Ngarimu Blair
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL UNDER the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan AND IN THE MATTER of submissions by Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Maia Limited on Topic 009 RPS Mana Whenua BETWEEN NGATI WHATUA ORAKEI WHAI MAIA LIMITED SUBMITTER 3085 AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MR NGARIMU BLAIR DATED 30 OCTOBER 2014 PO Box 3798, Auckland 1140 TELEPHONE +64 9 353 9700 FACSIMILE +64 9 353 9701 SOLICITOR ACTING: ANNEKE THEELEN [email protected] PARTNER RESPONSIBLE: DANIEL CLAY 11712257:1 AYT Court 1 INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Ngarimu Alan Huiroa Blair. I am the Deputy Chair of the Ngati Whatua Orakei Trust which is an elected body that represents the collective interests of the descendants of Tuperiri who established Ngati Whatua Orakei mana and Ahi Kaaroa on the Auckland Isthmus in the mid 17th Century. SUMMARY 2. The key points of my statement of evidence are as follows; (a) Ngati Whatua Orakei has mana whenua/ahi kaaroa for a large and significant part of the area now governed by Auckland Council, centred around the Auckland isthmus. Ngati Whatua Orakei acknowledge that other iwi or hapu can claim tangata whenua status and hold mana and ahi kaaroa for other parts of the Council’s jurisdictional area. (b) Ngati Whatua Orakei is a significant landowner in Auckland. It owns land in various parts of Auckland, both Treaty settlement and commercially purchased land. Through these interests, Ngati Whatua Orakei has experience in co-governance with statutory bodies such as Auckland Council. (c) Ngati Whatua Orakei has not been adequately involved in planning for Auckland since 1840, and has suffered as a result. There are many examples where I consider that a different, more informed and better outcome could have been arrived at if Ngati Whatua Orakei were involved. The result of this lack of adequate and appropriate input into planning decisions is an inadequate understanding and response to the cultural issues and concerns Ngati Whatua Orakei have. (d) Ngati Whatua Orakei should have involvement in planning processes and decisions which involve or affects Ngati Whatua Orakei interests. This involvement should in my view be more than ad hoc consultation as simply another ‘stakeholder’. We should be at the decision making table for relevant proposals, and methods such as joint management agreements would go a long way to achieving this. The proposed 11712257:1 2 Unitary Plan (PAUP) provisions on this matter are a good start, but should go further to actively encourage and facilitate co-governance. (e) Ngati Whatua Orakei as a Treaty partner and ahi kaaroa with unbroken occupation and use has a particular status and expertise in resource management including as kaitiaki. There will be benefits to ‘good decision making’ if Ngati Whatua Orakei were involved in planning processes. (f) The PAUP does not have a complete list of culturally significant sites and some identified sites are limited in the area protected (e.g. certain maunga). Further, the identification of some areas are culturally sensitive so are not appropriate to include in the PAUP. Protection of culturally significant sites should not be limited to those listed in the PAUP. (g) Okahu Bay should be included as a culturally significant site. It has cultural significance since and prior to the signing of the Treaty by Ngati Whatua Orakei tupuna in 1840, is the ancestral kainga (village) of Ngati Whatua Orakei and remains a significant site to Ngati Whatua Orakei. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS 3. I hold a bachelors degree in Geography and Maori from the University of Auckland and lecture is various departments there and at AUT on Maori urban planning, design and media matters. I established the Ngati Whatua Orakei Heritage and Planning unit in 1998, the predecessor to the Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Maia Limited, Toki Taiao Unit. 4. I have read the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained within the Environment Court Practice Note 2011. I agree to comply with the Code. This evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my expressed opinions. 11712257:1 3 NGATI WHATUA ORAKEI WHAI MAIA LIMITED 5. The Ngati Whatua Orakei Trust owns two subsidiary companies which each in turn have separate Boards of Directors that include independent people. Whai Maia Limited is responsible for the day to day operations that relate to the social and cultural enhancement of our people. This includes protecting our natural resources, waahi whakahirahira (sites of significance) and waahi tapu (sacred sites) through the exercise of kaitiakitanga. Our failure to adequately protect our natural and cultural heritage not only has serious negative impacts on our physical well-being but also on our cultural and spiritual essence. NGATI WHATUA ORAKEI - BRIEF RELEVANT HISTORY 6. Although there was involvement prior to that time, Ngati Whatua’s occupation of the Tamaki Isthmus (i.e. the land between and bordering the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours) began in earnest in the 17th Century. This occupation is marked by some of the twenty Ngati Whatua placenames dating from this period, e.g. Te Rae o Kawharu (Arch Hill), Te Whakatakatakanga (Hobson Bay), Ipupakore (near Mount Eden Prison), Te Toi o Kawharu (the highest point in the Waitakere Ranges) and Te Rerengaoraiti (Point Britomart - now destroyed). 7. From the 18th Century and more particularly since 1740 Ngati Whatua have been tangata whenua and hold mana and Ahi Kaaroa (unbroken occupation and use) over the whole inner Waitemata Harbour, from Mission Bay (formerly Kohimaramara) in the east and all points west from there to the Tasman Sea, together with equivalent parts of North Shore, and ranging south-west to the northern part of the Manukau Harbour from Mangere to the Manukau Heads. This resulted from the campaigning of Ngati Whatua under the principal leadership of Tuperiri against the Waiohua. After the final battle at Mt. Mangere, Tuperiri built his main Pa at Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill) and held undisputed possession of all the lands in the Isthmus formerly held by the Waiohua, (which latter, notwithstanding intermarriage then ceased to exist as a separate iwi). As stated in the Judgment of Chief Native Land Court Judge Fenton in his well-known 1869 Judgment on the status of the Orakei Block, Ngati Whatua had: 11712257:1 4 “...exterminated the tribes that occupied this Isthmus, entered into possession of the empty country and settled down permanently and here they have ever since remained as the dominant lord of the soil. The Court has found that there are no concurrent rights or titles which ought to diminish their estates or interests and it therefore decides that one or more certificates of title shall issue in favour of these tribes (i.e. Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Te Uringutu today known as 'Ngati Whatua Orakei') or in favour of such persons comprising them as shall be determined upon hearing further evidence...”(2) 8. I should add that from 1740 onwards to 1840 Ngati Whatua are recorded as living and working not only at Tuperiri’s main Pa at Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill) but also at: Okahu, Whakatakataka (Orakei), Purewa (Meadowbank), Rangitoto (Remuera), Waipapa (Beach Road), Horotiu (Queen Street/Albert Park), Waiariki (University/Albert Park), Te To (Auckland Gas Works), Te Rehu (Shelly Point), Onewa (Kauri Point), Maunganui (Birkdale), Ouruamo (Beach Haven), Tauhinu (Greenhithe), Pitoitoi (Riverhead), Kopupaka (Henderson), Hikurangi (Manukau Heads), Karangahape (Cornwallis), Ihumatao (Manukau/Mangere), Te Whau (Blockhouse Bay), Mangere, Onehunga, Waikumete and/or Owairaka. 9. Ngati Whatua had their food production in the central Isthmus organised into gardening and fishing circuits themselves dictated by soils, fish stocks and the native calendar (maramataka). There were numerous fishing circuits around both the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours, generally commencing in early spring and using fishing stations when distant from main settlements. For instance, shark and snapper in the Waitemata were obtained off Kohimaramara, Okahu, Okaa (Herne Bay), west around the Harbour off Te Whau, north to Pitoitoi and Tauhinu, south and east to Ouruamo and Onewa. In the Manukau there were abundant pipi, kina, paua, kutai and tio all along the northern shore especially from Te Whau to Karangahape. Off Mangere/Ihumatao (Ihu-mata-oho) and Puketutu Island, there were patiki and kahawai as well as shark. 11712257:1 5 PAX BRITANNICA 10. In 1840 Te Kawau and other Ngati Whatua leaders signed the Treaty of Waitangi and then the first sale agreement that led to the establishment of Auckland as now outlined: “For Ngati Whatua, Apihai Te Kawau the then principal leader, Reweti and Tinana signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Manuka (Manukau) on 20 March 1840 with W C Symonds signing on behalf of the Crown. It was a Treaty that opened with reference to “Peace and Good Order” and the “necessary Laws and Institutions. But Te Kawau sought more than words to gain security against the Northern tribes.”(3) 11. In fact he actively sought an alliance with the Crown. By such means he hoped to obtain military protection and instruction in the arts of commerce, in return for land for settlement and food and shelter for the early colonists. Accordingly he sent his nephew, Reweti, and others to the Bay of Islands to ask Governor Hobson to come to Tamaki. As the Waitangi Tribunal notes, “... a few days after the signing of the Treaty, seven chiefs from Orakei came to the Bay seeking protection against their old enemies the Nga Puhi, and asking the Lieutenant-Governor to take up his residence amongst them.