Ngati Toa Rangatira Statement of Cultural Association with the Basin

Home , Basin Reserve, Tainui, Te Rangihaeata, Te Rauparaha, Wairau Affray

Ngati Toa Rangatira

Statement of Cultural Association with the

Basin Reserve Area

Whakatauki

Toitu te Marae o Tane, Toitu to Marae o Tangaroa, Toitu to Iwi.

If the domain of Tane survives to give sustenance, And the domain of Tangaroa likewise remains, So too will the people.

Table of Contents

Introduction 5

Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc 6 Ngati Toa Origins 7

• Heke to the South Island 8 • The Ngati Toa Empire 9 Ngati Toa Rangatira Rohe 10

Customary Rights 11

• Raupatu 11 12 • Ahi kaa 12 • Crown Strategy to undermine Ngati Toa Mana 12 • Continuous Presence 12

Ngati Toa and the Waitangi 14 Tribunal

• NZ Company 14 • Port Nicholson Purchase 15 • NZ Company and Ngati Toa 15 • The Crown in Wellington 16 • The Spain Commission 16 • The Tenths 16 • Key Findings for Ngati Toa 16 17 • Ngati Toa’s Claims in other Areas 18

Cultural Associations with the Basin 19 Reserve Area

Cultural Effects 19

• Sites of Cultural Significance 20

• Ecological Impacts 21

• Contemporary Relationship 22

• The Town Belt 22

Summary and Recommendations 24

Introduction

This report has been compiled by Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira (the Runanga), on behalf of Ngati Toa Rangatira (Ngati Toa). It has been prepared as a cultural statement to support Ngati Toa’s traditional associations with the area affected by proposed improvements to the Basin Reserve (the Project).

It is important to understand that the report is based on a very general understanding of the proposals as outlined in the public consultation document available on the NZTA’s website 1. It does not provide a comprehensive assessment of cultural impacts which would have required a full assessment of the detailed plans and technical reports associated with the Project.

The focus of the report is on providing an overview of Ngati Toa’s traditional history in relation to the Wellington district, which includes Waitangi Tribunal findings that affirm Ngati Toa’s customary rights in Wellington (which also apply to the Project area). Ngati Toa’s relationship with the area where the works will be carried out is also considered and sites of cultural significance are identified. Ngati Toa’s contemporary interests in the Project area are then clarified, and consideration is given to the potential impacts of the Project on issues of importance to Ngati Toa. The report concludes by making a number of recommendations for the mitigation of potential adverse cultural effects.

1 “The Inner-city Transport Network; Improvements for a successful Capital City”, July/August 2011 5

Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira

Te Runanga O Toa Rangatira Incorporated (the Runanga) is the recognised iwi authority for Ngati Toa Rangatira. It is the administrative body of iwi estates and assets, and deals with the political and public issues of national interest through the management of relevant activities such as Treaty of Waitangi claims, commercial and customary fishing, environmental advocacy, the provision of health and medical services, addictions counselling, vocational training and residential care for people with disabilities.

Since its establishment in 1989, the Runanga has prioritised the development of a range of services to ensure that access to good health, education and employment outcomes is available to all Iwi members, as well as the general public who reside within Ngati Toa’s rohe.

The overall vision of the Runanga is to “promote the mana of Ngati Toa Rangatira by enhancing the social, economic, educational, cultural and spiritual development of all whanau members, in an open and responsive manner, be enabling them opportunities to attain their full potential for the benefit of the Iwi and the community.”

In pursuit of this vision, part of the Runanga’s role is to exercise kaitiakitanga (customary guardianship) in relation to the environment, on behalf of the Iwi. This requires the Runanga to ensure the Crown and other public agencies, including NZTA, recognize Ngati Toa’s customary interests and acknowledge them accordingly.

This report is an expression of Ngati Toa’s kaitiakitanga. It provides a clear statement of Ngati Toa’s customary rights and interests in the project area, and identifies a number of issues needing to be addressed in order to avoid any adverse cultural effects. The protection of mauri, an innate life force inherent in all elements of the physical world, is our overriding objective in writing this report, and in fulfilling our obligations as Kaitiaki.

Ngati Toa origins and heke south

Ngati Toa’s traditional homeland was at Kawhia, west of the heartland of Tainui. The iwi occupied the coastline from Aotea to Huikomako, about 80 miles south of Kawhia.

As a consequence of pressure from their Waikato neighbours and the attractions of the Cook Strait area as a place to settle and trade with the pakeha, Te Rauparaha and the Ngati Toa leadership after a preliminary scouting expedition to Cook Strait, led the iwi in an historic resettlement from the Kawhia region, firstly to North Taranaki. This heke is referred to as - Te Heke Tahutahuahi - or the ‘fire lighting’ expedition.

In Taranaki Ngati Toa were joined by Ngati Tama, some of Ngati Mutunga and some of Ngati Awa who then accompanied them on the journey south. The second heke, known as Tataramoa, or bramble bush, moved southward from Wanganui to the lands of Ngati Apa and then further south towards Cook Strait – although many Ngati Awa returned to Taranaki.

The key event marking the definitive establishment of Ngati Toa in the Cook Strait area was the battle of Waiorua (also known as Te Umupakaroa and Te Whakapaetai) on Kapiti Island in 1824, where Ngati Toa defeated a combined allied force of the Kurahaupo tribes. This defeat was followed by a series of other battles which saw Ngati Toa clear any resistance to their settlement from other iwi from Kapiti to Te Whanganui-a-Tara (Wellington). This culminated in the battle of Tapu-te-ranga in 1827, where Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Toa finally defeated Ngati Ira and their Ariki Tapairu, Tamairangi, acceded to the protection of Ngäti Toa chief Te Rangihaeata.

After Waiorua there were several migratory heke of Ngati Raukawa and Taranaki people - Ati Awa, Ngati Ruanui and Taranaki groups (known as ‘Nihoputa”, “Ngamotu”, “Tama Te Uaua”, “Te Heke Paukena”). Heke to the South Island

Following Waiorua Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata led a force south. Following a number of campaigns and battles against the iwi of the Upper South Island and against Ngai Tahu, Ngati Toa and its allies acquired customary rights by conquest in a large area of the Northern South Island. Areas particularly favoured by Ngati Toa in the South Island include the Wairau Valley, Port Underwood and Pelorus Sound.

The Ngati Toa empire

By 1840 Ngati Toa Rangatira was established as the pre-eminent iwi dominating the Kapiti, Wellington and Te Tau Ihu regions.

Ngati Toa held a maritime empire founded on a virtual monopoly of access to European goods and trade in the Cook Strait region. Ngati Toa possessed a de facto military and economic power that was widely recognised and acknowledged by both Maori and European. The Crown has recently acknowledged this dominance 2 and the current negotiations for settling the Ngati Toa claim are addressing the loss Ngati Toa suffered as a result of Crown actions shortly after the signing of the Treaty.

2 Crown Closing submissions in the Te Tau Ihu Tribunal Inquiry at page 25. 9

Ngati Toa Rangatira rohe

The Ngati Toa rohe is traditionally described as being from Whangaehu in the north, the Tararua ranges to the east, south by Turakirae Heads to Kaikoura and west to Arahura, then returning to Whangaehu.

The Ngati Toa rohe spans a large number of local authorities. It includes both rural and urban areas, as well as a diverse range of landscapes from the Manawatu plains to the Marlborough Sounds and the North Canterbury high country. It is also important to bear in mind that our rohe is not simply focused on the land, but that the waters of the Cook Strait are at the heart of the rohe and are as integral to our association with this area as the land.

It should be noted that this is one of the largest and most significant rohe in the country, similar in scale to that of Ngai Tahu or Ngati Kahungunu.

Customary Rights

Traditionally there are a number of ways that iwi can acquire rights in a particular area. In Ngati Toa’s case, our rights within the rohe come from the two tikanga (or customary law) principles of raupatu and ahi kaa.

Raupatu

Customary rights in an area can arise from the raupatu, or conquest, of that particular area. There are a number of key incidents that Ngati Toa point to as showing that we did subdue the iwi who were present in the rohe and as a result obtained rights through raupatu.

The campaign of raupatu whereby Ngati Toa subdued previous occupants by ringakaha (force of arms) included the battle of Waiorua on Kapiti Island and Tapu-te- ranga (already described above) and a series of other battles which saw Ngati Toa clear any resistance to their settlement from other iwi from Whangaehu to Te Whanganui-a-Tara as well as to areas in the South Island.

Success in securing raupatu rights in the lower North Island were then followed by expeditions into the South Island, or Te Waipounamu. A similar pattern followed with Ngati Toa obtaining rights through the defeat of other iwi.

The leadership of Te Rauparaha cemented Ngati Toa’s rights in these areas, with the remnants of other iwi agreeing to his leadership and protection. Because Ngati Toa held the over-arching rights in the area that now makes up our rohe by the 1830, Ngati Toa were then able to formally allocate lands to the other iwi for their use.

Ahi Kaa .

However while Ngati Toa’s rights were secured through raupatu it is the principle of ahi kaa, or settlement/occupation, that keeps those rights alive today. Ahi kaa literally means to keep the home fires burning, and recognizes the idea that it is not enough to simply conquer an area but that the conquerors must also retain a presence.

In Ngati Toa’s case, ahi kaa was applied primarily through political, economic and military means. This is particularly relevant in relation to Wellington where control of access to the south west coast was key to maintaining Ngati Toa’s Cook Strait empire. Professor Ward, one of New Zealand’s leading historians, acknowledged the wide influence of Te Rauparaha’s mana in evidence before the Waitangi Tribunal when he stated that:

“actual occupation and cultivation of land, nor even the specific fishing rights that whanau and hapu developed, do not fully encompass the kind of authority Te Rauparaha had from his control of access to harbours and seaways.” 3

Crown strategy to undermine Ngati Toa’s Mana

Ngati Toa’s control over the south west coast, and our economic and political dominance throughout the Cook Strait, continued until the Crown intervened with military force. Ngati Toa were perceived as a military and economic threat by the Crown, especially after the Wairau Affray in 1843 – caused by the illegal actions of the Nelson magistrate – and eventually Governor Grey set in place in 1846 a deliberate policy of coercion in order to bring Ngati Toa hegemony to an end.

This programme involved a number of aspects. Following a classic “divide and rule” strategy Governor Grey persuaded some iwi to aid the Crown against Ngati Toa. Forts were built in Wellington, Karori, Hutt Valley and a blockhouse at Paremata. In a combined sea and land military operation in 1846 Grey captured Te Rauparaha at Porirua and Pauatahanui was attacked in a two-pronged campaign by Crown forces. Te Rangihaeata escaped just in time and was pursued north through the bush where he remained in exile. Te Rauparaha was taken to Auckland. One chief captured at Pauatahanui was publicly hanged at Paremata barracks and others were transported as felons to the British penal colony in Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania). It was at this point that Grey forced Ngati Toa to part with our lands Continuous Presence

Despite the Crown’s military action against Ngati Toa which left the Iwi in a state of virtual landlessness, Ngati Toa has continued to exercise customary rights within our traditional rohe to the present day. In relation to Wellington, this has occurred mostly through the customary gathering of shellfish from the Harbour and south west coast, and the maintenance of important political relationships (e.g. with WCC and GWRC) to

3 Professor Ward; Brief of Evidence for Waitangi Tribunal Hearing (Wai207), 9 June 2003, p13 12

ensure ongoing recognition of Ngati Toa’s mana in Wellington. Ngati Toa has also been proactive in exercising our rights and responsibilities as Kaitiaki in Wellington by promoting the sustainable management of the environment through proposals such as this one for improvements to the Basin Reserve.

4 Decorated head of the chief Te Rauparaha's canoe [1890] 13

Ngäti Toa and the Waitangi Tribunal

In 1987 Ngäti Toa lodged claims with the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi throughout our entire rohe. However because of the extensive size of the Ngäti Toa rohe the Waitangi Tribunal was unable to hear all our claims at once. Instead our rohe was split into three separate Inquiry districts – the Wellington Inquiry District, the Northern South Island, and the Porirua ki Whanganui Inquiry Districts.

To date the Wellington District and Northern South Island Inquiries have completed their hearings, and reports have been released in relation to these claims. However the Porirua ki Whanganui Inquiry is yet to be completed. Wellington District Inquiry

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Report on the Wellington District (2003) not only provides findings on the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the Wellington area, but it is also a very detailed historical account of early European Settlement and interaction with Maori.

It is important to know some of the key aspects of the history of early European settlement in the Wellington district, as well as findings of the Tribunal in relation to this, as it gives a context to the issues Ngati Toa currently faces and promotes a greater understanding of the nature of our interests in Wellington, including the Basin Reserve area. The New Zealand Company

Early settlement in New Zealand, and Wellington in particular, was carried out by the New Zealand Company which was a private company established in London in 1839. The aim of the New Zealand Company was to purchase land and then to on-sell blocks to settlers leaving England so that they would arrive having a land holding in the new colony.

The New Zealand Company’s aims were based on E G Wakefield’s theory of “colonization”. This essentially held that

• The combination of cheap land purchases and increasing land values made colonization essentially self sustaining.

• 1/10 th of all lots in any new settlement would be reserved for Maori. However there was no consideration about how this ownership of “10ths” would actually work in practice.

• The 10ths were an economic measure, not a reflection of where existing Maori settlements actually were. The theory was that the increasing value of 10ths in a new settlement would compensate Maori for low purchase prices that the Company would pay.

• Maori would still retain their kainga (settlements), cultivations, and urupä (burial grounds).

It was important that the New Zealand Company should secure land purchases quickly as the Crown was considering asserting sovereignty over New Zealand. If the Crown 14

did so it would have a right of pre-emption, meaning that any land sales could only be transacted via the Crown.

Because of this urgency the New Zealand Company was in fact selling blocks of land to settlers in England before its ship, the Tory , carrying its purchasing agents had even arrived in New Zealand NZ Company Port Nicholson Purchase

Col William Wakefield arrived in New Zealand on the Company ship the Tory in September1839 to purchase land for the Company. He entered into discussions with Maori chiefs, mainly from the Petone area, and eventually managed to secure the signature of these chiefs for the Port Nicholson Purchase.

By this time settlers had already left England having purchased lots in Port Nicholson from the Company.

There were, however a number of problems with the Deed of Purchase for the Port Nicholson Block. In particular the Waitangi Tribunal found that :

• There was no translation of the terms to Maori, so there must have been little understanding as to what the chiefs were agreeing too

• The area of the purchase set out in the Deed was essentially “unintelligible”, and so could not form the basis for a proper land sale

• Wakefield only dealt with some chiefs, who did not have sufficient mana to sell land

• Ngati Toa had rights and interests in the Port Nicholson area, but there was no consent from Ngati Toa. Wakefield also knew at the time, and was reminded by other Pakeha present in the area, particularly Octavius Hadfield, that Ngati Toa had overarching rights and that he would have to deal with Te Rauparaha before he could secure a purchase.

• Essentially there was no “meeting of the minds” about the effect of purchase and so it could never have been a valid contract. New Zealand Company and Ngati Toa

Shortly after the supposed Port Nicholson Purchase, Wakefield and the Tory traveled to Kapiti to secure further land purchases. Wakefield negotiated another purchase from Te Rauparaha, however there were further problems about the extent of this purchase. In particular the Tribunal found that:

• Again there was no translation to Maori. As Te Rauparaha could not speak English and Wakefield Maori there was no common understanding about the terms of the purchase

• The area of purchase was again unclear

• The Company believed that it had negotiated for the purchase of large parts of the lower North Island, parts of South Island, and had “ratified” the Port Nicholson Deed

• However Ngati Toa understood that the purchase was simply for Taitapu/Golden Bay The Crown in Wellington

The Crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840 which had the effect of granting sovereignty over New Zealand. As a result the Crown now had sole right to purchase land. It also began to investigate prior purchases undertaken by the New Zealand Company in order to remedy any problems with these purchases and confirm titles as a result of those.

However it was over 19 months before there was a Crown presence in the Wellington area, and it was not until 1842 that the Crown began to investigate the New Zealand Company’s purchases in the Wellington area.

By this time it was almost too late to do anything about the purchases. As a result of the Company’s early land sales to settlers there was already large scale settlement present in the Wellington district and these settlements were still growing. The Spain Commission

The Crown’s investigation into the Wellington land purchases was the1842 Spain Commission of Inquiry. This reviewed the details of the New Zealand Company’s purchases and found that:

• The New Zealand Company was “loose and careless”; and that

• Maori did not consent to sale

But because of the problems caused by the large settlement already present in the area, the Spain Commission moved from simply inquiring into the purchases to attempting to arbitrate a settlement for Maori claims. However the Waitangi Tribunal found that in doing so the Spain Commission acted:

• Without consultation or consent

• Without a process that protected Maori interests

• In a way that favoured settlers over existing Maori ownership

The Tenths

Part of the consideration for the payment of the Port Nicholson Block were the so- called ‘tenths’ which were meant to be a permanent endowment for Maori of the Wellington district. The tenths were quite distinct from other reserves to protect Maori cultivations, kainga and places of burial.

Ngati Toa have consistently argued that we were entitled to a share of the tenths as part of our compensation for losing title to the Port Nicholson block. However in 1888 the Native Land Court decided to exclude Ngati Toa from any share in the Wellington Tenths. Ngati Toa have always regarded this decision as an injustice and were relieved to find in 2003 that the Waitangi Tribunal agreed with us on this point. The Tribunal recommended that Ngati Toa deserved to be compensated for our unjust exclusion from the Wellington Tenths land.

The implementation of this important finding has been central to the negotiations between Ngati Toa and the Crown over the settlement of Ngati Toa’s Treaty claims in Wellington.

The Town Belt

Ngati Toa have always shared concerns with the Taranaki iwi about the mismanagement of Tenths lands, the Crown’s failure to reserve the full area and the Crown’s tendency to treat Tenths land as a kind of public resource to be used for a range of purposes, including schools, hospitals and recreational reserves.

This is essentially how the Town Belt became alienated from its original Maori owners. In 1841 Governor Hobson took, by proclamation, 1562 acres of land surrounding the 1100 (one acre) town sections identified in the New Zealand Company’s town plan. The land was taken for public purposes to be set aside as a reserve in perpetuity, where no buildings were ever to be erected. However no accommodation was made for existing Maori cultivations and settlements in the town belt area, despite the fact that these areas were to be retained by Maori in accordance with the terms of the Port Nicholson Deed. As a result, Maori living at Te Aro and other areas within the Town Belt effectively became squatters on Crown land.

The Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown, in taking most of the town belt land from Maori without their consent or any consultation and without making any payment, acted in breach of Article two of the Treaty, and failed to respect the rangatiratanga of Maori in and over their land. 5

Although Ngati Toa were not living in the area at the time of the Crown’s proclamation, we have always maintained that we were prejudicially affected by the Crown’s failure to recognize our ‘take raupatu’ rights (rights based on conquest) in relation to the Town Belt lands. These rights have since been recognized in the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Furthermore, Ngati Toa’s wrongful exclusion from the Tenths land (as part payment for our interests in the Port Nicholson Block), which the tribunal also found to be in breach of the Treaty, was another failing on the part of the Crown to recognize Ngati Toa’s rangatiratanga in and over the town belt lands.

Key Findings for Ngati Toa

In respect to Ngati Toa’s customary rights, the Tribunal considered that Ngati Toa had mana through ahi kaa in the Porirua basin, parts of Ohariu, parts of Heretaunga (Hutt Valley) and parts of south west coast. It also agreed with Ngati Toa’s assertion of mana through Raupatu, giving Ngäti Toa unique status and rights throughout the rohe. Ngati Toa had rights over land (anywhere in Port Nicholson) where no other group had ahi kaa. Ngäti Toa acknowledged the rights of other iwi in the area, but had never abandoned their own rights.

The Tribunal also found that the Crown failed to adequately recognise or investigate Ngati Toa’s interests in the Port Nicholson Block, and it failed to adequately compensate Ngati Toa for our loss of interests or to ensure we gained an equitable interest in the rural and urban tenths reserves.

5 Waitangi Tribunal on the Wellington District Inquiry, 2003, p97 17

In respect to specific Crown actions, the Tribunal found that:

• Ngäti Toa had not relinquished its rights in the area subject to Grey’s 1848 grant.

• Ngäti Toa sold only a fraction of the land the Crown claimed to have purchased.

• The Crown failed to ensure Ngäti Toa had a share in the Wellington Tenths.

• Ngati Toa should be given an allocation of lands with parity to the Wellington Tenths

• The Crown failed to adequately compensate Ngäti Toa for its losses.

• The Crown failed to act reasonably and in good faith.

• The Crown failed to protect the customary interests of Ngäti Toa.

Ngati Toa’s claims in other areas

As noted above, the expanse of Ngati Toa’s rohe spanning both sides of the Cook Strait meant that Ngati Toa had to lodge claims in other regions, apart from the Wellington district. The Te Tau Ihu (northern south Island) Inquiry is briefly mentioned here because matters of central importance to that inquiry were also relevant to the Wellington Inquiry.

The key issue for Ngati Toa in the Te Tau Ihu inquiry was the Crown’s deliberate policy of military action and coercion aimed at crushing Ngati Toa’s mana and rangatiratanga throughout the Cook Strait region. The Crown’s actions were directly responsible for the loss of virtually all of Ngati Toa’s lands on both sides of the Cook Strait. The Tribunal made a number of important findings in support of Ngati Toa’s claim. In particular, the Tribunal found that:

• The Crown took steps to undermine Ngati Toa rangatiratanga.

• That the diminution of Ngati Toa’s power and control was the result of Crown policies aimed at controlling and limiting Ngati Toa’s power.

• That it was a breach of the Treaty to hold Te Rauparaha in unlawful custody.

• That Te Rauparaha’s detention was a significant factor in the Wairau purchase.

• That the Crown failed to ensure that Ngati Toa were left with sufficient land holdings.

• That Ngati Toa were left in a state of virtual landlessness as a result of Crown actions

Cultural Associations with the Basin Reserve Area Traditional Relationship

Ngati Toa’s customary rights in relation to the project area were established through ‘take raupatu’ or conquest in the 1820s. Unlike the Taranaki iwi who established rights in the area through ‘ahi kaa’ or occupation, Ngati Toa’s ‘mana’ was expressed mainly through political and economic influence extending throughout Wellington and the Cook Strait region. As mentioned above, the Waitangi Tribunal has recognised Ngati Toa’s mana in Wellington as deriving both from ‘ahi kaa’ and ‘raupatu’, but in terms of the project area Ngati Toa’s rights of conquest or raupatu have greater relevance.

Having said that, it is important to understand that Ngati Toa’s exclusion as beneficial owners of the tenths reserves, which the Waitangi Tribunal found to be in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, effectively denied Ngati Toa the opportunity to settle in the area. Therefore there was little chance of Ngati Toa consolidating our mana through ‘ahi kaa’. But even without occupation, Ngati Toa’s rights of conquest and status as Tangata Whenua have been clearly affirmed by the Waitangi Tribunal, and accompanying these rights are important responsibilities to act as Kaitiaki (stewards or guardians) towards the environment.

Therefore, in exercising kaitiakitanga in relation to the Project area, Ngati Toa have an inherent obligation to ensure that the Hauwai cultivation site (located in the vicinity of the Basin Reserve) is appropriately recognised irrespective of its earlier associations with Ngai Tara, who predated Ngati Toa’s arrival in the district.

In relation to other known sites in the area that have traditional associations with Taranaki iwi, in particular Te Aro and Akatarewa Pa sites, Ngati Toa sees our role more as one of supporting those iwi in exercising their kaitiakitanga in relation to sites of particular significance to them. However, Ngati Toa still retains a general interest in these sites through our ‘take raupatu’ or rights of conquest. These issues are further discussed under “Cultural Effects”.

Contemporary Relationship

Ngati Toa’s contemporary relationship with the area is expressed primarily through our kaitiaki obligations to promote environmental sustainability through projects such as this one, and to advocate for appropriate recognition of waahi tapu and other sites of cultural significance.

In addition to these traditional responsibilities passed down over the generations, Ngati Toa is in the process of establishing a more contemporary relationship with the area. Ngati Toa now owns a property at 45 Rugby Street which provides an opportunity for the Iwi to establish a stronger physical presence within a part of our ‘rohe’ that was not traditionally occupied by Ngati Toa.

Ngati Toa also operates a medical centre in Newtown. The expansion of Ngati Toa’s health services into Wellington fulfils an important objective of the Runanga in ensuring that high quality medical care is accessible to all Iwi members, as well as the general who reside within our ‘rohe’. Ngati Toa is concerned to ensure that proposals for improvements to the Basin Reserve do not impede access to our health service in Newtown.

Cultural Effects Kaitiakitanga

Over centuries our ancestors evolved a system of environmental management, Kaitiakitanga, to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources and protection of waahi tapu (sacred sites). Kaitiakitanga is based on Maori views of the world and its origins, and the principle that everything is interrelated and interconnected by whakapapa (or genealogy).

Mauri is the life force that exists in all aspects of the physical world. Tikanga (rules or practices) are followed in order to protect mauri. These are largely based on spiritual notions such as tapu (sacredness) and rahui (temporary restriction), both of which imply some form of prohibition. The primary objective of Kaitiakitanga is to protect the mauri inherent within all natural resources in order to achieve environmental sustainability.

Therefore the protection of mauri is our main objective in considering the potential effects of improvements to the Basin Reserve. To this end we are concerned about the potential impacts of the project on subsurface drainage structures through which a once extensive network of streams now flow. Streams are regarded as the life blood of Papatuanuku, so any impacts affecting water quality and/or the life-sustaining capacity of streams (particularly in respect of native fish) have the potential to cause adverse cultural and ecological effects.

We are also concerned about the potential loss of rangatiratanga as a result of the proposed widening of Ruahine Street into the Town Belt. Additionally, protection and/or appropriate recognition of sites of cultural significance in the project area is a priority for Ngati Toa. These issues are now discussed below.

1 Sites of Cultural Significance

The Basin Reserve is located in an area that was originally dominated by an extensive wetland, covered with flax and raupo. The wetland sustained important food and plant resources which Maori inhabitants relied upon for their health and survival. Given the central importance of the wetland to Maori, it is not surprising that cultivations, kainga, urupa and pa were established in the surrounding area.

However, Ngati Toa is only aware of three sites of cultural significance in the project area and of these only one is located is in the direct vicinity of the Basin Reserve. This is Hauwai cultivation (identified on WCC Plan 16 as site M69), located to the south east of the Basin Reserve on the Council’s plan but in all likelihood would have covered a larger area which has since become the Basin Reserve. The two other sites known to Ngati Toa are the Akatarewa Pa (Mt Victoria), which may have been associated with Hauwai cultivation area, and Te Aro Pa (at the intersection of Taranaki and Manners Streets).

Although the Hauwai cultivation site was associated with Ngai Tara, who pre-dated Ngati Toa’s arrival in Wellington, Ngati Toa is obligated as the present day Tangata whenua and Kaitiaki of the area, to ensure the site’s preservation (as far as possible) and/or appropriate recognition. Despite any damage to the site that will inevitably have occurred as a result of earlier developments of the area, Ngati Toa considers it important that any further disturbance to the site is undertaken with the utmost care and with the involvement of Tangata whenua and the Historic Places Trust. This is 20

necessary to ensure that the site is thoroughly investigated and the archeological details are fully recorded before works are able to recommence.

In relation to the Te Aro and Akatarewa Pa sites, these are both clearly connected with Taranaki iwi and do not appear to have ever been directly associated with Ngati Toa. In any case we do not anticipate these pa sites will be directly affected by the proposed works, although it is possible that the Mount Cook area surrounding the Basin Reserve contains archeological evidence associated with early Maori occupation and use of the area, and to the extent that new cultural/archeological material might be uncovered it will be necessary for Ngati Toa to retain our Kaitiaki role (alongside the Taranaki Iwi).

To this end, any earthworks associated with this project (applying to all options proposed) has the potential to impact on important archeological resources pertaining to Maori occupation and use of the area. In the event that cultural sites are uncovered during the earthworks, an Accidental Discovery Protocol (ADP) will be necessary to ensure that work ceases immediately and the Tangata whenua (including Ngati Toa) and historic Places Trust are notified. Ngati Toa considers it important that cultural sites discovered during the course of the project are thoroughly investigated, allowing for the recovery of any archeological material and the detailed recording of all relevant information.

An important way of mitigating potential adverse effects on sites of cultural significance is through the promotion of a greater understanding of the history of the area. Ngati Toa believe there are potential opportunities as part of this project to enhance general understanding of the history and settlement of the area through the inclusion of historical/cultural values into the design of roading proposals, as well as interpretative signage or landscaping associated with the area.

Opportunities for the restoration of historical linkages between the Basin Reserve (formerly an extensive wetland) and the harbour should also be explored. It is recommended that dialogue between Ngati Toa and the NZTA continue to enable a full exploration of options aimed at mitigating any adverse effects on sites of cultural significance. 2 Ecological Impacts

Ngati Toa is concerned to minimize the impacts of proposed works on subsurface drainage structures through which the once extensive network of streams flowing through the valley is now channeled. The most important of these was the Waitangi Stream which historically ran down the valley where the Basin Reserve now sits, discharging into the sea via Waitangi Lagoon. Although this stream has been severely modified over the years and is now channeled through a large culvert (down Adelaide Road and Kent Terrace), it still provides habitat for tuna (eels) and possibly other native fish species as well.

Therefore, maintaining fish passage is an important ecological and cultural issue for Ngati Toa and we believe this needs to be addressed as part of the design process. This should be able to be accommodated as part of the works necessary to ensure there is no disruption to storm water flows. It may also be possible to improve fish passage in subsurface drainage structures if there are currently obstacles to fish movement.

There are also opportunities for cultural and historical narratives to be included in the design process (and landscaping proposals). The development of interpretive signage, sculptures, carvings or other art forms to give expression to the early history and 21

cultural importance of the area is an exciting possibility. This might involve enhancing the historical linkages between the wetland area (now the Basin Reserve) and the sea. 3 Contemporary relationship

Ngati Toa is concerned to ensure that the proposed works do not undermine the Runanga’s current activities in the area. The Runanga owns a property and provides health services in the area that are potentially affected by the project.

The property concerned is located at 45 Rugby Street, in close proximity to the Basin Reserve. Ngati Toa’s interest is in ensuring that access is maintained. The proposals do not appear to impact negatively on this property, in fact, we anticipate an improvement in accessibility of the site given the significant reduction in traffic volumes expected from works around the Basin Reserve.

The Runanga currently operates a health service from one of the small medical centres situated near Wellington Hospital. The provision of health facilities throughout Ngati Toa’s ‘rohe’ is a priority for the Runanga, and expansion into Wellington has been critical to achieving this objective.

Therefore it is important, in Ngati Toa’s view, that the project maintains or enhances access to important community facilities, particularly medical centres in the Newtown area. We anticipate that the proposed improvements will achieve this outcome by separating the north-south and east-west traffic, thereby reducing traffic congestion around the Basin, and in the Newtown area. 4 The Town Belt

This report has focused primarily on proposals relating to the Basin Reserve which we understand will be completed in the initial phase of work for improvements to SH 1 from Cobham Drive to Buckle Street. However, we consider it important to signal now our concerns with some aspects of the second phase of work involving further encroachment into the Town Belt to accommodate the proposed widening of Ruahine Street.

We are aware of the designation in the WCC District Plan, which has signaled for a long time intentions to widen Ruahine Street into the Town Belt. And we are acutely aware of the powers under the Public Works Act to take land for public purposes, afterall this is essentially how the Town Belt lands were alienated from Maori in the first place. The complete lack of consideration by the Crown of Maori interests in the Town Belt lands has since been acknowledged by the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that the Crown acted in breach of Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi, and failed to recognize the rangatiratanga of Maori in and over these lands.

Therefore, having recently had our rangatiratanga reaffirmed by the Tribunal and acknowledged by the Crown, we wish to avoid a repeat of history where Town Belt land is taken without adequate consultation with Ngati Toa or recognition of our rangatiratanga. We accept that there may well be benefits from the widening of Ruahine Street in terms of easing traffic congestion and improving safety, but if land is to be alienated from the Town Belt it is important Ngati Toa is fully appraised of the plans and opportunities are provided for appropriate recognition of our interests.

To this end, we recommend that Ngati Toa and the NZTA continue to dialogue on this issue with a view to identifying appropriate options to mitigate our loss of

rangatiratanga in respect of the portion of Town Belt land required for roading purposes. One option may involve the erection of a pou (a carved totem) to symbolize Ngati Toa’s enduring mana in the area.

Summary

This report has provided a statement of Ngati Toa’s cultural associations with the area affected by the Basin Reserve improvements. It has outlined Ngati Toa’s historical relationship with the area and established the nature and extent of Ngati Toa’s customary rights and interests. It has also highlighted some of the Iwi’s current activities in the project area which are undertaken by the Runanga in fulfilling its overall vision of promoting and protecting Ngati Toa’s mana.

This report has also identified that within the project area there is potential for adverse cultural effects arising from the proposed works. Although only a cursory assessment of cultural effects has been undertaken here, it has been possible to identify a number of issues of potential concern. A full and comprehensive cultural effects assessment would require consideration of detailed plans and technical reports.

The issues of potential concern to Ngati Toa fall into four broad areas: sites of cultural significance; ecological impacts; contemporary relationship; and the Town Belt. Suggestions for mitigation to address these issues are made in the body of this report and are reiterated below as recommendations for the NZTA to consider.

Recommendations

Sites of Cultural Significance

• Any further disturbance to the Hauwai cultivation site should not be undertaken without the involvement of Tangata whenua (including Ngati Toa) and the Historic Places Trust. This is necessary to ensure that the site is thoroughly investigated and the archeological details are fully recorded before works are able to recommence.

• Any earthworks associated with this project (applying to all options proposed) has the potential to impact on important cultural/archeological resources pertaining to early Maori occupation and use of the area. Therefore an Accidental Discovery Protocol (ADP) will be necessary to ensure that work ceases immediately and the Tangata whenua (including Ngati Toa) and historic Places Trust are notified.

• There are potential opportunities as part of this project to enhance understanding of the history and settlement of the area. For example, the inclusion of historical/cultural values in the design of roading proposals, and interpretative signage or landscaping are possible options for mitigating adverse effects on cultural sites.

• Opportunities to enhance the historical linkages between the Basin Reserve (formerly an extensive wetland) and the harbour should also be explored.

• Dialogue between Ngati Toa and the NZTA needs to continue to enable a full exploration of options for mitigating any adverse effects on sites of cultural significance.

Ecological Impacts

• The impacts of proposed works on subsurface drainage structures, especially those through which the Waitangi Stream currently flows, should be minimized as far as possible.

• Maintaining fish passage is an important ecological and cultural issue and should be addressed as part of the design process, possibly as part of the works necessary to ensure there is no disruption to storm water flows.

• Opportunities to improve fish passage in subsurface drainage structures, if there are currently obstacles to fish movement, should be explored.

• Opportunities for cultural and historical narratives to be included in the design process (and landscaping proposals) should also be considered.

Contemporary Relationship

• Confirmation that the proposed works will not compromise the Runanga’s current activities in the area is necessary, to ensure maintenance of access to the Runanga’s property at 45 Rugby Street and to our health service in Newtown.

Town Belt

• It is important for dialogue to continue between the NZTA and Ngati Toa with a view to identifying appropriate options to mitigate our loss of rangatiratanga in respect of the portion of Town Belt land required for the widening of Ruahine Street. This should may include consideration of the erection of a pou (a carved totem) to symbolize Ngati Toa’s enduring mana in the area.

Contact Details

Registered Address PO Box 50079 Porirua

Contacts Phone: 04 237 9832 Fax: 04 237 6436 Email: [email protected]

Location 26 Ngatitoa St Takapuwahia Porirua website http://www.ngatitoa.iwi.nz/

Chairman Taku Parai Phone: 04 237 9832 Fax: 04 237 6436

Executive Director Matiu Te Rei Phone: 04 237 7922 Fax: 04 238 4701 Email: [email protected]

Resource Management/Communications Officer Jennie Smeaton Phone: 04 237 7922 Fax: 04 238 4701 Email: j.smeaton @ngatitoa.iwi.nz