significance to Ngaati Whanaunga, and include numerous waahi tapuu and waahi taonga (sacred and treasured sites).

Figure 12. The existing Sugarloaf wharf showing the bisected Ariki Tahi pa, which was substantially excavated to allow the construction of the early Te Kouma Road.

Kaimoana

Beds of the original species of mussels, known to Ngaati Whanaunga by the generic name kütai, are found around Waipapa Bay and its enclosing headlands. We have dived and dredged for these over the last century, but the beds have been observed to be in decline over the last decade or more. This impact is attributed directly to the intensive use of the area by the aquaculture industry at the Sugarloaf. Of additional concern, the traditional beds are being gradually contaminated and overtaken by greenshell mussels, and this too is considered by the iwi to be a result of the continual effects of mussels dropped from the mussel boats onto our traditional kütai beds. We have traditionally also collected karahu (periwinkles), kina and koura (crayfish) along this stretch of foreshore. However, once again these practices have been discontinued here in the last decade with the ever increasing imposition of the aquaculture fleet in the vicinity and reducing number - in particular of koura.

59


Because of the existence of the current Sugarloaf wharf, and given that there is no prospect of this being removed in favour of new facilities, of the options considered for the northern Coromandel Peninsular, limited expansion of the existing Sugarloaf wharf is Ngaati Whanaunga's preference. This position needs to be balanced against discussion below regarding concerns relating to nearby intersection upgrades, and reservations explained above regarding the adequacy of the location to service future marine farming within Tiikapa Moana, and the effects of transporting produce along SH25. Puhi Rare - Windy Point

The correct name for the ancestral land for which the Windy Point wharf is being considered is Waikiripaka. This is Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral land, associated with our hapü Ngaati Karaua. The name Waikiripaka derives from the presence of a particular stone sourced from the waterways in this vicinity. While there are no specific recorded ancestral sites within the proposed wharf footprint, Ngaati Whanaunga would be reluctant to see such infrastructure located here for a number of reasons. These include the cumulative loss of natural character, biodiversity and habitat on the coastline and coastal marine area between Manaia and Coromandel and, impacts on ecological values within the harbour, and proximity to significant tribal waahi tapuu.

Figure 13. The Sugarloaf and Windy Point (Puhi Rare) wharf locations showing some potential wharf and dredging footprints

60


As previously discussed, for any of the location options Ngaati Whanaunga will push for the minimum possible extent of structures n the coastal marine area, reclamation, and dredging both construction and maintenance. This is particularly the case for Puhi Rare given the presence of kaimoana there and the proximity to both . In this respect Option three for this location is particularly offensive both because it involves significant destruction and dredging along a significant length of our coast, and particularly because this design brings the wharf unacceptably close to our waahi tapuu. Ngaati Whanaunga is also uncomfortable with Option 4 for this site, whereby 4 new berths are constructed here with the aquaculture industry continuing to use 3 berths at Ariki Tahi. While this is reportedly the cheapest of the options involving Puhi Rare we would consider it inequitable, both in terms of the public interest and our own, that the industry should capture the exclusive use of multiple locations along our tribal coastline.

Waahi Tapuu

A significant Ngaati Whanaunga urupaa is 1000m from the indicated location of a wharf at Windy Point. This waahi tapuu, called Kaipapaka, is the resting place of many significant Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngaati Paoa rangatira, including prominent leaders interred as recently as the early 1900s. Additionally, while the foreshore in the vicinity of the proposed wharf is not classified as waahi tapuu, there remains a high likelihood of encountering köiwi, as a number of substantial battles are recorded in tribal histories as having taken place there. This is the case with this whole coastline from Te Kouma stretching as far as Coromandel town.

Figure 14. Windy Point from the urupaa with back to SH25. Shows continuously moored boats, both recreational and mussel industry. Mangroves in the foreground are the home of numerous tio (pacific oysters) but we don't gather them as there is a permanent raahui in place.

Kaimoana

Issues relating to kaimoana are the same as those described above in relation to the Sugarloaf site. Furthermore the adjacent Area of Significant Conservation Value is supported by Ngaati Whanaunga, and is in part intended to recognise and protect our own values for the area.

61


The ecological survey conducted by Brian Coffee provided the following conclusions, which are reported in Ben Dunbar-Smith's report:

The ecological survey found that there were “No unique characters of intertidal or subtidal habitats were identified that would make either site unsuitable for the development proposed.” (Page 11). Specifically:

- intertidal communities present within the footprint of the proposed wharf development and subtidal communities that would be disturbed by required dredging activities are characteristic of comparable habitats elsewhere in the lower Coromandel Harbour.

- no native species were identified as being restricted in their distribution to the areas being considered for the development of additional wharf facilities.

“However it is recognised that: - there would be a net loss of intertidal habitat associated with the reclamation

required to form a wharf at any of the four localities. - propeller wash and regular maintenance dredging would impede recolonisation of

dredged subtidal habitats following additional wharf construction.”

The language used here reveals an entirely contrasting perspective to ours as kaitiaki of this moana. The areas investigated are considered valuable locations for several species of kaimoana, as previously described. We do not accept for a moment the premise that our kaimoana here is dispensable because " no native species were identified as being restricted in their distribution to the areas being considered".

Figure 15. At Opu there are very significant waahi tapuu that may be affected by either or both the intersection alignment and increased road traffic

62


It is further noted that from a Ngaati Whanaunga perspective the ecological investigation was inadequate. In particular only the foreshore above mean low water springs was inspected. Consequently the seabed adjacent to proposed wharf locations has not been investigated for its ecological values, including those important to Ngaati Whanaunga.

Intersection of Te Kouma Road and SH 25

Both the Sugarloaf and Puhi Rare Kouma preferred options are proposed to require a significant realignment and upgrading of the intersection of Te Kouma Road and SH 25. This is a matter of some concern to Ngaati Whanaunga, mainly because of the above-mentioned waahi tapuu. Any modification here will require an initial inspection of the area by our own experts, in addition to an archaeological investigation. The significance of the adjacent waahi tapuu is such that Ngaati Whanaunga would strenuously oppose any intrusion, and alignment would need to be designed around the sites as determined by the previously mentioned investigations. Furthermore, as previously suggested for other sites, we would be determined that our monitors be present for all earthworks. Koopuu

The site at which a wharf at Koopuu is being considered is on the ancestral land of the Ngaati Whanaunga hapü, Ngaati Kotinga. We acknowledge Ngaati Maru also has ancestral interests in the area.

Figure 16. A proposed wharf footprint at Koopuu over aerial photography and showing the boundaries of early land bocks. Solid blue areas are remaining Maaori land.

63


Koopuu was the location of both a papakainga, and an early pa which was variously occupied by Ngaati Huarere, Ngaati Hako, Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngaati Maru. Koopuu pa was one of the locations at which the Marutuahu engaged with Ngaati Huarere, resulting in great bloodshed. The site is accordingly waahi tapuu. Ngaati Whanaunga rangatira Te Horeta Te Taniwha was recorded as residing there in 1820 (Phillips 2000), when he was accustomed to moving between here and our pa at Kauaeranga. The land was sold very early by Te Horeta and others of Ngaati Whanaunga in 1839, to his son-in-law John Webster, the intention no doubt being that the land would thereby remain within the influence of the iwi. However, even before this in the early 1830s Koopuu hosted semi permanent European residences, and this developed over subsequent decades into a small township and eventually the industrial area that it is today. As a result of this little natural character remains on the Koopuu block.

Dredging

We share a concern at the possibility of dredging or other results of a wharf being located at Koopuu impacting on these lands and waters, and would need to be included in any ongoing investigations. We maintain that we are kaitiaki in this area, and the various agencies will be required to acknowledge this and give effect to our ancestral relationship. Acknowledging the presence of contaminants within the CMA near Koopuu, we would still like to see additional investigation of this option. We are interested to hear the extent to which contaminants are predicted to disperse over time and the impacts of the current aggregate barge operations and associated maintenance in terms of disruptions of contaminants. The point being that potential contamination resulting from dredging a channel to Koopuu should not be assessed against a contamination neutral base line. Notwithstanding the above-noted reservations, that Ngaati Whanaunga would indicate support for a wharf at Koopuu given the potential for dredging related contamination is an indication of the perceived positives associated with relocating a substantial component of the aquaculture industry closer to main centres. Furthermore, some parties consulted by Ngaati Whanaunga in preparation for this MVA, who have been involved with existing barge operations at Koopuu have expressed doubt as to the relative dredging requirements of the existing operation versus the mussel barge under consideration. One potential concern relating to dredging is the location of substantial populations of tio (pacific oysters) at the Waihou river mouth. Environmental degradation of both the Waihou and Piako rivers has had the effect of creating ideal conditions for tio, which have exploded such that they themselves represent have recently become a navigation hazard within the Piako River channel. However these remain a valued resource to Ngaati Whanaunga and Hauraki Maaori, and we would seek to be involved in any management decisions and possibly (subject to testing for contamination) to receive any oysters removed.

RAMSAR site

There is much discussion of potential effects of a wharf at Koopuu on the nearby RAMSAR site.

64


It is pointed out that the RAMSAR site sits within Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands, and that we have numerous and significant cultural values within this area that may be different to those protected by the RAMSAR categorisation. In particular there are a large number of waahi tapuu along this stretch of coastline, as well as traditional food gathering areas. This remains an issue for Ngaati Whanaunga as there is little recognition of our mana whenua over this area and we remain largely excluded from decision making. For example we see continual environmental management initiatives within the area, which we might support in principle, but a consequence of which is the concealing of our ancestral relationship with the area in favour of the various agencies and groups undertaking work there. Ngaati Whanaunga favours locating the proposed wharf facilities at Koopuu, and transporting mussels by barge from existing and new mussel farms. While the sailing time from aquaculture areas is reportedly a barrier from the industries perspective it is noted that the use of a barge, with appropriate management, need not unduly interrupt vessels servicing the farms, with barge loading taking place at sea. Furthermore, those areas nearer Kaiaua for which applications are currently in stream are closer to Koopuu than existing farms. The reduction in truck movements on SH25 is considered to be a particular benefit of the Koopuu option. Many of our people live and travel along the Thames coast section of SH25, and we are well familiar with the nuisance the ever-growing number of trucks causes, and of the real safety risk this represents. Furthermore there is a significant population of Ngaati Whanaunga and other Hauraki Maaori in the Thames area, locating aquaculture activities there will therefore mean potential additional employment for the area. It is noted in this regard that such a move would not result in an exit of existing aquaculture related operations from the Coromandel area. The previous closure of the factory there avoids job losses, and the proximity to existing farms and the retention of the facilities at the Sugarloaf remain drivers for basing operations there. Coromandel Wharf extension

Ngaati Whanaunga are tangata whenua of Kapanga (Coromandel) and across Waiau - the wider area to the south of Coromandel. We recognise the interests of others of the Marutuahu in the wider area, and particularly our relations Te Patukirikiri. The existing Coromandel wharf extends from the early block called Te Kauri, which was Patukirikiri land as found by the Native Land Court. It remains listed today as Maaori land. Ngaati Whanaunga, however, has strong ancestral interests in the wider Coromandel area, including the Harbour. Our rangatira Horeta Te Taniwha had a papakainga on Wanganui Island, and there was another Ngaati Whanaunga papakainga at the entrance of Tiki creek (now known as Preece's Point). It is noteworthy that, like at Thames, the Coromandel Harbour was surveyed and found to vest in the tangata whenua of the area. In fact the Crown paid a lease for the use of the Coromandel Harbour to Marutuahu and Te Patukirikiri tupuna, until rising calls from Hauraki Maori for the Crown to recognise and

65


vest the foreshore and seabed as customary lands caused the Crown to legislate against such ownership at Coromandel. As discussed elsewhere, then and now our elders refused to recognise Crown prerogative in this regard, arguing that this was contrary to article promises in the Treaty, whereby Maori were to retain their lands and waters until such time as they choose to alienate them.

Figure 17. The potential extension to the existing Coromandel wharf

Issues of concern in relation to the location of an extended wharf at Coromandel are several. In particular we have pipi and tuangi beds nearby within the harbour which would be impacted by construction and maintenance dredging. On balance we would rather see a wharf at the existing Sugarloaf if it is decided to retain facilities in this area, rather than Coromandel.

Consideration of wharf options in the planner's report, and alternatives to the preferred locations

The KTB report notes one of its purposes being to identify issues associated with each prospective location based on current knowledge and available information. It is our impression that several of the calls made as to whether options have fatal flaws are based on inadequate information. Some of the locations identified as having fatal flaws, e.g. Koopuu, are considered amongst the preferred options, while others that do not, for example Wharekawa - Stevenson's quarry, are dropped. Those recommendations are considered here.

66


Te Kouma

It is noted that several of the potential sites, that are discounted within the two existing reports, remain potentially attractive to Ngaati Whanaunga. In particular the Te Kouma Harbour option is seen to present several opportunities for the iwi, and several positive community and environmental outcomes. Te Kouma is discounted as a potential wharf site in the planner's report for several reasons, being; that the harbour currently retains high natural character; that the adjacent land is privately owned Maaori land, significant financial costs for wharf and roading access; lack of suitable access onto SH25; road upgrades/creation required; and, potential impact on recreational users (boating) within harbour. The report finds in summary: "The potential adverse effects on the high natural character and landscape values associated with Te Kouma Harbour and the requirement to construct a substantial new roading infrastructure from SH25 into this environment are considered to be fatal flaws with this location" (Baldwin 2011). On the basis of these conclusions Te Kouma has been excluded from any further consideration. Yet both the validity of some of these observations and the conclusions drawn from them in terms of wharf location viability are questionable.

Natural character

It is noted that the Karl Baldwin's assessments are informed by two reports, Ecological Assessment of Natural Character (Graeme, Dahm et al. 2010), and Coromandel Peninsular Landscape Values (LA4 Landscape Architects Ltd 2006). Council has previously been informed by Ngaati Whanaunga and other Hauraki iwi that these both reflect entirely Pakeha perspectives, and accordingly do not provide Council with the wider lens required for resource management decisions relating to coastal marine area based activities. We have pushed Council to commission equivalent Maaori natural character and landscape reports, but to date this has not happened. That aside, clearly the ecological and natural character values of Te Kouma are, in reality, substantially compromised. Two thirds of land adjacent to the harbour has been farmed for more than a century, the terrain is heavily modified, and is near void of natural character, albeit with a thin regularly broken ribbon of vegetation along the coast. Figure 18 below also reveals both contemporary marine farming both adjacent to and within the harbour, and shows the presence of historic oyster "farm" locations around the harbour.

Boating community

It is the belief of Ngaati Whanaunga that recommendations against Te Kouma as the location of a wharf are, rather, influenced by anticipation of the reaction to such a development by the boating community. Te Kouma is widely promoted as a yacht haven, and the harbour is regularly used as an overnight anchorage. Some of the harbours attributes that make it attractive for yachts, all weather shelter and deep water, also make it suitable as a wharf location.

67


Figure 18. Te Kouma Harbour showing early blocks and historic sites. Note the extent of natural habitat.

Ngaati Whanaunga land

Much of Te Kouma remains in the hands of Ngaati Whanaunga whaanau. This is identified in the planner's report as an obstacle to locating a wharf there, however it is proposed here that this in not necessarily the case. Some iwi members consulted in the preparation of this report indicated interest in investigating that proposition further. Similarly, the roading issues raised by the Mr Baldwin do not represent a fatal barrier to the wharf. There is potential for a industry-dedicated private road to be constructed to service the wharf, and it is proposed that the cost of construction might be recuperated over time by imposing a road user payment regime.

Decision to dismiss Te Kouma premature

Te Kouma represents one of the few locations assessed where all tide access without the need for initial or maintenance dredging. This opportunity should be seen to off-set the initial road construction costs. Other limitations identified in the initial scoping exercise are argued above to be overstated, and the option warrants additional investigation. Wharekawa - Stevenson's Quarry

Wharekawa (Stevenson's quarry) is one of the options considered in the planner's report. It is located within Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral land of particular significance. The name Wharekawa is used incorrectly in the preceding reports. That name being traditionally used to describe the wider area of the coast rather than this immediate location, the early Wharekawa block extended from present day Miranda (correctly named Pukorokoro) in the south to Tapapakanga regional park.

68


Figure 19. Stevenson's quarry and surrounding early Ngaati Whanaunga blocks and recorded historic sites

Wharekawa is significant to Ngaati Whanaunga and all the Marutuahu iwi as the place Hotunui (the father of Marutuahu) initially resided when he settled in Hauraki, as was the case for Marutuahu himself. It was there the Marutuahu tribes were born, eventually expanding their territory to the south and east across the whole of Hauraki. This birthplace of the tribal confederation remains particularly significant to Marutuahu, and today is the domain of Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngaati Paoa. Stevenson's quarry sits within the division Wharekawa 4, which was the only one of the Wharekawa blocks belonging to Ngaati Whanaunga, the others - all to the south - being Ngaati Paoa lands. The present quarry site was initially the location of a large Ngaati Whanaunga papakainga, and was surrounded by mara (gardens). While the NZAA recorded sites dataset does not feature any recorded sites in the vicinity of the quarry itself, this is a product both of archaeological evidence in the area being long destroyed, and a corresponding lack of surveys within the lands adjacent to the quarry. The quarry and its artificial ponds are surrounded by significant sites including several prominent pa.

69


Stevenson's sought unsuccessfully to have the Auckland Regional Council purchase the disused quarry. Since that time Ngaati Whanaunga has held preliminary discussions toward us reacquiring the land. This remains our ambition. Stevenson's quarry is considered in the KTB report and found to have merit as a potential site, and unlike almost all other locations considered, except from the preferred ones, was found to have no fatal flaws. Rather the location is recommended for no further consideration on the following basis:

It is considered that the primary flaw of this location, from a TCDC perspective, is that the site is outside of the Thames-Coromandel District which will eventually result in a significant loss of economic and social benefits associated with the industry. There also appears to be a clear lack of support for this option from the industry which also seriously undermines this option.

Ngaati Whanaunga maintains that Council should consider this site further. Its proximity to Auckland sits well with likely expansion patterns within Tiikapa Moana, and the reduction in reliance on SH 25 for transporting produce is deemed to present both environmental and safety benefits. It is simplistic to assume that locating new wharf facilities away from the existing industry base near Coromandel will result in a loss of the industry from the district, in that existing facilities would remain and continue to be used, however the anticipated increased burden on existing infrastructure would be avoided by marine farm operators within the western portion of Tiikapa Moana landing on the adjacent coast. We think that further investigation should be undertaken into the likely effects of dredging on Kaiaua and the RAMSAR site to the south, and note that Mr Baldwin, upon whose recommendation this site has apparently been dismissed, has no expertise in this area.

70


Chapter 7. Issues and opportunities for Ngaati Whanaunga

Ngaati Maru rangi-tahi Ngaati Maru of a single day- The tribes of Marutuahu were reputed to be able to accomplish great

tasks in a in a short period In Chapter 7 we distil out the various issues previously reported, in an effort to provide a comprehensive picture of Ngaati Whanaunga concerns, and the means by which these might be addressed. It goes on to consider potential opportunities for Ngaati Whanaunga, and neighbouring iwi where land and resource interests are shared, arising from a future wharf. It is noted that both issues and opportunities identified might relate to particular locations, or be common to any of those on Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands and waters. Furthermore, it may be the case that selection of a particular site would create opportunities and negative effects for Ngaati Whanaunga or the wider community, as is often the case with developments of this nature. Accordingly, Ngaati Whanaunga would anticipate ongoing engagement with Council in the course of its planning and decision making around the selection of a wharf location, and subsequent design.

Issues

The following are issues identified by Ngaati Whanaunga that might arise from the construction of new wharf facilities within Tiikapa Moana.

The alienation of ancestral lands and waters Ngaati Whanaunga mana whenua over our ancestral lands and waters has been significantly eroded through the alienation of almost all tribal resources since colonisation. In recent decades this process has continued largely through the granting of resource consents to third parties in relation to Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral lands and waters, which effectively grant exclusive use of our resources to other parties, and through the vesting of title or long term leases for reclamations of our foreshore and seabed lands. We have noted that we are in the late stages of Treaty settlement negotiations, in which significant areas of land will be returned to Ngaati Whanaunga and other Hauraki and Tamaki iwi. Settlement will also address Crown breaches regarding our moana. As previously stated Ngaati Whanaunga will be seeking that any reclamation be vest in the iwi with appropriate lease of other arrangement used to provide ongoing security of tenure for the wharf operation.

Reduction and contamination of the mahinga maataitai

Wharf construction, associated reclamation, dredging and ongoing operations all have the potential to displace or otherwise impact on our kaimoana, both in the immediate vicinity of the infrastructure and in its nearby environs. As noted previously, Ngaati Whanaunga kütai beds around the Te Kouma coastline have suffered in recent decades from the activities of the aquaculture fleet, which has also acted as a physical barrier to iwi access to this important kaimoana.

71


The potential exists for this to situation to continue if the new wharf is located at either the Sugarloaf or Puhi Rare, and action will need to be taken in that instance to investigate the extent of this valued resource and to develop an action plan to restore the beds and address the access issues arising out of intensive use of the vicinity. We will be looking for adequate investigation into local ecology above and below mean low water springs in order to assess potential effects and determine appropriate methods for avoiding impacts prior to consent being sought. We also speak in this report about possible mitigation for existing and new impacts on our kaimoana.

Impacts on the mauri of ancestral waters Ngaati Whanaunga remains concerned regarding impacts on local bays from wharves and associated activities. These include pollution from marine vehicles, reclamation, construction and structures within the CMA, and dredging. We have observed ongoing and increasing effects from docked and moored mussel barges currently adjacent to Te Kouma, including the incidence of foreign invasive species within the Ngaati Whanaunga rohe, mussels dropped overboard, and pollutants from cleaning and maintenance being washed straight into the moana. Any wharf proposal should include the development of a contamination management plan, the construction of adequate dry dock and wash down facilities, a regime to ensure these are used, and monitoring.

Trade-offs between the interests of parties We note that the interests and objectives of a range of parties are being balanced in the wharf selection process, and this will also be the case in the design, development, and operation of the facilities. We note the views of the local residents at Te Kouma have been a driver to investigating other locations, and the views of both the aquaculture industry and Council have been primary considerations in the selection of preferred locations. We have often experienced Maaori interests and values being trampled in Council efforts to accommodate their own, developers, and the wider community desires. As such RMA consents processes have become a key means by which Maaori interests continue to be eroded. The range of legislation concerned here bring with them strong recognition of the interests and rights of tangata whenua, and Ngaati Whanaunga expects to be involved in this project at all stages to ensure that our values and interests are protected.

Tikanga and Maatauranga Maaori

Similarly we repeatedly witness the treatment of tikanga Maaori (Maaori values and direction as to the correct way of doing things) and maatauranga Maaori (Maaori knowledge systems and world views) as inferior to Pakeha values and western scientific knowledge, in the planning and design of developments and in the consents process. Ngaati Whanaunga values and views have been articulated at length in this report, but ongoing dialogue will be needed to assist Council in ensuring that the proposed development is sympathetic

72


to tikanga Maaori, and that its location, design, and operation reflect and are consistent with Maaori values and world views.

Manawa - coastal and marine vegetation Ngaati Whanaunga is particularly concerned with preserving the ecological, biodiversity and natural character values of the coastal marine area. An important value in this regard is the preservation of manawa (mangroves) and other indigenous vegetation. Several of the potential locations under investigation are in the vicinity of mangroves, and the iwi will be seeking that any removal of mangroves is minimised. Furthermore we will be seeking environmental restoration in association with the development.

Waahi Tapuu and taonga

Waahi tapuu are considered at length in this report. Several of the preferred and potential wharf locations are adjacent to or nearby sites and areas that are extremely significant to Ngaati Whanaunga. These include pa sites, waahi tapuu, waahi pakanga and urupaa. Care will need to be taken in the design, construction and operation of a wharf to ensure these are sympathetic to this significance. This will include the iwi undertaking investigations of proposed areas prior to any works, protocols being agreed in advance, ongoing monitoring, and measures being taken to ensure the protection, and possibly restoration of significant sites. There is similarly a high potential that köiwi (human remains) will be encountered in the CMA, and the above-mentioned approaches should also anticipate this.

Ongoing involvement formalised

The previously mentioned issues relate to the potential for Ngaati Whanaunga interests and values to be compromised. Ngaati Whanaunga should be involved at all stages of the project should the final wharf location be within the mana whenua - mana moana of the iwi. We will seek that this include the site selection process, wharf design and associated investigations, construction, management and ongoing monitoring. Our involvement should be formalised to ensure that ourselves, Council, and the aquaculture industry understand the level of and basis for our ongoing participation in the project. A range of other issues and potential issues are discussed in previous chapters. That any of these are not included in the above summary should not be taken as an indication that they are less important than those listed above, and the report needs to be considered in its entirety.

Opportunities for Ngaati Whanaunga

In contrast to the above-noted potential negative results Ngaati Whanaunga sees the proposed wharf infrastructure as presenting a range of potential opportunities for the iwi, and for the wider community. Again, some of these would arise from specific wharf locations, some for a range of locations, and others regardless of location. Of course the potential to avoid and address the above listed negatives arising from a future wharf can be seen as opportunities.

73


Opportunities for our people to reconnect with their türangawaewae

Ngaati Whanaunga is committed to improving the prospects of our young people finding employment within their local communities, and is critical of the aquaculture industry in that the shelling factory in Coromandel sits empty. While the industry argues an inability to secure an adequate workforce at Coromandel, it is worth considering whether the significant cost savings obtainable from an automated plant were a disincentive to paying realistic wages and thereby keeping the Coromandel operation running. We are interested in holding conversations with Council and the Industry in the context of this development (should it be located in the Coromandel area) around the potential to reopen the factory. There are also opportunities for our people to be involved in the project in a number of roles as discussed above. Furthermore, we believe that there remains merit in considering Te Kouma as a wharf location. This is Ngaati Whanaunga land, and the location of a wharf here would bring opportunities and possible income for our people.

Joint management arrangement

If the proposed wharf is ultimately constructed on Ngaati Whanaunga ancestral land we will be seeking both that any reclamation and reserves created are vest in the iwi, and also that we enter into a joint management arrangement regarding the infrastructure.

Restoration and reseeding of kaimoana beds

As noted above existing wharves and aquaculture have had negative impacts on our kaimoana and mahinga maataitai (food gathering areas). The proposed wharf has the potential of exacerbating these negative effects. As part of the project we see an opportunity to determine the extent and condition of kaimoana in the area surrounding the wharf. This should include developing a restoration and management plan to avoid additional damage, assist in addressing degradation, and restoring the mauri of the kaimoana.

Relinquishment of the current never-ending boat ramp consents

Indefinite consents for the existing Sugarloaf boat ramps were granted in the early days of the RMA with no consultation with Ngaati Whanaunga. Council will be encouraged to relinquish these consents as part of the current applications.

Mechanisms to protect waahi tapuu and waahi taonga

Should the wharf be constructed at the Sugarloaf location we look forward to formalising protocols and a protection and management arrangement for Arikitahi. Similarly protocols will need to be agreed relating to Kaipapaka, the urupaa at the corner of SH25 and Te Kouma Road, and for any sites or objects discovered during works.

Reduction of pressure on SH25

We maintain that there is merit in locating a wharf at either Koopuu or at Stevenson's Quarry, and that both these options would result in produce landing closer to processing plants thereby reducing truck traffic on SH25 - the Thames Coast Road.

74


As the industry grows to several times its current size within Tiikapa Moana so will the number of Trucks needed to transport shellfish. This is expected to take place as other road use increases, including Forestry, residential and tourist traffic. Accordingly any removal of trucks from the highway would be beneficial in terms of environmental, amenity and safety.

Restoration of natural character of the coast

As previously noted much of the Coromandel Peninsular coastline has been substantially modified or otherwise compromised. Given that a wharf will necessarily include the loss of additional natural character we will be promoting the development include a substantive component of coastal restoration. We would want to be involved in planning this, and also in undertaking the work. We would anticipate a scale of restoration of natural character appropriate to adequately remedy and mitigate the modification of the CMA and as a trade off for the benefits being derived by Council and the industry.

Displaying correct Maaori names and histories

Of particular importance to Ngaati Whanaunga and other Hauraki Maaori is the loss of traditional placenames from our lands and land features. We would anticipate that a wharf would be properly named from the land on which it is located. Any reserves created should be named in consultation with Ngaati Whanaunga and, depending upon location, those other iwi with ancestral interests there. Names and associated histories should be displayed, probably on information boards as currently is the case at Ariki Tahi. The iwi will need to determine the wording of these. The erection of carved pou should also be considered where appropriate in accordance with the significance of lands in the vicinity of the selected wharf location. We would expect to discuss this with Council and other tribal interests if applicable, with Council commissioning carving.

Ownership of reclamations

As previously reported, Ngaati Whanaunga is currently negotiating with the Crown for settlement of historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. These include the alienation of almost all our lands, and undermining our mana over Tiikapa Moana. Ngaati Whanaunga maintains that we own the foreshore and seabed under our mana. We will seek that the ownership of any reclamation of our ancestral moana be vest in Ngaati Whanaunga, and other interested iwi if applicable.

Creation of reserves

There is a possibility that the creation of reserves might be required as a condition of reclamation or resource consent. While esplanade reserves are most likely Ngaati Whanaunga would seek that these be registered as historic or cultural-purposes reserves.

75


Improved capacity and efficiency for the industry, including Ngaati Whanaunga

Ngaati Whanaunga and other Hauraki Maaori are significant players in the fisheries and aquaculture industries, and will accordingly benefit from any productivity and other economic gains achieved by the construction of a new wharf.

Provision of waka facilities for Ngaati Whanaunga

It is noted that scoping work undertaken to date has considered other wharf users, identifying ferry operators, recreational boaties, and other commercial users. No recognition is given to iwi/Maaori in this regard (Dunbar-Smith 2011). As previously discussed, Ngaati Whanaunga were historically renowned for our waka, and we have in recent years re embarked on this journey of carving waka, and training our rangatahi, our young adults, in the disciplines around this important tradition. In addition to the Ngaati Paoa/Ngaati Whanaunga waka Te Kötuitui Ngaati Whanaunga encourages our rangatahi to participate in waka ama. Waka ama has become increasingly popular as a sport for Maaori and non-Maaori alike over recent decades, and Ngaati Whanaunga has provided substantial financial support to allow our local club based at Coromandel to purchase new waka. It is suggested here that Council and the aquaculture industry should incorporate the provision of permanent waka launching and storage facilities to mana whenua iwi as part of the current plans. This is argued to be appropriate on the basis that there are currently no such facilities provided anywhere within the district, in contrast to the many public boat launching facilities and marinas; and that this would provide some level of mitigation for the otherwise exclusive capture of our ancestral lands and waters by the aquaculture industry. We are accordingly seeking that provision of such facilities be drawn into future designs as a form of mitigation for the loss of tribal foreshore and seabed.

76


Chapter 8. Summary

Kei whei te Aute Where are those who will lead us into the future?

This report provides in substantial detail an account of the views of Ngaati Whanaunga in relation to a possible new wharfing infrastructure to service the aquaculture industry. As indicated by the preceding chapter, the current investigation into possible wharfing infrastructure brings with it a range of potential issues, but also the prospect of opportunities for the iwi. Similarly it brings potential environmental and wider community risks and benefits. Accordingly Ngaati Whanaunga support for the project should not be taken for granted, and we will review our position throughout based on our views regarding the extent to which the values and concerns expressed here have been addressed. Importantly, none of the proposals, including the four preferred options, are without issues for Ngaati Whanaunga. We will watch the process with interest with a view to ensuring that the preferences and interests of other parties are not given unreasonable precedence over our own. We have been engaged several years into the project, after important decisions appear to have been already made, particularly the initial set of potential wharf locations, and more importantly the selection of four preferred options. Accordingly, iwi values, including the potential use of Maaori land, have not been a factor in site identification. reasons reported for this, that there are too many iwi groups in Hauraki, are strongly rejected, and suggest instead that administrative convenience for Council has been put ahead of early and meaningful involvement of tangata whenua. Clearly Hauraki is a complex area in terms of iwi rohe, but it is unacceptable if this argument is used as an excuse for only engaging with iwi in the late stages of any district-wide issue. This has been Council's approach for the last two decades, but we are entering times where iwi will be well resourced, and have statutory authority established through Treaty Settlements. This sort of approach will not be tolerated in future. As a result several of the initially identified sites that have been rejected in the selection of preferred sites remain of interest to Ngaati Whanaunga, and have merit in terms of both environmental impacts and addressing amenity related concerns of sections of the community. In particular the Stevenson's Quarry and Te Kouma locations appear to have been rejected based on inadequate information, influenced unduly by Council and industry preferences rather than an assessment of planning and environmental issues. We maintain that Council is taking too narrow a view in its approach to the selection of a wharf location, and that it is focused on securing benefits of future aquaculture growth for the District, at the expense of taking a sustainable management approach. This is particularly the case given that much of the industry's future growth, including that of the Maaori aquaculture industry, will be within the Auckland Region. Auckland Council and its predecessors have also been giving considerable thought to the future of marine farming in the region, and are therefore conspicuously absent from the current list of agencies involved in the wharf investigation.

77


It is also inconsistent with a Ngaati Whanaunga and Marutuahu rohe perspective, and Council is required to include this factor in its statutory obligation to consider cross boundary issues. We have suffered the loss of many of our ancestral coastal, foreshore and seabed lands to wharves and marinas across our rohe, and a failure to locate the currently under investigation wharf in the optimum location for the shape of a future industry will result in the need for additional facilities. We are determined that no further ancestral land will be taken from the iwi, and will seek that both existing and any future reclamations associated with wharves within our rohe be vest in Ngaati Whanaunga. We do not see this as representing a barrier in terms of the current proposal for either Council or the industry, as lease or alternative occupation arrangements can be negotiated to reflect any resource consents obtained. We have indicated here a range of additional investigations that are needed, and look forward to discussing these further with Council. They include cultural and archaeological site inspections, and kaimoana and ecological investigation in the moana. Furthermore, a number of management plans will need to be developed, including plans relating to cultural sites, kaimoana and the moana, and for the management of the wharf itself including pollution control measures. Despite our late involvement Council has now engaged with Ngaati Whanaunga, and this is a positive step. We look forward to positive and substantial involvement throughout the project. Kei konei te whakaaro o Ngaati Whanaunga Heoi anö

Nathan Kennedy - Environment Officer

78


References (2002). Ngati Maru Iwi Authority Inc v Auckland City Council. J. Baragwanath, High Court, Auckland.

Allom, A. J. (1904). Five days' cruise in an Auckland racing yacht. Auckland, Caxton Printing Works.

Auckland Council (2011). Auckland Council submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3). Auckland, Auckland Council: 7.

Baldwin, K. (2011). An Assessment of Alternative Locations for Wharfing Infrastructure to Support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry, KTB Planning Consultant‟s Ltd: 63.

Belgrave, D. M. (2002). The Operation of the Native Land Court in Hauraki. The Marutuahu Treaty Claims Research Reports. Auckland, Marutuahu Claims Committee: 287.

Belgrave, D. M., D. T. Tulloch, et al. (2002). The Marutuahu Historical Overview. The Marutuahu Treaty Claims Research Reports. Auckland, Marutuahu Claims Committee: 287.

Belshaw, K. J. (2005). "Decolonising the Land - Naming and Reclaiming Places." Planning Quarterly.

Best, E. (1976). The Maori Canoe. Wellington, A. R. Shearer.

Boast, R. (1996). The Foreshore. Rangahaua Whanui Series Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal

Chief Judge Fenton (1984). "Kauwaeranga Judgment." Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 14.

Committee on Thames Sea Beach Bill (1869). Report of Committee on Thames Sea Beach Bill. Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives. Wellington. E: 18.

Cooper, G. W. and T. Compain (2002). Ngati Whanaunga Mana Whenua Report, Ngati Whanaunga Claims Committee: 23.

Coromandel Blueprint Project (2010). Coromandel Peninsula Blueprint - Framework for our Future. Thames, Thames Coromandel District Council. 1: 44.

Dunbar-Smith, B. (2011). Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document - Issues and Options for wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry Thames, Hauraki-Coromandel Development Group: 148.

Furey, L. (2000). Ngati Hei Wai 110 Archaeological Report. Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal. 23: 161-168.

Gaukrodger, J. (2009). RE: Sediment and monitoring of shellfish beds at Whangamata. N. W. E. Unit, Department of Conservation: 1.

Graeme, M., J. Dahm, et al. (2010). Coromandel Peninsula – Ecological Assessment of Natural Character. Thames, Thames Coromandel District Council: 64.

Hauraki Gulf Forum (2005). The Hauraki Gulf State of the Environment Report 2005. Auckland, Hauraki Gulf Forum: 225.

Hauraki Gulf Forum (2009). Governing the Gulf - Giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act through Policies and Plans. Auckland, Hauraki Gulf Forum.

Kennedy, N. (2002). Brief of Evidence of Nathan Kennedy of Ngati Whanaunga and Ngati Karaua Hapu in Support of Wai 809. Thames, Ngati Whanaunga: 150.

Kennedy, N. (2007). Ngäti Whanaunga submission on draft Whangamata Reserve Management Plan. Coromandel, Ngäti Whanaunga Environment Unit: 8.

LA4 Landscape Architects Ltd (2006). Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment, Thames Coromandel District Council.

79


Majurey, P. F., H. Atkins, et al. (2010). Mäori Values Supplement. Making Good Decisions

Ministry for the Environment (2005). Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 – Improving certainty for consultation and iwi resource planning. Wellington, Ministry for the Environment: 2.

Monin, P. (2001). This Is My Place : Hauraki Contested 1769 - 1875. Wellington, Bridget Williams Books.

Morgan, K. (2010). The Ngati Whanaunga people of Manaia in the Coromandel. Waka Huia. Auckland, Television New Zealand.

Pare Hauraki Fishing Trust (2011). Pare Hauraki Fishing Trust Annual Report 2011.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (1992). Proposed Guidelines for Local Authority Consultation with Tangata Whenua. Wellington, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: 42.

Phillips, C. (2000). Waihou Journeys. Auckland, Auckland University Press.

Rolleston, S. and S. Awatere (2009). "Ngā hua papakāinga: Habitation design principles." MAI Review 2: 13.

Te Taniwha, T. (1929). Marutuahu. George Graham Collection. Auckland, Auckland Museum Library.

Thames Coromandel District Council (1999). Thames-Coromandel District Council : Proposed District Plan - Decisions Version. Thames, Thames Coromandel District Council.

Tikkisetty, B. (2009). RE: Sediment and monitoring of shellfish beds at Whangamata. N. W. E. Unit. Hamilton: 2.

Turoa, T., Ed. (1997). Nga Iwi o Hauraki: The Iwi of Hauraki. The Hauraki Treaty Claims Volume 2. Paeroa, Hauraki Maori Trust Board.

Turoa, T. and T. A. C. Royal (2000). Te Takoto o te Whenua o Hauraki - Hauraki Landmarks. Auckland, Reed Books.

Waitangi Tribunal (1988). Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Muriwhenua Fishing Claim (Wai 22). Wellington, The Waitangi Tribunal.

Waitangi Tribunal (1992). Ngai Tahu Sea Fisheries Report. Wellington, Brooker and Friend.

Waitangi Tribunal (1993). Ngawha Geothermal Resource Report 1993. Wellington, BROOKER & FRIEND LTD.

Waitangi Tribunal (1999). The Whanganui River Report. Wellington, GP Publications.

Waitangi Tribunal (2001). Rekohu: A Report on Moriori and Ngati Mutunga Claims in the Chatham Islands Wellington, Government Printer.

Waitangi Tribunal (2001). Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal.

Waitangi Tribunal (2003). Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District. Wellington, Waitangi Tribuna.

Waitangi Tribunal (2006). The Hauraki Report Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal.

Williams, B. W. (1999). Submission of Betty Whaitiri Williams - Coromandel Marina application: 21.

Wishart, P. (2009). Sediment and monitoring of shellfish beds at Whangamata. N. W. E. Unit. Thames, Thames Coromandel District Council.

Documents

Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment Council/2012 Council Agenda... · Ngaati Whanaunga Values Assessment . Nathan Kennedy ... Cover Images The cover shows the ... Ngaati Puku