I .~ Wai 1130, #A6

Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

A Scoping Report

Nicholas Bayley and Mark Derby

Waitangi Tribunal September 2004 Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction...... 1 Chapter 2: Legislation Since 1980 and Tongariro National Park Management ...... 5 The National Parks Act 1980 ...... 5 Conservation Legislation from 1987...... 6 World Heritage Status...... 8 The Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002 ...... 9 The Tongariro National Park Management Plan 1989 ...... 11 The current draft Tongariro National Park Management Plan...... 12 Discussion...... 17 Chapter 3: Management on the Ground in Tongariro National Park ...... 19 Consultation prior to the 1980s...... 19 Role of key National Park staff...... 21 Interviews with DoC staff and iwi representatives ...... 22 Ruapehu crater lake and the issue of lahars...... 25 Commercial operations in the park and the management of tourism concessions, including the Tūroa ski-field, and expansions of other ski fields...... 27 Management of sewage and wastewater from ski-lodges...... 33 Geothermal issues ...... 35 Animal pest and weed control, specifically the bio-controls for heather, and the use of controversial controls such as 1080 poison ...... 36 The Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions Analysis May 2003 (updated January 2004)...... 38 Discussion...... 40 Chapter 4 - Conclusion ...... 44 Bibliography...... 49 Official...... 49 Unofficial...... 50 Appendices ...... 52 A: Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions Analysis May 2003 (updated January 2004) – Ngāti Tūwharetoa extracts ...... 52 B: Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions Analysis May 2003 (updated January 2004) - Ngāti Hikairo extracts ...... 56 C: List of interviews and email correspondence conducted for this report...... 59 D: Direction commissioning research...... 60 The authors

My name is Nicholas Bayley. I am a researcher with the Waitangi Tribunal. I hold a BA (Hons.) from Victoria University and a PhD from Trinity College, Dublin, both in history. After returning from Europe, I was an historian of British and Irish immigration in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Since coming to the Tribunal I have written both a scoping report and a main report on the Murimotu and Rangipō-Waiū blocks.

My name is Mark Derby. I am a researcher with the Waitangi Tribunal. I am currently completing a Masters in New Zealand Studies at Victoria University, Wellington. I have previously worked as a freelance historical researcher, journalist and editor. Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Chapter 1 - Introduction

This report has been commissioned for two reasons. The first is to complete the investigation of issues concerning Tongariro National Park management from 1980 to the present. This need has arisen because the period will not be covered in the principal report on the Tongariro National Park being prepared by Robyn Anderson. The second reason is to establish whether or not a further, more comprehensive, report might be needed, depending on the issues that this scoping report identifies. If the report is able to identify and adequately cover the issues that may have arisen between the Crown and Māori as regards Tongariro National Park management between 1980 and the present, then it will have also established that there is no need for another more comprehensive report.

This scoping report, therefore, operates as a concluding chapter to Robyn Anderson’s report, and should be read in conjunction with that report. It does not attempt to recapitulate the situation in Tongariro National Park (henceforth TNP) before 1980. From 1980, the situation in the park, as regards Māori and Crown relationships, changed due to legislative requirements to consider the Treaty of Waitangi in the formulation of policy, and from 1990, the obligations arising from having the park listed as a World Heritage site. The Crown is legislatively bound to approach Māori differently from what had been practice before 1980. The impact on the ground for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Hikairo, as well as other iwi or hapū with manawhenua claims to the park, therefore needs investigation in order to determine the effect on Māori in terms of their involvement in park management and of any implications that this changed regime has had for their relationship with the Crown.

Chapter 2 provides a general outline of legislation pertaining to National Park management as it came into force from 1980, and identifies specific commitments that TNP management is bound to acknowledge in formulating plans. This overview is brief,

1 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present and draws on the more extensive coverage that has been previously given to this period as regards legislation and official documentation.1

Chapter 3 of the report then focuses on park management on the ground and, through interviews with informed participants, seeks to understand the policies adopted, the issues that arose, and the impact that changes in park management have had on Crown/Māori relationships.

Aside from the general concerns identified, a number of potential and actual concerns have also been explored, including the following:

S Management of the Ruapehu crater lake and the issue of lahars S Commercial operations in the park and the management of tourism concessions, including the Tūroa ski-field, and expansions of other ski-fields S Management of sewage and wastewater from ski-lodges S Geothermal issues S Animal pest and weed control, specifically the bio-controls for heather and the use of controversial controls such as 1080 poison.

Through these concerns, and others identified through the interviews, we focus on Māori expectations and input into TNP management. This includes how the Department of Conservation (henceforth DoC) reacted and responded to Māori concerns, and what role DoC envisaged in theory and practice for Māori in TNP management.

Our investigation proceeded through the reading and analysis of primary and secondary sources, through interviews, and through email correspondence.2 Appropriate informants

1 See especially Park G., Effective Exclusion? An Exploratory Overview of Crown Actions and Maori Responses Concerning the Indigenous Flora and Fauna, 1912-1983, Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 262#K4, 2001; McClean R. and Smith T., The Crown and Flora and Fauna: Legislation, Policies, and Practices, 1983-1998; www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/World-Heritage/index.asp : Section ii: Tongariro; and Tongariro National Park Management Plan, Department of Conservation, Draft January 2003 2 A full list of interview subjects and dates, and of relevant email correspondence, is given as Appendix C.

2 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present were identified and approached as to their willingness to participate in this study. Questions considered included the following: S How did Māori react to proposals? S Were they consulted? S Did they agree with proposals and if so why? S What is the general feeling among Māori about TNP management and are there particular issues of ongoing concern?

These case studies also give indications as to how the Crown has involved Māori in TNP management and its reaction to Māori initiatives to be involved: S Did specific policies and approaches emerge, and how consistently were they applied? S What issues does Māori involvement, in whatever form, raise for the Crown, and what strategies has the Crown evolved to work with Māori? S In the intersection of Māori, conservation, public access and ownership concerns, what have been general and particular points of tension for the Crown, and how has the policy mix worked for Māori?

In conducting this research, we relied on the following sources: S Official legislation which had a direct impact on management policy, specifically the National Parks Act 1980, the Conservation Act 1987, the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990, the Resource Management Act 1991, and the Historic Places Act 1993. S The Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002, the Tongariro National Park Management Plan 1990, and the Draft Tongariro Management Plan 2003. The submissions made on the latter and provided in summarised form in 2004 are also an important source of information. S Oral testimony, which has been important in identifying existing, appropriate and available written source material. Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies, formerly or at present employed by the Department of Conservation, gave generously of their time and information. Napa Otimi for the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board,

3 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Richard Pirere and Colin Richards of Ngāti Rangi, and Matthew Haitana of Ngāti Tamakana and his counsel Mark McGhie all made themselves generously available for comment and information. Others have been in contact through email or by telephone to help add further detail. The contributions of all these people have led to a much more informed insight into the concerns of the different parties about park management. S Archival material held at Whakapapa Visitor’s Centre and Tūrangi Visitor’s Centre.

Chapter 4 concludes by pulling together general patterns that have emerged, and seeks to evaluate the impact of particular management strategies of the Crown on Māori in the TNP. Finally, the conclusion summarises the findings of the report and considers whether a further report would add much to what has already been explored.

This approach has had the advantage of focussing directly on management issues, revealing what strategies were adopted, and in that process providing a general understanding of what issues and positions have arisen, with implications for the relationship between the Crown and Māori in the park. It also provided an immediate context for interviews, as well as inviting the possibility that other concerns might emerge. The findings of the report are discussed both in the conclusion to Chapter 3, and in the concluding Chapter 4.

4 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Chapter 2: Legislation Since 1980 and Tongariro National Park Management

The National Parks Act 1980 The National Parks Act 1980 remains the principal legislation from which national parks management policy is derived and to which it must be responsive. The aim of this Act was to integrate the administration of national parks and reserves.3 The National Parks Authority was replaced by the National Parks and Reserves Authority, and the National Parks Boards were replaced by National Parks and Reserves Boards. The primary functions of the National Parks and Reserves Authority were to prepare and approve statements of general policy; to approve management plans; to advise on priorities for expenditure; to review and report on the effectiveness of administration of general polices; and to consider and make proposals for additions or new parks.4 The National Parks and Reserves Boards were given power to prepare, review and amend management plans; and to review and report to the Commissioner of Crown Lands or the National Parks and Reserves Authority on the effectiveness of administration of general policies, as well as giving advice to these bodies on the interpretation of any management plan or on any proposal for additions of land.5

This became the foundational management structure from 1980 to the present, in order to implement the Crown’s vision for national parks:

The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest.6

3 Department of Lands and Survey Annual Report, ‘National Parks and Reserves’, AJHR, 1981, c-1 4 National Parks Act 1980, s 18 s4 a-e 5 National Parks Act 1980, s 30, a, d, f 6 National Parks Act 1980, s 4, 1

5 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

While Part III of the National Parks Act 1980 reiterated Tūwharetoa’s historical membership of the Tongariro National Park Board, the Act made no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi, or whether the Treaty had had any bearing on the restructuring that this Act brought about.

A small change to this state of affairs occurred in 1983 with the publication of the General Policy for National Parks. Minimal reference was made to Māori in this document, which otherwise served essentially as a guide for the interpretation and better implementation of aspects of the National Parks Act 1980. This limited mention of Māori is noteworthy, however, in that, ‘the General Policy was a departure from the historic [sic] practice in national park law and policy of making no reference at all’.7

Conservation Legislation from 1987 In 1987 the Conservation Act established the Department of Conservation. Included among the functions of this Department were the management of its lands for conservation and the administration of the National Parks Act 1980, according to the guidelines of the 1983 General Policy for National Parks and national parks’ management plans. Under Section 17D of the Conservation Act 1987, each conservancy, (there are 14 conservancy offices in New Zealand, each of which is responsible for a specific geographic region), has to prepare a ten-year conservation management strategy. Section 4 of the Act states that ‘[the] Act shall be so interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’. This had major policy implications for the rest of the period as the Crown and Māori sought to explore what giving practical effect to this new legislative requirement would involve. A potential field of tension was immediately created, however, between the Crown’s obligations towards conservation and preservation and Māori concerns about the development of their land within national parks, which might involve challenging the conservation imperative.

7 Park G., Effective Exclusion? An Exploratory Overview of Crown Actions and Maori Responses Concerning the Indigenous Flora and Fauna, 1912-1983, Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 262#K4, 2001, p 350

6 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The new Department of Conservation was charged, by the Minister of Conservation on 2 April 1988, with conducting a complete review of protected areas legislation and management. One key issue of the review was the question ‘to what extent and how should the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be applied to protected areas?’8 Among the submissions received, Rakato Te Rangiita of Ngāti Tūwharetoa requested the ‘recognition of areas of tribal food and material resources as land to be recognised in protected areas legislation and put aside for that purpose.’9 DoC subsequently prepared a summary paper on the proposed Bill for the Minister of Conservation, in which it was stated that the existing legislation was deficient in that provision was not made to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.10 However, the Bill, after a change in government in 1990, was never introduced into parliament. To date, a protected areas classification relating to Māori cultural use has not been created.

In further reforms, the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 was passed, amending the principal National Parks Act 1980. The New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards replaced the former National Parks and Reserves Authority and National Parks and Reserves Boards respectively. Conservation boards (normally comprising up to 12 appointed members) primarily oversee Conservation Management Strategies and Conservation Management Plans, which must then be approved by the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The membership of each conservation board is required to reflect the type of land administered by DoC in the area, and have regard to the ‘interests of nature conservation, natural earth and marine sciences, recreation, tourism and the local community including the tangata whenua of the area’.11

8 DOC, Protected Areas Legislation Review, Issues for Public Comment, Wellington, DOC, July 1988, pp 7-11 9 Submission of Rakato Te Rangiita, Ngāti Tuwharetoa, no date, PALR box 1780, DOC, Wellington 10 Proposed National Parks, Marine and Protected Areas Bill, 2 December 1988, PALR, box 1779, DOC, Wellington 11 s 6P (b), Conservation Act 1987

7 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The Resource Management Act 1991 establishes that local government and councils, when preparing policies or plans with resource consent implications, must have regard for any management plans and strategies prepared under the Conservation Act 1987.12

This legislative framework, comprising the National Parks Act 1980, the General Policy for National Parks 1983, the Conservation Act 1987, the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 and the Resource Management Act 1991, provides the context for Crown policy, to which conservation management strategies seek to give effect through conservation management plans. What is broadly indicated is a movement from a situation where specific Māori concerns, as well as general Treaty considerations, had no weight in the evolution of legislative policy, to an explicit acceptance that Māori, under the Treaty of Waitangi, had to be legislatively included within National Park aims and policies. This was a new situation for all parties, and it appeared likely that the implications for policy, and how to involve Māori more directly and effectively in management decisions, might cause some tension or debate on the ground. Whether these tensions, should they have occurred, can be considered part of the normal working out of new policy directives, or indicative of potential Treaty breaches, are questions that this report seeks to address.

World Heritage Status

In further developments specific to TNP, the Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1990 under natural criteria concerning outstanding natural values. Later, in 1993, it was inscribed on the World Heritage List under cultural criteria concerning its outstanding cultural values. Originally, the nomination had been deferred until a new management plan had been completed, with one concern raised being ‘the extent to which the cultural values of the Park are given prominence in the new Management Plan and the level of involvement of the local Māori people’.13 The World Heritage Committee later acknowledged the efforts made to ‘strengthen the appreciation of the cultural values of Tongariro in the new Management Plan.’14 At that time, the application

12 Resource Management Act 1991, sections 61(2)(a), 66(2)(c), 74(2)(b) and 104 (2) 13 Cited in www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/World-Heritage/index.asp : Section ii: Tongariro, p 2 14 Ibid, p 2

8 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present for cultural status was declined because the Park did not fit the criteria, but the addition of a new criterion of ‘associative cultural landscape’ meant that the Park could be included under that category in 1993.

The significance of this for Māori is that not only is the management plan for TNP expected to acknowledge the principles of the Treaty in its formation, but it must also honour its obligations as a World Heritage List site. This latter obligation entails a special regard for the links between Māori and the mountains, and the need to preserve these against disruptive commercial influences:

The mountains of Tongariro National Park are special for their intense intangible cultural associations with the indigenous people. The best expressions of these are in the vitality of the tribal oral histories of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Rangi, in their songs, carvings and in their stories.15

The implications of this on policy are also spelt out very clearly:

The current Tongariro National Park Management Plan provides a very clear guide as to how the Park should be managed. In particular, it has been very helpful in protecting the natural and cultural values of the mountain peaks of Ruapehu, Ngāuruhoe and Tongariro and in limiting commercial developments to the three amenity areas.16

The Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002 Three main broad pressures come to bear on Tongariro National Park that have strategic and policy implications. These are: Crown concerns about public access, conservation, preservation and Treaty obligations; Māori concerns about culture, consultation, development, conservation and preservation; and World Heritage obligations concerning the protection of natural and cultural values. In order to address these general concerns, as well as many other more specific concerns about the Park in accordance with its statutory obligations, DoC put forward the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy, which was finally approved by the New Zealand Conservation Authority in

15 Ibid, p 6 16 Ibid, p 10

9 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

May 2002. This involved extensive public consultation by DoC, beginning in October 1994. In the meantime, the Tongariro National Park Management Plan was approved by the Department in 1989. However, a new plan has just completed a process of full public review, with a draft plan released by the Tongariro/Taupo Conservancy in January 2003.

Explicit Māori concern about what they considered to be lack of consultation during the preparation of the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy led to a Waitangi Tribunal claim, Wai 480, being lodged by Sir Hepi Te Heu Heu of Ngāti Tūwharetoa on 1 March 1995. As a result of this claim, ‘the Department deemed it necessary to seek further public opinion on the document in early 2000’.17 After further submissions had been taken into account by DoC, the Conservation Management Strategy was presented, in September 2000, to the Tongariro/Taupō Conservation Board. The claim lies dormant for the moment18 in the absence of an immediate concern about the degree of consultation between the Crown and Māori.

The Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy, approved in 2002, reflects and responds to Māori input directly. Six principles are outlined on which conservation management strategy is based. The third principle sets out the general expectation: ‘Development of an Effective Conservative Partnership with Tangata Whenua’. DoC commits itself to a number of specific approaches that directly involve and affect Māori, with major implications for policy. The Department will:19 S Actively give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi S Fully express and maintain an effective relationship with iwi S Recognise and provide for the mana and spiritual value of the tops of the volcanoes of Tongariro National Park, maintaining their pristine nature S Assist in the resolution of any outstanding Treaty of Waitangi issues within the region relating to public conservation land S Operate protocols to facilitate the relationship between the Crown and iwi on conservation management issues focussed on conservation outcomes S Provide for an expression of iwi values in the management of conservation resources.

17 Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002-2012, DoC, Wellington 2002, Foreword 18 See interview with Napa Otimi, p 27 of this report 19 Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002-2012, DoC, Wellington 2002, p 17

10 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

DoC is quite confident in its belief that the strategy prepared for the TNP is robust in terms of appropriately involving Māori:

The Conservation Management Strategy for Tongariro-Taupō Conservancy identified how the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will be implemented in the management of Tongariro National Park and other conservation areas. Māori are now consulted on all significant management actions in Tongariro National Park, especially where cultural values are involved. Active involvement has included planning World Heritage celebrations, upgrading visitor centre displays and audio-visuals, education resources, biodiversity programmes and assessing concession applications. There are now four Māori members on the Conservation Board.20

This confidence arises from the long period spent in preparation of this document and from the comprehensive consultation that took place. The Department considers that it moved on Māori concerns about consultation, as expressed through the Wai 480 claim, and that the resulting strategy goes some way to meeting those concerns.21

The Tongariro National Park Management Plan 1989 While the conservation management strategy took some time to formulate, a TNP management plan had already been approved in 1989, and formed the basis for management planning throughout the 1990s. Despite the recognition by the Conservation Act 1987 of the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, neither the Treaty nor any Treaty principles are mentioned in the 1989 TNP management plan. Apart from acknowledging the historical connections with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, this plan makes little mention of Māori, although where it does, this is put as a broad principal objective:22

2 (a) To recognise and maintain the cultural, spiritual and inspirational heritage of the mountains in the park (b) To recognise the spiritual and cultural significance of the park to the Māori people and to consult with and give full consideration to the views of the appropriate iwi authorities

20 Ibid pp 8-9 21 See the interviews with Paul Green and Napa Otimi concerning this point on pp 26-27 of this report 22 Tongariro National Park Management Plan, vol. 1, DOC, 1990, p 33

11 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The rest of the document contains very little discussion about the implications of this recognition for policy, such that this objective appears to have had little explicit impact on the implementation of park policy. One of the few significant mentions of Māori concerns, and a confident assertion about Māori attitudes carrying precise policy implications, occurs in considering historic features. Here it is noted:

The traditional Māori sites within the park will be recognised as these provide the link to tie Māori spiritual values into park management. Consultation with the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board will be ongoing. Relatively few archaeological sites are known within the park and this reflects the Māori attitude to and usage of the area.23

Otherwise the paucity of reference to Māori suggests that, although there may have been a general desire to accommodate some Māori concerns, it was not considered necessary to formulate very specifically what implications Treaty of Waitangi principles might have had for policy. The lack of such specific formulation may have made it difficult for park management to respond effectively when issues concerning Māori arose, which Māori might have considered park management as having a Treaty-bound duty to address. The same issues that drove the Treaty claim Wai 480, namely that Treaty principles were not given effect in formulating the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy, would seem to apply to the 1990 Tongariro National Park Management Plan.

The current draft Tongariro National Park Management Plan In turning to the document that is entering its final phases before being approved as the successor to the 1990 Management Plan, namely the new Tongariro National Park Management Plan, it is noteworthy that there is a very significant change in the approach to Māori. It is likely that the same processes that were brought to bear in the formulation of conservation strategy had a direct influence in the management plan, as these two instruments are much more closely aligned in their commitment to, and acknowledgement of, the role of Māori in park management.

23 Tongariro National Park Management Plan, vol 1, DOC, 1990, p 53

12 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Since the Tongariro National Park Management Plan is to be the instrument for implementing policy in the Park, a brief overview of the plan is required in order to assess its general commitment to engaging with Māori. This plan also provides a framework which can be tested in conjunction with specific issues of tension that may have arisen, to see to what extent the plan helps to resolve or exacerbates the issues at stake. Through the plan, the Crown would expect that it is acting appropriately within the requirements of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, so the Crown’s understanding of those principles is important, as applied within Tongariro National Park.

Under the heading, ‘Key Management Philosophies’,24 the Tongariro National Park Management Plan (TNPMP) explores its understanding of ten key principles which it considers reflect the core values of the park. These are outlined in the plan with supporting commentary. The principles are quoted directly as follows, with some discussion where appropriate:

1. To manage Tongariro National Park consistent with conservation legislation and General Policy

2. To protect Tongariro National Park in its natural state in perpetuity Attention is drawn to the potential for conflict surrounding the implementation of this principle. ‘Its outstanding natural and cultural values must be protected even though protection may be in conflict with many other community aspirations’.

3. To protect the taonga - the peaks of Tongariro National Park Here it is explicitly noted that the peaks: ‘must be managed in a way which acknowledges and respects their mana and mauri.’ However, this imperative to protect also derives from the park’s World Heritage status, which ‘recognises the park’s cultural values; co-operative conservation management must protect them.’

4. To ensure World Heritage obligations are met and given effect

13 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The need to protect the park according to these international obligations is made explicitly here: ‘With this international recognition comes an obligation to protect those values in the face of global scrutiny.’

5. To give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Discussion of the principles is reserved for later in the plan, but their force is explicitly noted as being an essential feature of the plan: ‘They apply particularly to Tongariro National Park and must be given force through this plan’. The draft plan also asserts that there is a relationship between these principles and conservation principles: ‘There is a strong synergy between the Treaty principles and the broader conservation philosophies applied to park management.’ This, however, leaves open the possibility that Treaty principles may not always work in harmony with ‘conservation philosophies’.

6. To provide for co-operative conservation management This acknowledges that the involvement of iwi in park management is essential, and indicates broadly the areas where that involvement would be expected to take place: ‘Be it in decision-making processes for use of cultural materials, the reintroduction of previously present bird species, the consideration of concessions which may impact on cultural values or the development of further park guidelines or strategies, iwi will be critically involved’.

7. To reflect the values of the park partners in management This goes beyond involvement in management decisions, and provides a commitment to reflecting the values of different parties. What this could mean in practice should the values of the partners come into conflict is not spelled out here, but the possibility is inherent in this principle. There is no guarantee that the outcomes arrived at will reflect the values of the park partners, only that the partners have a role: ‘Many of the park’s partners, including Māori, non-Government organisations and groups set up to specifically protect the park, play an ongoing role in its management’.

24 This discussion is drawn from the Tongariro National Park Management Plan, DOC draft January 2003, pp 35-39

14 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

8. To provide for public enjoyment of natural and cultural heritage Providing for visitors while protecting the park environment is noted as a tension. Nevertheless, ‘the cultural heritage of the park cannot be divorced from its natural values’, and this has specific implications: ‘Tau iwi heritage within the park is of high value at a limited number of sites’.

9. To minimise infrastructure to that essential to provide for a national park experience

10. To honour existing legal agreements

These ten principles set the framework through which the management plan is developed. Principle 5 commits management to giving effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and a special section within the management plan is devoted to the identification and development of these principles as they relate to management.25 After asserting that Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Tahu are the tangata whenua of the Tongariro-Taupō Conservancy, the management plan notes nine important Treaty principles as having ‘broad application’ in the Conservancy. This section of the plan is taken straight from the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002- 2012.26 These principles are quoted directly as follows, with a brief discussion of some of them to draw out their possible implications:

1. Kāwanatanga – The principle of government This provides the authority to manage the TNP according to the appropriate legislation and in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

2. Tino rangatiratanga – The principle of traditional iwi authority It is noted as an objective: ‘To identify with iwi opportunities for them to exercise an effective degree of control over traditional resources and taonga that are administered by

25 This discussion is drawn from the Tongariro National Park Management Plan, DOC draft January 2003, pp 43-48

15 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present the Department, which is not inconsistent with legislation’, with the explanatory qualification that an ‘effective degree of control may vary from full authority at one end of the spectrum to a right to be consulted at the other end’. It is probable that the precise application of this objective would generate ongoing discussion and debate as specific cases arise.

3. Exclusive and undisturbed possession

4. Oritetanga – The principle of equality

5. Kaitiakitanga – The principle of guardianship The plan commits management to ‘facilitate the exercise of kaitiakitanga by iwi in respect of traditional resources and taonga of significance to them where these are administered by the Department’. The practical implications of this, for cases that arise, may lead to debate depending on what are identified as traditional resources and taonga.

6. Whakawhanaungatanga – The principle of partnership Very strong commitments are made here to working in partnership with iwi, and to develop a vigorous and respectful relationship which would be reflected in the culture of the Department in the park.

7. Tautiaki Ngangahau – The principle of active protection

8. He Here Kia Mohio – The duty of informed decision making Consultation with iwi that is ‘regular, active and meaningful’ must take place. In its Glossary, the TNPMP defines consultation as: ‘A genuine invitation to give advice and genuine consideration of that advice. To achieve consultation, sufficient information must be supplied and sufficient time allowed by the consulting party to be consulted to enable it to tender helpful advice. It involves an ongoing dialogue’.27

26 Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002-2012, DOC, Wellington 2002, pp 103-108

16 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

9. Whakatika i te Mea He – The principle of redress This commits management always to address seriously any potential Treaty breaches, as well as to assist in bringing to conclusion any outstanding Treaty claims relating to the Tongariro-Taupō Conservancy, and to deal with any grievances that tangata whenua might wish to bring forward concerning the administration of the TNP.

Discussion

In concluding this section, the Draft 2003 Tongariro National Park Management Plan lists 16 issues which it considers need to ‘be resolved to the satisfaction of iwi and the Department in order to achieve co-operative conservation management’. This is evidence that the plan does not consider that what has been achieved, and is in place thus far, necessarily fulfils what the principles expect, but that ongoing negotiation and work need to be done in order to bring practice in line with these principles. However, the application of the principles and the outcomes that might result ‘depends on the particular circumstances of each case, including the significance to iwi of the land, resource or taonga in question, and the statutory framework’. It would appear that the management plan commits TNP management to involve Māori actively in park management, and to deal with issues in a spirit of openness and with a willingness to accommodate Māori values where possible.

In its broad principled approach, the plan sets the standard of co-operation very high. A possible implication is that, should there appear to be irreconcilable differences of opinion, these would arise from imperatives coming from outside park management, such as legislation, that cannot be addressed within the TNP. It needs to be remembered, of course, that this management plan is very recent and has evolved in part as a response to issues within the park. The plan appears to be a significant attempt to confront issues from the past, as well as to set out the framework within which management hopes to engage with Māori in the future. It is noteworthy too, in comparison with former

27 TNPMP, Draft 2003, p 218

17 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present management plans, how much te reo is used, and this is further evidence of how far relationships in the park have evolved.

18 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Chapter 3: Management on the Ground in Tongariro National Park

While it is true that legislative requirements, and consultation and submissions on the conservation management strategy and Tongariro National Park management plan, had generated or resulted in pressure to change, the situation on the ground has much to do with the willingness of the parties to engage with each other.

Consultation prior to the 1980s

In a communication about the period immediately before the 1980s, and with some observations about the post-1980s period, Pat Devlin, a former seasonal ranger/naturalist and member of the TNP’s Scientific Advisory Committee, provides his understanding of how the relationship between park management and Māori developed from the 1960s.28

Here are a few thoughts on the way I saw things at Tongariro vis a vis the evolution of the role of the Māori dimension of the Park relative to its management for the recreation and inspiration of park visitors. I use the term Māori dimension because I cannot think of a better term at this stage. Other dimensions would include ecological, geological, botanical, recreational etc….

…my comments are generally limited to the period from 1964 to 1976 …There are two exceptions to this and each of these events which I will describe exemplifies the direction and breadth of change. The first was a visit in 1989 to a remarkable graduation ceremony for three Tūwharetoa students who were graduating from Lincoln University in Parks and Recreation Management. There was a huge crowd at Whakapapa (Visitors Centre, Mt Ruapehu) with Sir Hepi Te Heuheu officiating and me representing the University with delegated authority to confer the Diplomas. While the students were also graduated during the main event in Christchurch this I think was the first time an off-campus ceremony took place. The choice of Whakapapa as the site for the ceremony was, I believe, a very significant acknowledgement of the importance of management for protected areas by people with appropriate cultural as well as scientific training and empathy.

28 Email communication from Pat Devlin to Bruce Jefferies, forwarded to Mark Derby, 24 August 2004

19 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The second event was the official opening and blessing of the viewing platform constructed at Silica Springs. This occasion in Sept. 1998 was guided by Kaupapa Atawhai - Mr Hemi Kingi - who was full-time adviser to the Department of Conservation. For me, these two events are symbolic of a full swing of the pendulum from ad hoc and almost non-existent understanding of the Māori dimension to a solid and meaningful recognition of its importance and significance for all aspects of operation and management.

While the above events mark a huge change in terms of the physical expression of the Māori dimension, I believe we can look back to the 1960s and '70s as the decades in which Tongariro park staff consciously gave expression to their appreciation of the deep-seated cultural values associated with the park. The new park handbook set the platform for this with the inclusion of sections on the Gift, some popular stories associated with Māori history, myth and legend, plus the meanings given to well known place names.

John Mazey, the first of the chief rangers at the time, had a keen sense of history and a strong empathy for both the Māori and Pākehā history of the park and its regional settings, but it was senior ranger Peter Fletcher who I first heard giving a public presentation on the Māori aspects of the park. Peter gave evening talks during the Summer Nature Programme in which he told the stories as given in the handbook and described place names. (Bruce Jefferies comments: This would have been in the late 1960s.)

Concurrently with this I was making extensive use of stories about plants and animals – ‘ngā tamariki o Tāne Mahuta’ - of creation stories and departmental gods as a way to get children and adults interested in the forest and tussock, as well as the mountains and geological features. Use of the Māori versions of natural phenomena was also a meaningful way of connecting with park visitors. For example, a walk to Tama lakes would be incomplete without reference to Ngā Puna ā Tamatea Pokai Whenua, the springs of Tamatea, the great explorer for whom the lakes are named…. (These stories) offer a sense of continuity and cohesion which appeals to many people and enriches their experience and understanding of natural phenomena….

It became an accepted practice to include stories and descriptions to enrich walks and talks. Care with pronunciation of Māori language evolved with it.

I cannot comment with any depth on the relationship at the time with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, or the level of their involvement with management outside of representation by the late Sir Hepi Te Heuheu on the Park Board. I did note one night when I was giving a talk on ‘Māori History

20 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

and Legends of the Park’ that there was a small group of Māori in the audience - the first I had seen. They left as soon as the talk was finished but the next day John Mazey said to me that I “had passed the test”. Apparently some Tūwharetoa elders had decided to check what was being delivered about their mountains and tūpuna and were not dissatisfied with what they heard. It was also very clear that their concern was for the mana of their mountains.

This raises the sometimes vexed question about whether Pākehā interpreters/rangers should be telling these ‘stories’ about someone else’s ancestors and places. My personal view is that not only is it acceptable, it is obligatory. There are of course some important and essential caveats which I will not go into at this stage.

For most of the rangers I got to know during those decades, Māori spiritual and cultural values played an enduring role in the way things were done and made Tongariro a special place in which to work. It did not seem to matter that Tūwharetoa involvement (as I interpreted it) at that stage was relatively low key. The fact was that the history inherent in all of those landforms, once listened to, acted in the same way as a more formal presence. They were good times!

The justification for this extensive quotation is that it provides solid support for what was consistently acknowledged by all parties, namely a strong relationship of respect on the ground between park management and Māori. This has to be qualified to the extent that it largely focussed on Ngāti Tūwharetoa, but the ‘training’ this provided set park officials in good stead for the further development that was to occur later with Ngāti Rangi and other groups.

Role of key National Park staff

Another characteristic which has helped to build and maintain relationships has been the length of employment by key park officials. Bruce Jefferies was chief park ranger during the 1980s and early 1990s, while his successor as chief park ranger, Paul Green, is now the chief conservator. Mark Davies, the present manager of the Ruapehu conservancy, has been employed in the park for nine years. These individuals, who kindly agreed to be interviewed for this report, have a wealth of experience in the changing management practices and policies of the park, and have played key roles in conveying the

21 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present implications of these changes to Māori. Without the trust they have earned, the present degree of involvement of Māori in the park, and the high degree of confidence and expectation concerning future involvement, might not have occurred to the same extent. The risk this reveals is that successful management practice in the park has been established, in part, on the ability to retain staff who have then built up relationships. This pattern of long-term staff retention, while clearly beneficial, cannot be guaranteed for the future, and to that extent, exposes a possible fragility for best management outcomes between Crown and Māori.

Interviews with DoC staff and iwi representatives

Napa Otimi from the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board also agreed to be interviewed, and this, coupled with interviews with Richard Pirere and Clive Richards from Ngāti Rangi and Matthew Haitana of Ngāti Tamakana and his legal counsel, help to provide a perspective from the tangata whenua on how Māori involvement with park management has developed. A brief meeting with members of the Ngāti Rangi Trust provided further insight.29

In interview, these informants indicated what they considered to have been the most important developments since 1980. It was acknowledged that before the Department of Conservation was created, ‘there was ‘no real iwi consultation’.30 The only statutory requirement before the 1987 Conservation Act came into force was to have the paramount chief on the Park Board. The first time Paul Green noticed an effort to engage with Ngāti Tūwharetoa was in the 1985-87 lead-up to the park’s centenary celebrations.

Bruce Jefferies noted that in the period 1983-1984, the then secretary of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, Stephen Asher, initiated a drive to ‘employ young local people as interpreters on our summer nature programme. Some went on to complete the Parks and Recreation Course at Lincoln University and other professional involvement in

29 For details of interviews and email correspondence conducted for this report, see Appendix C. 30 Interview with Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies

22 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present conservation (eg. Rākei Taiaroa)’. Bruce Jefferies also noted that when the carving was commissioned for the Whakapapa Visitor’s Centre, he consulted Sir Hepi Te Heu Heu for approval of the design.

In 1987, the protocol for the centennial was handed over to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.31 While there was some initial protest from Ngāti Rangi, ‘the AV presentation brought these tribes together to tell their own stories’. The absence of channels with which to engage with Māori was noted: ‘The managers in this Park had a higher acceptance of the need to reflect Maori things than elsewhere but they didn’t have the channels’. This began to change in 1989 with the appointment of Māori liaison staff and kaupapa atawhai managers. These latter were executive-level positions. ‘We went to Ngāti Rangi and Tūwharetoa to set up the interview process. There was complete consensus on the final appointment’. However, Napa Otimi has expressed concerns at the resourcing of the kaupapa atawhai managers. ‘They are expected to be iwi relationship managers, but they are not resourced to do that so they are set up to fail’. Richard Pirere noted: ‘We’ve been lucky with the kaupapa atawhai people, Jimmy Maniapoto and his predecessor Hemi Kingi.’

Paul Green gave a perspective on the evolution of conservation management strategy:

The 1989 management plan was the first realistic attempt to incorporate a Māori perspective. By the Conservation Management Strategy in 1992 we’d learnt a lot. We went around to the (Tūwharetoa Māori) Trust Board and to the individual hapū. Next week we got a Treaty claim against us. (Wai 480). It was a wake-up call. So we got a working party formed with Joe Williams (as lawyer), me, a planner, the kaupapa atawhai manager, the Asher brothers, Richard Te Heu Heu, and a Crown Law solicitor. As time went on, the person stopping progress was that solicitor. The person having the biggest influence was Hemi Kingi (the kaupapa atawhai manager).

Napa Otimi noted the concerns of Ngāti Tūwharetoa at that time:

31 Interview with Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies

23 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

At the time of the Conservation Management Strategy, Sir Hepi was really concerned at the lack of acknowledgement (of Tūwharetoa’s mana whenua in the park). There had been a decline in Crown responsibility. He decided to lodge a Treaty claim against the Conservation Management Strategy. It took three to four years for the Department of Conservation to come back with a counter-proposal, where the Treaty is reflected in the legislation. We set aside the claim to develop better co-management relationships.

The park management remains confident about the amended Conservation Management Strategy, in particular the Kaupapa Rangatira strategy.32 ‘Hemi Kingi came up with the (Kaupapa Rangatira) principle and sold it to the other parties. Iwi have needed to help us determine where to go with it. Sometimes there has been a lack of clarity.’ Napa Otimi noted his opposition to the Kaupapa Rangatira scheme while he was a member of the Conservation Board because ‘it didn’t recognise our rights as (Treaty) partners’. In part, this stems from the fact that settlement with the Crown over Tūwharetoa Treaty claims is not complete, and Napa suggest that this raises the possibility of ‘a projected new relationship with DoC… DoC titles over land are coming back to Tūwharetoa and we are looking at joint-venture management of reserves. Only since 1992 have we started to exercise our ownership rights’. This is a general problem for all the parties, as there cannot be proper clarity about what might emerge until the Treaty claims settlement process is complete.

Ngāti Rangi’s relationship with DoC began later than Tūwharetoa’s. At a Ngāti Rangi Trust Board meeting, Toni Waho commented: ‘In 1992, the Ngāti Rangi Trust was established as a forum for liaison with public agencies such as DoC. From there the relationship began to build. The Trust had a DoC sub-committee meeting regularly from the mid-1990s.’ Ngāti Rangi acknowledge the support of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in recognition of their iwi’s manawhenua over Ruapehu. ‘When the Whakapapa Visitors’ Centre was opened, Tūwharetoa insisted on Ngāti Rangi involvement. We also had input

32 This strategy is set out on p 104 of the Tongariro Taupō Conservation Management Strategy 2002. The strategy aims to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the objectives as identified in section 3.7.4 of the Conservation Management Strategy. Protocols for consultation with iwi and the identification of specific concerns to iwi, as well as provision for monitoring and reporting processes and iwi participation, are all part of the strategy.

24 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present into their video presentation – they are beginning to acknowledge that we have been excluded all these years.’ Co-operation between Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Tūwharetoa was also evidenced in the support given by Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the claims over the Rangipō North No 8 block to the south of the mountain. This support was further recognition of Ngāti Rangi’s claims to manawhenua within the southern region of the park, and highlights the importance to Ngāti Rangi of involvement in park management.

However, they note a similar problem to that of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in relation to park management in general:

It is false to say that Ngāti Rangi is fully happy with its relationship with DoC. At a higher level, there has to be a big sort-out to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi’s mana with the maunga. We haven’t articulated how to negotiate that. It has always been deferred until after our Treaty claims are settled.’33

This complicates consideration of the approach Ngāti Rangi might take:

‘We don’t have legislative recognition of our rights to the park. We don’t yet know whether to go down that track (of co-operating with DoC via the management plan)’.34

Aside from these general issues concerning management involvement, some particular issues were also discussed in the interviews.

Ruapehu crater lake and the issue of lahars

In 1995 and 1996, after a series of volcanic eruptions, Mount Ruapehu’s crater lake was emptied and a wall of ash deposits was formed at the lake’s outlet. This means that once the lake refills a significant lahar is inevitable. A lahar is a combination of volcanic ash and debris which, when set in motion by water, can become a destructive mudflow. As well as preparation of an environmental impact report, extensive consultation took place

33 Toni Waho at Ngāti Rangi Trust meeting, 25 August 2004 34 Ibid

25 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present with iwi and the community about what course of action to take over the forthcoming lahar.

In October 1998, DoC released a report, Environmental and Risk Assessment for mitigation of the hazard from Ruapehu Crater Lake.35 The Department asked for submissions on this report, and comment on the options under consideration. A summary of these submissions indicates that the greatest support went to Option 1, namely: ‘allowing the lahar to occur with no engineering intervention at the crater or in the lahar flood zone’. This position was strongly supported by Ngāti Rangi, who argued against intervention as a cultural affront. In this, they were supported by the Ngāti Hikairo Forum (representing the group who regard themselves as the hapū within Ngāti Tūwharetoa with strongest manawhenua links to the mountains). While this option was also supported in principle by the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, especially in opposing any intervention at the crater rim, the Board was nevertheless prepared to support an alternative Option 2A1 (the construction of a bund at the spill-over point between the Whangaehu and Tongariro rivers), because of the mitigating effect this would have on damage to the Tongariro River and Lake Taupō.

The Minister of Conservation decided finally not to intervene at the crater lake, instead opting for the construction of an early warning system and an embankment near the park boundary to prevent a lahar from spilling over onto State Highway One and the Waikato catchment. Both these steps have been implemented and in April 2002 the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee ‘welcomed decisions made by the Minister and hoped that all parties would accept them’.36

The decisions taken here, while not solely in response to Māori concerns, nevertheless gave consideration of those concerns, and the outcome was acceptable from the point of view of the tangata whenua, as evidenced through the interviews (see below). There does

35 The following information about environmental impact report, submissions and recommendations is taken from the Department of Conservation website, www.doc.govt.nz Tongariro/Taupō, Ruapehu Crater Lake 36 www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/World-Heritage/index.asp : Section II: Tongariro, p 12

26 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present not appear to be any genuine risk at this stage that the decision not to intervene at the crater lake may be overturned. Other arguments against intervention concerning practicality, popularity, cost, environmental damage and objections by the World Heritage Committee also served to reinforce the position of Māori, leading to a mutually acceptable outcome.

In interview, the following points were made. Napa Otimi stated: ‘The lahar issue has gone well. Ngāti Rangi and Tūwharetoa said the crater lake should not be touched. We regard it as a traditional burial ground. Nature should be left to take its course. DoC supported us and have maintained that position.’ Paul Green noted: ‘We’ve got to be careful that we don’t just hide behind the iwi position (on the lahar). The media have repeatedly tried to (suggest that we are deferring to the Māori position), when it simply happens to coincide with our own – for different reasons maybe.’ The crater lake is of special importance to Ngāti Rangi and as Napa Otimi acknowledged: ‘For (Ngāti Rangi) protection of the crater lake, Te Wai a Moe, is paramount’. The parties are generally happy about the actions taken and the consultation that occurred, the only exception being Ngāti Tamakana, who opposed the options taken.37

Commercial operations in the park and the management of tourism concessions, including the Tūroa ski-field, and expansions of other ski fields

As noted in the Tongariro National Park Information Pack, September 1999:

To operate, the skifield companies must have a concession, the fee for which is based on their income. This fee recognises that a private organisation is operating on public land. The fee covers the use of a public resource and is used for the costs of monitoring activities. Extra levies are also charged to cover services provided such as rubbish collection and the ‘volcanic eruption detection system’.38

37 Interview with Mark McGhee and Matthew Haitana: ‘I (Mark McGhee) went to Wellington on (Ngāti Tamakana’s) behalf and supported the Ruapehu District Council in their proposal to drain the water out. We were the only iwi group that took this position.’ 38 Tongariro National Park Information Pack, September 1999, p 18

27 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The Draft Tongariro National Park Management Plan indicates that a number of criteria are taken into account when considering an application for a concession. Two criteria in particular allow Māori input, namely: ‘What is the activity’s impact on cultural values?’ and: ‘Has the applicant consulted with iwi?’39 In submissions on this draft, the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust both strongly opposed these whole sections, as there were not specific requirements for a partnership approach to decision-making. The Department noted these concerns and committed itself to amending the plan to recognise the need to prepare protocols under He Kaupapa Rangatira for tangata whenua input into the development and management of the ski areas and Whakapapa Village. Whether or not this will be sufficient to meet the concerns of Māori cannot as yet be established.

The history of the three ski fields of Whakapapa, Tūroa and Tūkino is briefly covered in the Draft 2003 Tongariro National Park Management Plan.40 As noted in the draft management plan:

All three ski areas are held under licence and are subject to the provisions of the National Parks Act 1980. Whakapapa and Tūroa are operated on a commercial basis under separate licences by the same company, Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Ltd. The licences have some decades to run. Tūkino, the smallest ski area, is run by a small group of clubs on a not-for-profit basis for the benefit of its club members. The Tūkino Mountain Clubs Association (TMCA) holds a licence which will expire during the term of this plan.41

Tūkino is the smallest of the ski fields and there has been limited development. It is envisaged that it will continue as a ‘low impact, minimal development club-operated ski area’.42 Except as part of more explicit management involvement in ski areas, there do not seem to be any issues apparent between the Department and Māori concerning Tūkino. It is noted that should TMCA cancel its ski area licence or accept its expiry, then

39 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 123 40 Draft 2003 TNPMP, pp 150 -165 41 Draft 2003, TNPMP, p 147 42 Draft 2003, TNPMP, p 149

28 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present it would be obligated to return the land to its natural state, removing all ski area infrastructure.43

Tūroa is more extensively developed and has, since 2000, been run by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Ltd. The draft management plan suggests that, while it is not in the business of determining the optimum level of development in terms of the maximum number of persons who could use the field at one time, future developments will be limited by ‘ski area boundaries within which the various concessionaires can maintain and enhance operations’.44 Together with the further proviso: ‘The comfortable carrying capacity of Tūroa Ski Area is now far more likely to be set by environmental determinants and infrastructure constraints’, it therefore seems that any expansion of Tūroa is ruled out. This conclusion fits with the minimal expectation of Māori who would oppose any expansion, preferring if anything a contraction in existing use.

Whakapapa ski area has had a long association with Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Ltd, beginning in 1953, and the company presently holds a single licence for this area to 2019. Significant development has taken place over the years, with new lift systems, upgrades of beginners’ areas and base facilities, and a snowmaking system installed in 2002. There are also 47 club lodges at Iwikau Village which pay a levy for the cost of services provided by DoC.

A landscape study, conducted in 1986, came to the following conclusions and recommendations, as they relate to existing developments:45

S In general, the impact of most ski area development is localised within the ski area although some structures are visible from some distance.

S Ski area development has resulted, however, in concentrated areas of highly modified landscape to the detriment of landscape values in adjacent areas.

43 Ibid, p 149 44 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 151 45 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 157

29 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

S An absence of landscape planning is reflected in the poor integration with the landscape of developments such as car parks, buildings and structures.

S Development to date has resulted in a broad band of modified landscape to an altitude of 2250 metres. Within this existing band, opportunities exist for further provision of facilities without significantly reducing visual quality, either from within or beyond the ski area.

Although the same constraints as in Tūroa are acknowledged for the Whakapapa ski area, concerning boundary, infrastructure and environmental determinants, the fourth point of the 1986 landscape study does envisage developments along the lines of facility provision. Precisely what form this might take, and what effect Māori involvement might have through He Kaupapa Rangatira, cannot be determined at this stage. However, the management plan does formally commit management:

not to allow any further expansion of the Whakapapa and Iwikau Village amenity areas and to permit developments of ski infrastructure only within licensed ski areas. This approach will preclude commercial activity overwhelming the natural setting’.46

Finally it is noted that requests by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Ltd to expand the upper limit of the ski field have been rejected by DoC, which has kept the limit below 2300 metres. Not to do so would ‘result in a significant alteration of the natural character of the landscape, will degrade the cultural values for which this site is managed and will have a significant adverse effect on mountain users’.47

While this limit on expansion would accord with the desires of Māori, the coming together of a range of concerns which reinforce the wishes of Māori make it more likely that policy will reflect the particular concerns of Māori. In as far as conservation priorities and Māori concerns coincide, then the relationship between Māori and DoC in the park will tend to run more smoothly.

46 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 98 47 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 158

30 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Two main issues arose in interview. The first was essentially a positive point about expanding Māori employment in the park, both by DoC and by at least some of the commercial operators. Napa Otimi claimed that ‘there were guarantees (of Māori employment) initially (eg, when the ski fields were established). Until the late 1980s-90s, there were few Tūwharetoa employed. Now it’s a different story. Our people carry with them their traditional culture and it’s starting to pervade the work ethic. Ruapehu Alpine Lifts have provided some delivery of opportunities for our people.’ This point was also made by park management48: ‘Employment of Māori people in the ski area was practically zilch until the 1980s. Now a high percentage of the staff come from the local area.’ Paul Green was even more explicit with regard to DoC staff employed in the National Park: ‘I’m disappointed that there are not more Tūwharetoa on our staff. It’s not for want of trying. Their priority is (training and employment in private) business. We are trying to work out ways to encourage school leavers to get professional training in conservation, so they eventually get my job and Mark’s (Davies).’

For Ngāti Rangi, as noted by Clive Richards: ‘Training is one of our drives – providing the opportunity for our rangatahi to come through the (DoC training) process and bring their Māori voices with them. The conservation ranger course in Nelson has been good for our iwi – one of our rangatahi, a wahine, is down there.’ Mark Davies acknowledged the work of Ngāti Rangi here: ‘Ngāti Rangi are probably more advanced in this area (of professional conservation training). They have a joint-venture training course with the local high school, Ruapehu College. The first graduates then went through our (DoC) training programme. Ngāti Rangi have joint management of the Rangatāua block under the Kārioi Rahui scheme.’ Very recently, a draft protocol on employment strategy has been developed between the Ngāti Rangi Trust Board and the DoC Tongariro Taupō Conservancy, Ruapehu Area. Overall, this is evidence of emerging initiatives.

As regards the concessions, and Māori involvement with them, this is clearly still evolving. As Richard Pirere noted, at the time of the opening of Tūroa ski field ‘we had no relationship with the company (Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Ltd). They asked the iwi to do a

48 Interview with Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies

31 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present blessing for the opening. Tumu (Te Heu Heu) acknowledged that we (Ngāti Rangi) should start the karakias off. Tūwharetoa would then follow. Later we started talking with them (Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Ltd) about their planned developments (eg. the Mountain to Sea race). Our people made the approach.’ From this beginning, further possibilities emerged: ‘As developments in the park arose, there was contact with the iwi. Not enough, but from nothing it was a big jump. Once we started to learn what was really happening in terms of development in the ski field and the park, we wanted more input.’

With this recent evolution in expectations and possibilities concerning the relationships with concessionaires, there is some hesitation as to how best to proceed. As Clive Richards noted: ‘We hadn’t decided what was appropriate. The concessions were already in place by the time consultation with us started. It will be interesting to see what happens from now on. It is only in the last ten years that a real iwi consultation process has started. The resource consent process brought it about. Before that there were bits and pieces of contact at different times but nothing formal or consistent’. This lack of consultation at the establishment of the present licences still rankles with some members of Ngāti Rangi, especially given their exclusion from any commercial benefit that has since followed, but ‘we know that when it (the Tūroa ski-field licence) comes up again (for renewal), we’ll be sitting right up the front’49. The existence of a three-way liaison committee (DoC-Ruapehu Alpine Lifts-Ngāti Rangi) was acknowledged by Richard Pirere, but he noted that this committee had not met for some time.

The advances made, and some of the difficulties, were noted by park management. ‘Licences to allow concessionaires to do certain things in the Gift area will be looked at particularly closely. We are moving to joint management but the government is not funding us for that. So for every step to honour this commitment, the money has to come from something else. For example, at the start of the ski season we hold a ceremony to open the ski field and lift the tapu, with breakfast afterwards. You would need to allow an extra 15-20% factor (on top of the current budget) to enable you to be positive and

49 Interview with Richard Pirere and Colin Davies

32 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present proactive.’50 DoC’s evolving role in partnership will, in turn, increase expectations to deliver, with consequences for the Department’s expenditure.

The problem of having granted concessions in a previous era when consultation with Māori did not occur was also acknowledged by Paul Green: ‘There is tension around some things like guiding over the mountain or the ski-fields, which date from earlier developments. We’d prefer those not to have happened. But by and large, most people are in accord (over the current tourism concessions).’ Guiding on the Tongariro Crossing is under discussion with Ngāti Hikairo, who want a more explicit and exclusive role in guiding than the park management is presently able to permit. Negotiations are continuing to find some acceptable compromise.

Mark Davies drew attention to the fact of more direct engagement by concessionaires with iwi: ‘The (Grand Chateau) hotel went through an 18-month consultation period regarding the 40-room extension, and developed a relationship management plan. The ski area is the same (Ruapehu Alpine Lifts has just signed a memorandum of understanding with Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Rangi). They consult each other independently of us, about employment issues mainly but not exclusively.’ The further point was made that the park management has been dealing solely with Ngāti Tūwharetoa (including the group within Ngāti Hikairo who regard themselves as a hapū of this iwi) and with Ngāti Rangi, because it has only recently became aware of other groups, such as Ngāti Tamakana, which also claim some degree of manawhenua over the mountain region. Like so much else in this rapidly developing climate, it is too early to say what the full impact will be for the various Māori groupings as they engage more comprehensively in this aspect of park management.

Management of sewage and wastewater from ski-lodges

Policy from the 1990 Tongariro National Park Management Plan required that licensees provide receptacles for rubbish and that they be regularly maintained, that other forms of

50 Interview with Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies

33 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present litter such as tickets or foodwraps be discouraged and that all rubbish and non-essential material be removed from the vicinity of operations.51 Licensees also had to provide adequate toilet facilities, and where new toilets discharged effluent into the ground, that these had to be sited where the potential for pollution was minimal.52 It was noted that ‘a sewage treatment plant disposes of effluent from the village and is operating at above capacity’.53

Generally, it was policy to encourage minimal water consumption in all water-using facilities. Roof run-off was identified as the most economic source of water. In principle: ‘Particular attention will be paid to methods of waste disposal, heating and siting facilities to ensure that park waters, land and air are maintained as far as possible in their natural state’.54

While these safeguards are entirely appropriate given the nature of the park and the statutory requirements to protect it, there was no mention of Māori concerns, should there have been any, nor any formalised commitment to consult with Māori over views or input they might wish to have had considered.

In the latest draft management plan, there is a strong commitment to either processing effluent in a new sewage treatment plant, or removing effluent from the park for treatment elsewhere.55 It is noted that a new sewage treatment plant would be operational by the summer of 2003/2004, which should cover the short and medium term needs of park users and operators.56 In interview, Mark Davies noted that: ‘We’ve just completed a $4 million sewerage scheme to take effluent off the mountain, which was opened by Tumu Te Heu Heu two weeks ago (in mid-August 2004). He acknowledged that he wants people to come and enjoy themselves, but the effects have to be managed to the highest

51 1990 TNPMP, Vol. ii, p 61 52 1990 TNPMP, Vol ii, p 70 53 1990 TNPMP, Vol iii, p 27 54 1990 TNPMP, Vol i, p 50 55 TNPMP, Draft 2003, p 50 56 TNPMP, Draft 2003, p 202

34 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present level.’ Within the draft management plan, it is affirmed that all rubbish is disposed of outside the park, and that management is moving towards a zero waste philosophy.

The commitment to consult and involve Māori made more generally elsewhere in the management plan would lead to an expectation that Māori have an active role in the formulation of policy as regards rubbish and effluent. The Department does commit itself to full consultation with Māori on the question of permitting the use of private water supply schemes for individual requirements.

As in so many other management issues, the real test is not in the expressions of commitment to consultation, vitally important though they are, but in the practical implications of consultation for management practice. It is just too early to say what is likely to be the outcome here.

Geothermal issues

Ketetahi Springs, which arise from a geothermal field under the northern and central areas of Mount Tongariro, have been retained in Māori ownership. Restricted access is allowed to these springs, which are reputed to have healing powers. The draft management plan acknowledges overcrowding of car parks at the Ketetahi Track leading to the springs.57 The implications for Māori of increased management input here are not clear.

There is a management difference between Ngāti Tūwharetoa and park management concerning geothermal resources. Napa Otimi states that Ngāti Tūwharetoa have been ‘studying geothermal resources on Tūwharetoa lands. The Conservation Board have said that we have the right to test in DoC lands. Our geothermal management plan is opposing a Resource Management Act application to lock up land in perpetuity – that is, Wahikāroa plus part of Rotoaira Forest. We know of the difficulties (in testing geothermal resources in the conservation estate), but it’s about managing risk.’ The

57 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 96

35 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present matter is also noted by park management: ‘Another tension area is geothermal extraction. We’ve given approval for Tūwharetoa to test in the park. We’ll be clearly opposed to any development of a geothermal resource within the park.’58 Whether this emerges as a serious issue will in part depend on what exploration actually finds.

Animal pest and weed control, specifically the bio-controls for heather, and the use of controversial controls such as 1080 poison

The introduction of the various flora pests of the park, in particular lodge-pole pine (Pinus contorta), heather (Calluna vulgaris) and broom (Cytisus scoparius), as well as the fauna pests deer and opossums, has created serious problems of pest control for management. As regards lodge-pole pine, the Tongariro National Park Information Pack notes: ‘All the major landowners and managers (district councils, military, Department of Conservation, and iwi groups) have agreed to remove all their seed-bearing trees from the surrounding area’.59 To effect the eradication of this pest necessitates co-operation from landowners for the common good, so iwi involvement here is not surprising. Without control of this plant pest, it is considered that most open areas below 2000 metres in the park would be wilding pine forest.60

Introduced heather has taken hold very strongly and is now prolific in the park area. It is difficult to eliminate since, if uprooted, it causes its seed to fall, which usually grows very fast, and spraying normally kills other desirable species. The park has begun a form of biological control with the introduction from Scotland of the heather beetle that only feeds on heather. This was introduced into the park in 1996, and although not expected to remove the heather entirely, may slow its spread and allow time for native plants to regenerate.61 Broom has been equally a menace, and a similar sort of biological control is being tried against it.

58 Interview with Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies 59 Tongariro National Park Information Pack, September 1999, p 9 60 Draft 2003 TNPMP, p 55 61 Tongariro National Park Information Pack, September 1999, pp 9-10

36 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Deer can be hunted in the park with a DoC permit. Park management also allows the commercial recovery of deer, but in a limited fashion. These operations are restricted to the winter months, and due to ‘the limited opportunity for commercial deer recovery and the potential impact low-flying aircraft can have on the experience and enjoyment of some visitors’62 have been limited to four operators. These operations will be reviewed annually as to their effectiveness by park management.

That the opossum, or possum, is a major menace is not denied by anyone. The issues that arise concern the methods used in its control. For Māori in the park, another question arises about their involvement in decisions taken to control this pest. From the submissions made on the draft management plan, there do not seem to be any issues or concerns identified. However, in interview, the following very useful background and insight into the present position was offered by Paul Green and Mark Davies:

This area (Rangatāua) was identified back in about 1983 as a possible extension of the National Park. We were aware that Ngāti Rangi had Treaty claims over the area so we didn’t proceed, but in 1994 we did a possum culling operation. Our consultation then wasn’t particularly good. We knew Ngāti Rangi were opposed but we decided to go ahead. Ngāti Rangi then lodged a court injunction and our formal relationship deteriorated, but at a personal level it didn’t affect us. We took them up to the Waikato to see the results of similar (possum culling) operations there. They really had an open mind and realised that the forest was in trouble. The result was joint management. We agreed that the injunction wasn’t about whether to control pests, but how. (Their concern over the use of 1080 poison) stemmed from New Zealand’s worst 1080 disaster at Kārioi, which killed nearly every bird. Whatever happens with the Treaty claim (over the Rangatāua block), some joint management will occur.

Mark Davies noted how the relationship had developed:

We’re ten years down the track. We now have a programme with Ngāti Rangi doing possum control every year. The (TNP) management committee have agreed to the restoration of the mauri of the maunga to (early NZ naturalist Dr Leonard) Cockayne’s benchmark description. Same with the heather beetle. Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Rangi both regard the

62 Draft 2003, TNPMP, p 141

37 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

vegetation on the mountain as the cloak on their tūpuna. They conceptualise pest control in that manner. So it’s just a question of how we do it.

These quotations serve to illustrate how a relationship that could have gone very sour appears to be presently working extremely well. This may have something to do with a point already adverted to, namely the length of service and respect that certain park management people have attained. Napa Otimi mentioned this: ‘One of the good things about dealing with DoC is that we have been dealing with the same people for the last ten years. It’s about taking little steps.’ Richard Pirere and Clive Richards made a similar point: ‘A relationship has been built up with Paul Green. He came from the ground roots here and has a long association with the area. That’s a big factor in building up a relationship with us. With Mark Davies as well’.

While these interviews largely focussed on Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Rangi perspectives of park management, all acknowledged the role of other Māori groups, in particular that of Ngāti Hikairo. Napa Otimi noted that ‘Ngāti Hikairo are starting to exercise their mana whenua, their ahi kā over the land. They are concerned about the level of development on Tongariro’. Richard Pirere noted that Ngāti Hikairo have come to the fore more recently and that: ‘We’ve had a couple of meetings with Hikairo and Tūwharetoa and are starting to set down protocols.’ Park management mentioned the special efforts made to ensure that Ngāti Hikairo submissions to the management plan could be heard. Other groups such as Ngāti Tamahaki and Ngāti Tamakana may bring further perspectives as they are involved in the consultation process. Precisely how all these voices will be balanced remains a major challenge for the future in park management.

The Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions Analysis May 2003 (updated January 2004)

As already noted, another important documentary source for the identification of Maori concerns is DoC’s Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions

38 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Analysis, May 2003 (updated January 2004). There were five clearly identifiable Maori submission groups. These were: S Ruapehu Law for Wai 954, submission no. 27 S Ngāti Te Ika-Hikairo, submission no. 29 S Ngāti Rakeipoho ki Hikairo, submission no. 76 S Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, submission no. 82 S Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust, submission no. 83

Submission 27 wanted, within the Treaty of Waitangi section (page 43, paragraph 1), a rewording to reflect Ngāti Uenuku’s63 tribal domain. This submission was adopted.

The major part of the submissions, and actions taken as a result, have come from the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust. Much of what was proposed in the plan was supported by these groups, but they also had concerns which the park management was able, in part, to respond to by amending the draft plan. These concerns are summarised here, but the major part of the summarised submissions for both these groups, and the responses of DoC, are contained in Appendices A and B.

Both the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board (TMTB) and the Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust want to be actively involved in management. For the TMTB, this is expressed particularly through a desire for a joint management board. The Department rejects any necessity for this, and argues that He Kaupapa Rangatira will effectively address the management concerns of Māori. Many submissions in favour of expressly including consultation with tangata whenua are adopted, and generally there is a high level of support for the plan. Much of what is submitted is adopted entirely or in part, and there is a clear willingness on the part of the Department not only to engage with Māori concerns, but also to address them to a significant extent within the management plan.

63 Ngāti Uenuku are described in the Wai 1170 statement of claim (Wai 1170 #1.1) as an ancient tribe of which Ngāti Tamakana are a hapū. In this claim, Ngāti Uenuku assert mana whenua to the western side of Mt Ruapehu.

39 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The general thrust of both groups is to limit any further development in the park, and reduce present levels of development where possible. The emphasis from these submissions, therefore, falls firmly on more explicit tangata whenua involvement at all levels of park management, within a general perspective of conservation and protection, and strong reservations about commercial and tourism developments that could threaten this.

Discussion

The relationship between DoC and Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Hikairo and Ngāti Rangi in the TNP has grown steadily, particularly in the 1990s. A plethora of initiatives, acknowledgements and meetings has characterised the recent past. As noted, this has occurred both because of changing legislative requirements and because of the trust and respect built up between the parties. As a consequence, general initiatives have been practically explored in concrete policy. On the whole, progress has been made. This is acknowledged by both park management and local iwi and hapū, who are generous in their praise and support of the work of each other in fostering the very good relationship that presently exists in the park.

From the perspective of Māori, this should not allow a too forgetful approach to the past. The very high degree of present involvement, and the envisaged greater involvement, brings out the contrast with the past. While Māori are indeed grateful for the present advances, this is tempered by the consideration that what is happening now is appropriate movement in the right direction, not some generous concession. There is still work to do, as noted by Napa Otimi: ‘Have we achieved kaupapa rangatira? I think not. That’s why I’ve kept the CMS (Wai 480) claim alive.’ While it would be anachronistic to have expected that the initiatives of the 1990s should have been in place at some earlier point in the history of the park, nevertheless a greater acknowledgement of the proper place of Māori in the park might have meant that Māori would have been better placed to respond to the present changed policies. This is felt especially by Ngāti Rangi, who consider that their relationship with park management up to the mid-1990s was one of invisibility. In

40 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present interview, it was apparent that Māori would not want this aspect to be too readily forgotten in the present optimism.

Furthermore, the lack of involvement of Māori in the park prior to the 1980s does have a direct bearing on what is recognised by all parties as being one of the major challenges for the future. Regardless of what should have been the case, Māori in practice are recent partners in the park. They have neither the financial resources nor the expertise in many cases to engage at the level that they might wish, or that opportunities opened up might demand. It is likely that, for Māori, part of their ongoing relationship in the park will centre around their ability to rise to the challenge (in some cases the burden) of partnership. Park management is part of the responsibility of a funded, professional government agency, and as such, starts with certain solid advantages. What is promising is the acknowledgement by park management of this challenge facing Māori who wish to engage further in management. The sharing of GPS (electronic mapping) resources is one example of how the much better resourced Department has shown a willingness to include Māori practically in park life. Park ranger training schemes for members of the local iwi and hapū are another example. Initiatives such as these begin to break down some of the still significant barriers to proper participation by Māori. Nevertheless, until such time as Māori are able to participate at a proper level of funding and expertise, frustrations that might arise in the relationship between Māori and DoC are likely to have their source in this imbalance. Correcting this, which is not entirely the responsibility of the parties within the park, is probably one of the greatest challenges to the relationship over the next 20 years.

Most of the issues identified in this report are ongoing management issues which would be expected to arise in the presence of differing viewpoints. They do not point in any obvious way to fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the approach to park management. The extent of management participation by Māori within the park remains an ongoing concern, but is tempered by the fact that the present proposals have not yet been fully tested. The very success of the park generates other tensions, as the draft management plan points out:

41 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Tongariro National Park’s regional economic significance is substantial. Hundreds of thousands of visitors come to the park each year, adding value to the economy and highlighting the Volcanic Plateau in the global tourism market. The continued drive to maximise economic benefits is not always compatible with the primary focus required in legislation.64

Working within these tensions and balancing them is a challenge faced by all parties involved in park management.

This report comes at an important crossroads in the history of Tongariro National Park. The relationship is changing rapidly as Māori enter more and more into the process. But it is still early days. The full impact, the full meaning, of increased participation has yet to be discovered. There is a sense in which the real tests are perhaps still to come. These are challenges recognised by all the parties, which is why the goodwill and respect built up thus far is so important for the future. The unity of purpose among Māori, which does not pretend to claim that there are no differences or tensions between Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Hikairo and Ngāti Rangi, as well as perhaps some other emerging iwi and hapū, has enabled them to work together supportively, or at least not at odds with each other. This has meant a more focussed approach towards DoC in terms of what Māori would expect and hope to achieve, and has made the task of the Department easier to so respond in the face of shared Māori concerns. Both parties have brought practical strengths of unity and common purpose in their approach and expectations about park management, which has made working together clearer. The continuation of this approach is likely to be just as fruitful for the future interests of all parties.

It is very clear from the interviews conducted that the park itself, the beauty and magic of this region, has impressed itself on the souls of those, both Pākehā and Māori, who live and work here. It may be presumptuous in a report of this nature to make the following claim, but the ultimate common purpose of all the parties would seem to lie in trying to be effective servants of the park. The ambition to do this is what drives and will continue to drive the debates and advances of the next years, and the perception that this common

42 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present purpose is shared by all the parties provides the basis for the present respect between them. The unity that the park has engendered in recent years may yet be one of the greatest fruits of the Gift.

64 Draft Tongariro National Park Management Plan, January 2003, p 33

43 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Chapter 4 - Conclusion

In general outline, what has occurred over the 24 years since the National Parks Act 1980, as regards Māori participation in TNP management, has been a belated but growing legislative compulsion, as well as park management willingness, to involve Māori in the affairs of the park. With the first formal legislative requirement in 1987 for government departments to be responsive to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori involvement in TNP management was set on a path for re-evaluation. The Tongariro National Park Management Plan, at that time well into formulation and finally released in 1990, made negligible mention of Māori and there was no explicit role for Māori in terms of consultation or any perception that Māori agreement might need to be sought for certain policies. The tangata whenua of the area, including Ngāti Tūwharetoa and their local hapū and Ngāti Rangi, could nevertheless expect that their concerns would be addressed more explicitly and formally, and that if it failed to do so, the park management would henceforth be failing in its statutory duty.

During the 1990s a conservation management strategy had to be formulated, and it was while this was in progress that Māori concerns about the lack of management involvement for Māori, and lack of explicit consideration for specific Māori interests, gathered momentum. A claim, Wai 480, was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal, and the conservation management strategy itself was delayed to consider Māori objections. Not only was there the legislative requirement to avoid acting in a manner contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the granting of World Heritage status and recognition of the cultural values of the park put further obligations on park management to be sensitive to the concerns of the tangata whenua.

This reports notes the real efforts made by DoC, and those responsible for park management in particular, to make significant adjustments to both the conservation management strategy and the TNP management plan in order to involve Māori in a manner appropriate under Treaty principles. This has meant active engagement with

44 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Māori through the 1990s in trying to formulate robust strategies and plans. The Wai 480 claim is currently not being actively pursued as efforts have been made to address the concerns that initially drove it.

This is not to say that there are not areas of tension remaining. In general, park management is confident that He Kaupapa Rangatira will be the best way forward for allowing Māori direct and active involvement in park management. The Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board in particular wishes to have a joint management board as a more explicit guarantee of management partnership.

A second area of tension concerns the relationship between conservation and development as driven by growing tourist numbers with pressure on existing resources. The park management is legislatively bound to accommodate the desires of the public for access to the park and for the enjoyment of the facilities, but in such a way as to be consistent with the natural and cultural values of the park. With a growing desire of people to come to the park, this puts pressure on management to protect the park while facilitating the expectations of growing numbers of visitors. The tangata whenua particularly value the natural and cultural treasure that is the park, and are extremely reluctant to expand facilities to accommodate growing numbers of visitors and users. While park management is largely in sympathy with this, it does not have the authority to restrict unduly what has been developed, but rather to ensure that it is tightly regulated in the interests of the park.

A further area of potential tension concerns the formal recognition of manawhenua in the park for groups such as Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Hikairo and others in the process of emerging. Ngāti Tūwharetoa have a recognised position stemming from the original gifting which has given them a special relationship within park management. While there would appear to be little tension at the moment among Māori groups, rather a willingness to work with each other, this may become difficult to maintain if it came to be perceived that certain groups had more influential positions than others from which to argue their respective cases.

45 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Finally, it needs to be remembered that none of the Māori groups in the park have settled their Treaty claims as yet. As noted, one concern about the future revolves around Māori ability to engage as comprehensively with DoC as they might wish, and which the opportunities opened up make attractive. To the extent that the settlement process, whatever that may involve, is not yet complete, it is hard to judge how successful the recent initiatives identified for the park will be in the future. These may depend in part on what Māori receive in settlement should the Crown agree to offer redress for their claims, and how that impacts on their ability to engage in management structures and decisions.

Particular issues came up in our interviews which threw light on specific areas of ongoing and potential tension, as well as on the constructive ways in which potential conflict has been dealt with. Dealing with the crater lake lahar brought the parties together for a solution that was generally acceptable. Other issues concerning the crater lake will be dealt with in ongoing discussions, but at this stage, there can be no certainty about outcomes. Existing concessions will run their course, with Māori having increasingly formalised relationships and input into the areas covered by the concessions. Māori would expect that when the next round of licences and concessions are granted, they would have direct input into the decisions made. No commercial developments are planned beyond what has already occurred. Training initiatives appear at this point very promising. The extent of possible geothermal issues remains unclear until exploration is complete. There does not appear to be any serious disagreement about pest control. In general, particular issues do not appear, for the moment, to be a great cause of concern. Management structures are being further refined, and protocols jointly put in place, which at the very least suggest that future discussions, developments and disagreements would take place in a more informed and participatory framework.

Overall, there is a sense of a new beginning for park management, with the fruitful involvement of the tangata whenua. There is much goodwill, which should ensure that many issues and problems that may arise will be discussed openly and honestly, with partnership, protection and participation acknowledged. This is the hope, but it needs to

46 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present be stressed too that the strategies and plans are only the beginning. They have not yet been applied over time, and it is through their application that they will be tested. Concerns about management, whether a joint management body really is required, or whether the tensions between conservation and development will lead to policies that put tangata whenua and DoC into conflict, are questions that can only be addressed once the plan and strategy have had time to work through these concerns.

From both Māori and DoC, there has evidently been tremendous work done to listen to and express the interests and concerns of the other in official documentation. This provides an optimistic basis for the working of their relationship in the park. The ground has been well ploughed, the seed is sown, the future will tell the harvest. For the moment there are, in practice, three ‘guardians’ of the park, namely the tangata whenua as primary guardians, DoC and World Heritage. The success of their guardianship will spring from the robustness of their relationships.

Finally, this report had to consider whether another more substantial report is required for the period in question. On the basis of this report, which nevertheless does not pretend to be comprehensive, it is felt that a further report is not necessary at this stage. Throughout the period, Māori and DoC in Tongariro National Park have confronted a number of broad issues which this report has identified and commented on, and have put in place plans and strategies to deal with them. Both groups would appear to be reasonably content that their concerns have been listened to, and that what has been arrived at is a fair attempt at workable solutions. In the absence of explicit grievances, unacknowledged and unaddressed, there does not seem much advantage in pursuing the history of those issues which have arisen between park management and Māori in a more in-depth fashion.

It needs to be noted as well that this report is not the last word on this relationship, as tangata whenua evidence should provide an opportunity for a deeper hearing of issues raised here. It is hoped that that evidence, in conjunction with what has been explored

47 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present here, would contribute towards a solid basis on which the relationship between the Crown and Māori in the Tongariro National Park management can be assessed.

48 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Bibliography

Official

Department of Internal Affairs

AAAC 7923/W5158/237, PDR 5917 pt 1, Planning Devt & Research – TNP 1981-87 AAAC 7922/W5158/42, 2485/2/8, Environment – TNP, 1987-91 AAAC 7922/W5158/42, 2455/0, Environment geothermal 1988 AAAC 7922/W5158/42, 2485/0, Environment National Parks policy, general, 1987-91

Department of Conservation Head Office

AANS W3832/4, 2/19/1, Waimarino Wildlife Trust 1989 AANS W3832/4, 2/19/6, Waimarino Acclimatisation 1986-88 AANS W3832/14, 19/5/8, National State forest, Maritime & other Parks – Tongariro (1980-82) AANS W3832/14, 19/5/8 pt 2, Tongariro 1980-82 AANS W3832/25, 19/2/2 pt 3, National Park policies 1986 AANS W3832/25, 19/1/1 pt 5, National Park amendments, 1983-85

Department of Conservation – Whakapapa and Tūrangi archives

Conservation Management Strategy, Tongariro Taupo Conservancy, Department of Conservation, 2002 Tongariro National Park Management Plan, 1979 Tongariro National Park Background Management Plan Review 1985, Department of Lands and Survey, 1985 Tongariro National Park Management Plan review: section one, Department of Conservation, 1987 Tongariro National Park Management Plan Review, Summary of Submissions on the Draft Plan, Department of Conservation, 1987 Tongariro National Park Management Plan, Vols. 1,2, and 3, Department of Conservation, 1990 Draft Tongariro National Park Management Plan, Department of Conservation, January 2003 Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan, Submissions Analysis May 2003, Department of Conservation 2003

National Parks Centennial Commission

8123/W5154, box 110, NZ National Parks centennial promotional material – TNP 1987- 88

49 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Commission for the Environment

AAUM W4043, Box 207 2/1 parts 1-3, National Parks policy, 1973-86Te Puni Kokiri

ABJZ 869 W4644/56, 19/15/3 P3, MSc Environment – scenic reserves and National Parks 1975-89 ABRP 6844 W4598/204, TNP 1986-87 [restricted access] ABRP 6844 W4598, box 248, TNP extension, 1954-1985

Statutes

National Parks Act 1980 Conservation Act 1987 Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 Resource Management Act 1991

Unofficial

Books and Reports

Crengle, Diane, Taking Into Account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, Wellington, Ministry for the Environment, 1993

Cooper, Barbara, The Remotest Interior: A History of Taupo, Moana Press, Tauranga, 1989

Cox, Lindsay, Kotahitanga: The Search for Māori Political Unity OUP, Auckland, 1993

Department of Conservation, Protected Areas Legislation Review: Issues for Public Comment, Wellington, 1988

Department of Conservation, Conservation Management, History and Systems of the Department of Conservation, Wellington, 1995

Department of Lands and Survey, General Policy for National Parks, Wellington, 1983

Environmental Risk Management Authority NZ. Taking Account of Māori Perspectives, Wellington, 1999

Hartley, P., Conservation Strategies for New Zealand, NZ Business Roundtable, 1997

Thom, David, Heritage: The Parks of the People, Auckland, 1987

Waitangi Tribunal, Pouakani Report, Wellington, 1993

50 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Waitangi Tribunal, Whanganui River Report, Wellington, 1999

Journal Articles

Ministry for the Environment, ‘Case Law on Tangata Whenua Consultation’, Wellington, 1999

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, ‘Proposed Guidelines for Local Authority Consultation with Tangata Whenua’, Wellington, 1992

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, ‘Kaitiakitanga and Local Government: Tangata Whenua Participation in Environmental Management’, Wellington, 1998

Te Puni Kokiri, ‘Biodiversity and Maori, Te Aro o Te Ao Turoa’, Wellington, 1994

Te Puni Kokiri, ‘Review of the Department of Conservation, Service Delivery to Maori’, Wellington, 1998

Secondary Sources – Unpublished

Anderson, Robyn, Tongariro National Park Overview: Scoping Report, Waitangi Tribunal, 2004

Hodge, Robin, Whanganui National Park Late 1970’s – 2000, Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 903#A43, 2003

McClean, Robert, and Smith, Trecia, The Crown and Flora and Fauna: Legislation, Policies and Practices, 1983-1998, Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 262#K2, 2001

Park, Geoff, Effective Exclusion? An exploratory overview of Crown actions and Māori responses concerning the indigenous flora and fauna, 1912-1983, Waitangi Tribunal, Wai 262#K4, 2001

51 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Appendices

A: Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions Analysis May 2003 (updated January 2004) – Ngāti Tūwharetoa extracts

Extracts from the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board submissions, no. 82. (Table schema modified from the original but extracts are taken directly from the Submissions analysis).

Issues raised What submitter wants Recommendations No further development No further development of Too restrictive infrastructure or resources, except for protection purposes Recognition of gifting of Support Noted park Establishment of a Joint A Joint Management Board should be Plan will implement He Kaupapa Management Board established Rangatira to ensure Ngāti Tūwharetoa and other iwi and hapū have an evolving role in park management Role of Ngāti Ngati Tūwharetoa, as kaitiaki, are best Plan will implement Kaupapa Tūwharetoa qualified to provide best expert opinion Rangatira to ensure Ngāti on the values, relationships, places and Tūwharetoa and other iwi and hapū locations of significant cultural sites have an evolving role in park within the park management Role of Ngati Recognise aspirations of Ngāti Noted Tūrangitukua Tūrangitukua in relation to future management of the park 1.3 NZ Parks Context Reword to clarify that the relationship Adopt submission in part. The Relationship to the park between the tangata whenua and the context is important but alter para 4 (p 6, para4) park is distinct and not to be confused to reflect tenor of submission with relationships held by non-Māori 1.4 TNP Rename Tongariro National Park-The Adopt in part. Concerns mitigated People by insertion of para provided in submission Relationship between Insert after Para 1: ‘Ngāti Tūwharetoa Adopt submission tangata whenua and the and Ngāti Rangi hold Mana Whenua park (p9) over the park and are compelled to exercise Kaitiakitanga in perpetuity. The development is required by statute to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty-based relationship between iwi and the Department will continue to evolve over time.’ No further on-mountain Support accommodation (p 10, para 5) Restriction of future Support; policy should include future Support noted, no change developments at relocation of all non-essential facilities, Whakapapa p 10, para including Whakapapa village, to 7) outside the park No aircraft landings Support Constraints on off-road Support

52 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present and over-snow vehicles Legislative and policy Include Historic Places Act 1993 Adopt submission frameworks which influence the management of the park (p 11) Effective conservation Suggest examples could be given in There are examples, eg principles 5 partnership with TW (p other parts of the plan and 6, pp 36-37 12, principle 3) Entire section (pp 15- Support intention. No commercial Adopt submission in part. Part of 21) activities should be permitted in the the Gift area is in the Whakapapa Gift area Ski Area; plan to acknowledge tension and constraints Park values (p 24, para Support in general; suggest ‘kaitiaki’ Adopt submission 6) be replaced by guardians Management of ski Support; there is a need of change in Support noted, no change areas (p 26, para 2) terms of the management regime. Restrictions on various activities in the park, including commercial skiing, are required. Adverse impact of Support; the current system of huts and Support noted, no change tramping and tracks needs to be reviewed. No further overloading of huts and buildings should be permitted in the tracks (p 26) Gift area (82) Entire section (pp 31- Support; should be supported provided Support noted, no change. These 32) there are no adverse environmental thoughts are currently reflected in effects. Further research is required to the final paragraph (p 32) determine the capacity of the park to accommodate recreational users. Off- park recreation should be encouraged in instances where activities may adversely affect the park. Give effect to principles Amend principle 5 to read: ‘To give No change. Principles 5 and 6 (pp of Treaty of Waitangi (p effect to the principles of the Treaty of 36-37) have been strengthened to 36, para 5) and Co- Waitangi by establishing a Joint reflect iwi and hapū input, operative Conservation Management Board between the principles are not hierarchical, agree Management (p 37, para Department, the conservation board a Joint Management Board is one 6) and iwi representatives.’ This should way but He Kaupapa Rangatira can be the first principle and supersedes also give effect to s4. principle 6. A Joint Management Board represents one way in which practical effect can be given to the Department’s s4 obligations. Park Partner values (p Only iwi and hapū can be truly Adopt submission in part; retain 37, para 7) considered partners, though role of principle 7 but spell out distinction others needs acknowledgement of iwi participation Treaty. Entire section Treaty of Waitangi principles can only Submission noted. He Kaupapa (pp 43-44) be achieved through joint management Rangatira can evolve to reflect of the park. The term ‘co-operative partnership. conservation management’ does not adequately reflect these principles or a true partnership approach. Effluent discharge (p 50, Support, provided iwi consultation pre- Support noted. Iwi consultation is para 7) requisite for resource consents an inherent requirement in these consents.

53 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Biodiversity (pp 52-53) Support entire section Animals (pp 57-60) Support Mining, Use of local Mining and extraction of materials No change. Text reflects the law material and Geothermal should be prohibited except in and ‘improved environmental resources. Objectives instances where this is necessary to outcomes’ is reflected in para 3. and implementation (pp achieve improved environmental 61-62) outcomes. Works approvals. Entire Add criteria that provide for joint No change. Not appropriate because section (pp 62-64) decision making over works approvals of the Department’s decision- between iwi and Department making role. Research, monitoring Add: ‘To encourage independent Submission adopted and survey. Objective (p research proposals where they are 65) consistent with the key management philosophies for the park’. Historic resources. TMTB seeks clarification on issues No change. This issue to be Identification and record pertaining to archaeological surveys addressed outside plan process. (implementation p 67, and whether an update to the existing para 2) database is required. Park partners (pp 71-72) Delete ‘park partners’ Adopt in part. Stress special relationship with iwi while recognising Department does have partnerships with other stakeholders. Local and Regional Support Authorities. Entire section (pp 72-76) Effluent discharge Strongly supported (implementation p 78, para 1 Zero waste policy and Support industrial buildings and yards (p 78, paras 5 and 6 Natural hazards. Entire Support section (pp 79-85) Wilderness Areas. Support Entire section (pp 86- 88) Pristine areas. Entire Support section (pp 88-89) No infrastructure above Support 1500m on Tongariro/Ngauruhoe. (p 90, para 6) Amenity areas Entire Support, no further extensions to Support noted, no change section (p 91) amenity areas, existing activities carefully managed, no further development within the amenity areas unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects. Recreation and Tourism. Delete the current objectives and No change. Objectives must reflect Entire sections (pp 95- replace with stricter provisions. the Act. Objective 1 constrains 100) Although recreational values are recreation. Text acknowledges important they are secondary to the concerns and the need to reduce primary focus of the protection of the impacts. Visitor impacts will be an

54 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

landscape and cultural values. The issue for ongoing discussion with capacity of the park to accommodate TMTB. visitors needs to be fully researched and appropriate controls implemented. TMTB has serious concerns regarding the impact of visitors and tourism activities on the park and seeks further clarification from the Department as to how recreational and tourism activities are to be effectively managed. Public awareness. The implementation points must Adopt submission. To be included Tangata whenua include provisions for tangata whenua in new Community Relations participation participation in further public section awareness projects Buildings, structures and Support utility services, Entire section (pp 128-130) No new roads (p 119, Support para 5) Concession Policies Entire section opposed. There is not No change. Section does recognise Entire section (pp 122- adequate provision for input by tangata need to consult with iwi. 142) whenua into the decision-making processes relating to concessions. Ski Areas and 6 Both sections opposed. TMTB seeks Adopt submission in part. Amend Whakapapa Village. meaningful input and a partnership plan to recognise the need to Entire section (pp 145- approach to decision making processes prepare protocols under He 202) and would like to work closely with Kaupapa Rangatira for tangata the Department in reviewing and whenua input into the development improving this section. No further and management of the ski areas development should be allowed unless and Whakapapa village. it is specifically required for conservation purposes.

55 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

B: Tongariro National Park Draft Management Plan: Submissions Analysis May 2003 (updated January 2004) - Ngāti Hikairo extracts

Extracts from the Submissions dealing with Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust, no 83, where these are distinct from the submissions of no. 82, and/or throw further light on Ngāti Hikairo’s concerns and positions about park management.

Issue raised What submitter wants Recommendation Role of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Who comprises Ngāti No change. This will vary from Tūwharetoa needs to be defined. issue to issue. Role of Ngāti Hikairo Ngāti Hikairo hold mana whenua Plan will implement He Kaupapa over a significant part of the park Rangatira to ensure Ngāti and seek the development of Tūwharetoa and other iwi and cooperative conservation hapu have an evolving and management in the protection and ongoing role in the management preservation of the cultural of the park. heritage and landscapes. Tongariro Taupō Conservation Ngāti Hikairo as ahi kā tangata No change. Fettered by Board (p 3, para 7) whenua should be represented on legislation. the board. Relationship to the park (p 6, para Ngāti Hikairo are not visitors to Adopt submission. 4) the park but are residents of the area and part of the cultural landscape, this status needs recognition. All demands can be met outside Support the park except for skiing (p 10, para 1) Restriction of future Support developments at Whakapapa (p 10, para 7) World Heritage status (p 24, para Reword to: ‘Tongariro National Adopt submission 4) Park was the first in the world to receive recognition by UNESCO, under their revised cultural criteria describing cultural landscapes’. History of park management (p Reword paragraph as it implies Adopt submission 26, para 1) that tangata whenua did not manage their own rohe. Co-operative Conservation Are these the only times that Amend principle to stress He Management (p 37, para 6) tangata whenua will be involved Kaupapa Rangatira will continue in management decisions? It to evolve. should be the hapū that is involved in a true co-operative relationship where both parties are equally resourced. Tangata whenua (p 43, para 2) Define ‘co-operative conservation No change. It will evolve with the management’. implementation of He Kaupapa Rangatira. Biodiversity, (entire section); Support Indigenous plants (Objectives and implementations); Plant Pests

56 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

(Objective and implementation); Indigenous animals (objectives and implementation) Mining, use of local material and Oppose; tangata whenua need to No change. Protocol may be geothermal resources be consulted during all cases that developed under He Kaupapa gravel and stone is collected. Rangatira. Works Approval Add criteria for joint decision No change. Not appropriate making over works approvals because of the Department’s between iwi and Department decision-making role. Historic resources (entire section Support; amend to clarify that Support noted, adopt submission pp 66-68) waahi tapu and other historic sites in part. of interest to tangata whenua will remain our domain. Waste, Discharges and Strongly support Contaminants (Entire section pp 77-79) Infrastructure on Crossing Note that no consultation or Submission noted. New provision requires consultation with tangata agreement was sought regarding to be added to provide for this. whenua (p 90, imple 13) the boardwalks in the Mangotepopo Valley Amenity areas (Entire section p Support; recommend that no Support noted, no change 91) further development be allowed, with a long-term view of reducing current area Tourism. Accept present level of Strongly oppose; the park is No change. Plan does not accept development (p 98, para 7, bullet overused at present and current this. 1) development needs to be decreased. Public awareness. (Entire section More emphasis on and Adopt submission in part. pp 100-101) involvement by tangata whenua is Tangata whenua to be explained. needed in public awareness. Cultural values are the intellectual property of tangata whenua. Buildings, structures and utility Oppose any construction, No change; implementation of He services. Objective and including any extension to any Kaupapa Rangatira will implementations (pp 107-108) building. More consultation with incorporate consultation. tangata whenua required on this section. Concession policies. (Entire Strongly oppose entire section; it Adopt submission; amend to section pp 122-142) requires substantial reworking in stress inclusion of Ngati Hikairo consultation with tangata whenua and the need for their endorsement. Guiding on the Tongariro Strongly oppose. The proposal is Significantly amend section to Crossing. Trust proposal. seen as a way that the Crown can stress inclusion of Ngati Hikairo opt out of its Treaty obligations. and need for the hapū’s Propose that the Department fully endorsement. resource tangata whenua to work with the Department in the review, re-development and improvement of this section. Club accommodation. (Entire Oppose; requires further Significantly amend section to section pp 128-130) consultation with tangata whenua stress inclusion of Ngāti Hikairo and need for the hapū’s endorsement.

57 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

Advertising, promotion, filming Oppose; requires further Adopt submission. Add clause to and photography (Entire section consultation with tangata whenua. provide strong involvement of pp 138-139) tangata whenua. Ski areas (Entire section pp 145- Strongly oppose entire section. Adopt submission in part. Amend 182) More consultation with tangata plan to recognise the need to whenua on the objectives and prepare protocols under the He implementation points in this Kaupapa Rangatira for tangata section is required. whenua input into the development and management of the ski areas and Whakapapa village.

58 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

C: List of interviews and email correspondence conducted for this report

In addition to the following interviews, the report authors made a number of attempts to interview a representative of the Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust, which regards Ngāti Hikairo as an iwi in its own right, and not as a hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Counsel for the Ngāti Hikairo Claims Working Party were contacted by phone and email, and several attempts were made to contact Bubs Smith, a representative of the Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust, at his home and work. The report authors regret that these efforts were unsuccessful, and have endeavoured to incorporate the views of Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro Trust as expressed in printed communications such as statements of claim and submissions on draft documents.

Face-to-face interviews:

Napa Otimi interview with Mark Derby, 24 August 2004, The Chateau, Ruapehu

Bruce Jefferies, Paul Green and Mark Davies interview with Nicholas Bayley and Mark Derby, 25 August 2004, The Chateau, Ruapehu

Toni Waho, Richard Pirere, Tom Mareikura, Bobby Gray, Wendy Epiha, Mark Gray (Ngāti Rangi Trust), Liana Poutu (legal counsel) interview with with Nicholas Bayley and Mark Derby, 25 August 2005, Te Puke Marae, Raetihi

Richard Pirere and Clive Richards interview with Nicholas Bayley and Mark Derby, 26 August 2004, Pirere residence, Ohakune

Matthew Haitana and Mark McGhie interview with Nicholas Bayley and Mark Derby, 26 August 2004, Clowns Café, Raetihi

Email communications:

Full transcriptions of each of the above interviews were sent to the interview subjects shortly after each interview, for checking and comment. The following interview subjects responded by email with helpful additional comments:

Mark McGhie/Mark Derby, Waitangi Tribunal – 30 August 2004

Bruce Jefferies/Mark Derby, Waitangi Tribunal – 31 August 2004

In addition, the following email was forwarded following the above interviews: Pat Devlin/Bruce Jefferies, forwarded to Mark Derby, Waitangi Tribunal - 24 August 2004

Telephone interview:

George Asher interview with Mark Derby, Thursday 2 September 2004

59 Tongariro National Park Management from 1980 to the Present

The above interview could not be conducted face-to-face or at an earlier date due to difficulties with Mr Asher’s availability. He left the country immediately afterwards and so was unavailable to check the use of his interview in this report. Since, in the opinion of the report authors, this interview did not significantly affect the report’s content or principal findings, the authors chose not to quote from it.

D: Direction commissioning research

The direction commissioning this research report is attached.

60 •

Wai 1130

WAIT ANGI TRIBUNAL

CONCERNING the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND the National Park Inquiry

DIRECTION COMMISSIONING RESEARCH

1. Pursuant to clause 5A of the second schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Tribunal commissions Mark Derby and Nicholas Bayley, members of the Tribunal's research staff, to prepare a scoping report on the management of the Tongariro National Park since 1980 for the National Park district inquiry, covering the following matters:

a. What the expectations of iwi and hapO were in relation to their role in management of the environmental and economic resources in the Park.

b. A description and evaluation of the effectiveness of structures put in place between 1980 and 2004 to accommodate their involvement.

c. A specification of appropriate case-studies of particular resource management issues and how they were dealt with by the agencies concerned. These might include: • Management of the Ruapehu crater lake and the issue of lahars; • Commercial operations in the park, including the management of tourism concessions including ski areas; • Management of sewerage and waste water from ski lodges; • Issues relating to the management of and access to Ketetahi springs; • Animal pest and weed control, the bio-controls for heather, and the use of controversial controls such as 1080.

2. The researchers will consult with affected claimant groups to determine what issues they consider to be of particular significance to their claims in respects of the above matters and to access such relevant oral and documentary ,information as they wish to make available.

3. The commission commenced on 26 July 2004. A complete draft of the report is to be submitted by 10 September 2004.

4. The commission ends on 24 September 2004, at which time one copy of the final report must be submitted for filing in unbound form, together with indexed copies of any supporting documents or transcripts. An electronic Page 2

copy of the report should also be provided in Word 97 or Adobe Acrobat format. The report and any subsequent evidential material based on it must be filed through the Registrar.

5. At the discretion of the presiding officer the commission may be extended if one or more of the following conditions apply: a) the terms of the commission are changed so as to increase the scope of work; b) more time is required for completing one or more project components owing to unforeseeable circumstances, such as illness or denial of access to primary sources; c) the presiding officer directs that the services of the commissionees be temporarily reassigned to a higher priority task for the inquiry.

6. The report may be received as evidence and the authors may be cross­ examined on it.

7. The Registrar is to send copies of this direction to: Mark Derby Nicholas Bayley Counsel and non-represented claimants in the National Park Inquiry Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Deputy Chief Historian, Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry Facilitator, Waitangi Tribunal Solicitor General, Crown Law Office Director, Office of Treaty Settlements Chief Executive, Crown Forestry Rental Trust Chief Executive, Te Puni Kokiri Department of Conservation, Tongariro Conservancy

Dated at I,JQj\ ~<::>"- ,this i ~-;~ day of G ~ 2004. C)~;V-)

Ms Joanne Morris Presiding Officer WAITANGI TRIBUNAL