FFI Wai903, #A43<,

Whanganui National Park Late 1970s - 2000

A Report Commissioned for the Waitangi Tribunal Robin Hodge 2003

Table of Contents

Table of Maps ...... i List of Abbreviations ...... vi

Introduction ...... 1 Clailns ...... 2 Definitions ...... 4 'Conservation' ...... 4 'Maoriness' and a 'Maori' National Park ...... 4 Spelling ...... 4 COlmnission ...... 5 Sources ...... 6 Structure ...... 6

Chapter 1 Legislation and Participating Groupings of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ...... 9 1.1 National Parks Act 1952 ...... 9 1.2 National Parks Act 1980 ...... 11 1.3 Conservation Act 1987 ...... 11 1.4 Whanganui River Ma0l1 Trust Board Act 1988 ...... 12 1.5 Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990 ...... 14 1.6 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board ...... 15 1.7 Tamahaki Incorporation ...... 17

Chapter 2 Preparatory Moves to 1982 ...... 21 2.1 Initial Moves by the Crown; 1940s - 1982 ...... 21 2.1.1 National Park PotentiaL ...... 21 2.1.2 Development of the National Park Idea ...... 22 2.1.3 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin', 1980, and Subsequent Crown Actions ...... 23 2.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Reaction ...... 25 2.3 Further Crown Preparations for the National Park Proposal ...... 27 2.3.1 Maori Views as Discussed by Lands Department Officials ...... 28

Chapter 3 Park Planning: 1983-84 ...... 33 3.1 Crown Actions ...... 33 3.1.1 Consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ...... 33 3.1.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Deputation to Minister ofLands ...... 36 3.1.3 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916'.37 3.1.4 Wanganui River National Park Assessment, June 1983 ...... 38 3.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Response ...... 39 3.2.1 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi 's Initial Decisions, August 1983 ...... 40 3.2.2 Strengthening of 'Maoriness' in the Proposed Parle ...... 41 3.2.3 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Submissions on National Park ii

Proposal...... 42 3.3 Crown Actions ...... 45 3.3.1 Proposed Wanganui River National Park - Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority, March 1984 ...... 45 3.3.2 Subsequent Crown Actions ...... 48

Chapter 4 Park Planning: 1985-86 ...... 53 4.1 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Action ...... 53 4.1.1 Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust ...... 53 4.2 Governluent Actions ...... 56 4.2.1 Submission to Cabinet Social Equity Committee ...... 56 4.3 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Reflections ...... 61 4.4 Announcement of the National Park ...... 61 4.5 Further Action from December 1985 ...... 62 4.5.1 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's Position ...... 62 4.5.2 Crown Response ...... 63 4.6 Hardening Attitudes - Wetere and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, 1986 ...... 64 4.7 Crown's Announcement of Whanganui National Park ...... 67

Chapter 5 A Maori National Park? ...... 69 5.1 Submission Hearing, 24 November 1983 ...... 70 5.1.1 Taiaroa's Report ofSubmission Hearing ...... 71 5.1.2 Director General's Memo ...... 71 5.1.3 Lands Department Summary ofHearing ...... 72 5.1.4 Differences Between the Taiaroa and Lands Department Reports. 73 5.1.5 Verbatim Transcript, Submission Hearing on 24 November 1983 . 74 5.1.6 Assessment of the Verbatim, Taiaroa, and Lands Department Reports ...... 76 5.2 Further Action On Maori Representation in Control and Management ... 78 5.3 Speech by the Minister of Lands ...... 80

Chapter 6 Whanganui National Park: Management Plan 1989 ...... 83 6.1 Whanganui National Park Draft Management Plan, 1987 ...... 83 6.1.1 Preparations ...... 83 6.1.2 Submissions by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ...... 83 6.1.3 Assessment ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Submissions ...... 87 6.1.4 Iwi Participation in Planning For the Draft Management Plan ..... 88 6.1.5 Draft Management Plan: Description ...... 88 6.1.6 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Response to the Draft Management Plan ...... 90 6.1.7 Government Response to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Criticism ...... 91 6.1.8 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Response...... 94 6.2 Whanganui National Park Management Plan, 1989 ...... 94 6.3 Assessment of Draft and Management Plans ...... 96

Chapter 7 John Coull and Tieke Huts ...... 101 7.1 John Coull Hut ...... 101 7.1.1 Early buildings ...... 101 7.1.2 Relocation ofJohn Coull hut, 1988-1990 ...... 103 7.1.3 Tensions,from 1991 ...... 106 iii

7.1.4 Facility User Pass and the Whanganui River Great Journey Concept, 1988-1993 ...... 108 7.2 Tieke ...... 110 7.2.1 Occupation ofTieke Hut, 1993 ...... 110 7.2.2 Tieke: Whare Wananga and Marae ...... 111 7.2.3 Discussions to Conclude the Occupation ...... 113 7.2.4 Establishment of Tieke Marae ...... 115 7.2.5 Tieke Marae, Late 1990s ...... 118 7.2.6 Assessment ...... 119

Chapter 8 Additions to Whanganui National Park ...... I21 8.1 Proposed Additions ...... 121 8.1.1 Statutory and Policy Requirements ...... 121 8.1.2 Recommendations in the 1989 Management Plan ...... 123 8.1.3 Whanganui River Area Investigations ...... 124 8.2 Fonnation of Friends ofWhanganui River ...... 124 8.3 Section 8 Investigations ...... 124 8.3.1 'Investigation ofAdditions to Whanganui National Park. An Invitation To Comment' ...... 125 8.4 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Reaction and Further Crown Action ...... 127 8.5 Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park, 1993 ...... 129 8.6 Mangapurua Road Proposed Addition to Whanganui National Park ..... 131

Chapter 9 Issues: Urupa; Employment and Concessions; Animal Pest Control ...... 137 9.1 Urupa ...... 137 9.1.1 Maori Viewpoints, Early Twentieth Century and Crown Action .. 137 9.1.2 Maori Viewpoints, 1980s ...... 138 9.1.3 Response ofDepartment of Conservation ...... 139 9.1.4 Puketapu and Mataiwhetu ...... 140 9.1.5 Topine Te Mamaku Urupa ...... 141 9.1.6 Assessntent ...... 142 9.2 Employment and Concessions ...... 142 9.2.1 Iwi Expectations ...... 142 9.2.2 Entployment ...... 143 9.2.3 Government Initiatives towards Maori and DOC - Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy ...... 145 9.2.4 Concessions ...... 145 9.2.5 Assessntent ...... 146 9.3 Animal Pest Control ...... 147 9.3.1 Goats ...... 147 9.3.2 Possums and the Use of 1080 ...... 148 9.4 SUlmnary ...... 151

Chapter 10 Relationships Between Crown Agencies and Te Atihaunui-a- Paparangi ...... 155 10.1 Consultation ...... 155 10.1.1 1970s and 1980s ...... 155 10.1.2 The Position of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board as Sole Representative ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ...... 158 iv

10.1.3 1990s ...... 159 10.1.4 Te Ranga Agreement, November 1995 ...... 160 10.1.5 Assessment ...... 164 10.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Representation ...... 164 10.3 Quality of the Relationship between DOC in Wanganui and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ...... 165 10.3.1 Land Clainls ...... 166 10.3.2 Government Financial Constraints and Restructuring ...... 166 10.3.3 Assessnlent ...... 169

Conclusion ...... 173

Bibliography ...... 185 v

Table of Maps

Map 1 Whanganui National Park 1989 ...... vii

Map 2 John Coull and Tieke Huts, Whanganui National Park Management Plan ...... 102

Map 3 Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park ...... 122

Map 4 Proposed Addition to Whanganui National Park Mangapurua (Road) Scenic Reserve ...... 133 vi

List of Abbreviations

AD Acting Director AJHR Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives bUe block CCL Commissioner of Crown Lands Cons (Department or Minister) of Conservation DG Director General DOC Department of Conservation Forest and Bird Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand HO Head Office L&S Department of Lands and Survey MA Depamnent of Maori Affairs Min Minister (parliament) MP Member of Parliament NP&RA National Parks and Reserves Authority N2;CA New Zealand Conservation Authority NZG New Zealand Gazette NZPD New Zealand Parliamentary Debates S or s section SD Survey District Sec Secretary SSC State Services COlmnission TIWCB TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board WRR or SB Wanganui River Reserves or Scenic Board WRRT Wanganui River Reserve Trust, also known as Te Tikanga COlmnission for Evangelisation Justice and Development WNP&RB Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board WWWT Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust vii

Map 1: Whanganui National Park 1989

.... Tangarilo .... Ngauruhoe

- Whanganui Inquiry boundary C] Whanganui National Park

Whanganui National Park Management Plan Department a/Conservation, Wanganui, 1989

1

Introduction

This report has been commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal as one of several on land-based issues in the region ofthe Whanganui River. It follows on from 'The Scenic Reserves of the Whanganui River 1891-1986' and from my scoping report. l The scenic reserve report discussed and analysed the origins of the Crown's acquisition of lands along the Whanganui River for scenic reserves and its subsequent management policies and practices. I argued that the impetus for reservation was driven by Pakeha conservationists. Their vision for conservation embraced a cluster of reasons: • the preservation of romantic scenic beauty to offer spiritual and physical rejuvenation to visitors;

o the prevention of soil erosion; • an intrinsic valuation of indigenous flora and fauna; • and the preservation of New Zealand's natural heritage. Another layer in this Pakeha conservationist vision was the positive valuation given to so-called wilderness areas which were perceived to be uninhabited. In 'new world' countries like the United States, as well as in New Zealand, reserves and national parks were created to conserve nature. The fact that indigenous people had lived, in some cases for millennia, in these romantically-grand landscapes was conveniently ignored by conservationists. Indigenous peoples were evicted from pennanent occupation.2 Temporary visiting by tourists for recreational activities was encouraged. In certain circumstances temporary visiting by Maori for Maori purposes was pennitted. They could be granted the right by the Governor, under the Scenery

I Robin Hodge, 'The Scenic Reserves of the Whanganui River 1891-1986', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2002, (Wai 903 record of enquiry, doc A9); Robin Hodge, Scoping Report on the Creation and Management of the Whanganui River Scenic Reserves and the Whanganui National Park 1890s-1990s, cOlmnissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2002, (Wai 903 record of enquiry, doc A4) 2 These contradictions have been exposed by William Cronon (ed) in Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York, W W Norton, 1995 and David Spence, Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making ofthe National Parks, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999; see Robin Hodge, 'Scenery Preservation and Protected Areas' in Crown Laws, Policies, and Practices in Relation to Flora and Fauna, 1840-1912, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2001, p 261. For the idea of 'wilderness' areas in New Zealand national park policy, see Geoff Park, Effective Exclusion? An ExploratOlY Overvew of Crown Actions and Maori Responses Concerning the Indigenous Flora and Fauna, 1912-1983, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2001, p 331 2

Preservation Amendment Act 1910 s 7, to take birds not protected by legislation and to bury their dead in urupa in reserves that had been taken for scenic purposes. All these factors lay behind the establishment of Whanganui National Park.

Claims The following parts of claims relate to Whanganui National Park. Quotation marks indicate where I have copied directly including emphasis from the statements of claim. • Amendment to Wai 146 statement of claim 1. 1(a), dated 27 June 1990, by Hikaia Amohia on behalf of the tribes ofNgati Haua, Tama Upoko, Hine Ngakau, Ngati Tupoho and N gati Rangi. '3. WRONGFUL TAKING OF LAND NORTH OF W ANGANUI RIVER 1886 TO 1887 3.1 The wrongful taking of land north of the Wanganui River Reserve land along the upper reaches ofPipiriki up to Taumarunui and known as the Wanganui National Parle This land was wrongly taken by the Crown during the period 1886-1887 by Order-In-Council. ' • Amended statement of claim registered as Wai 214, dated 30 January 199[9], by Kenehi Robert Mair and on behalf of Ngati Hinearo and Ngati Tuera hapu. 'That, my ancestors were members of the Ngati Hinearo and Ngati Tuera were owners for 200-300 years of blocks lmown as [P]arikino 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7 A, and 7B located on the Whanganui River. That, these blocks contain sites, including pa and urupa sites, of cultural and spiritual importance, which are noted in Native Land COUli records . . .. failure through legislation, policy, action or otherwise, to ensure that once burial areas of importance to Maori were identified, they be given legal protection. This includes a failure to investigate further the burial grounds in the Parikino block when the Under-Secretary became aware that a recOlmnendation existed to have an area reserved as a burial ground. This can be compared with the concern in the period to preserve important scenery areas along the banks of the Whanganui River.' • J. Akapita's claim (Wai 221) concerning Wairnarino No 1 and others, dated 26 March 1987 and Annex A, dated 26 March 1987. 3

1. 'b. All land purchases concluded by the Aotea District Maori Land Board with the tenns of the Native Land Act 1909 and the Native Land Amendment Act 1914; Section 14 in particular but without limitation the following blocks: (i) All Whakaihuwaka C Subdivisions now contained within the Whanganui National Park.' From Annex A: '3. The Aotea District Maori Land Board purchased Native lands on behalf of the Crown. In the case ofWhakaihuwaka Part A, Whakaihuwaka IB2B, Whakaihuwaka C2Bl, Whakaihuwaka C4, C7, C13I2, C13I1A, C13I1B, C13I1E, no surveys were made and no titles exist. I consider this illegal, and cannot understand how these lands could have been sold to the Crown, when no-one lmows where the blocks are. (Reference: See report to the National Parks and Reserves Authority, National Park Series No. 28, dated March 1984, page 222 - proposed Whanganui National Parle. The descendants of the various blocks in question require these blocks returned, so that they can practise traditional conservation without interference. ' • Claim Wai 555, dated 12 September 1995, by Mark Koro Cribb and Larry Ngakota Ponga on behalf of their respective hapu, being descendants of their [ancestor] Tamahaki, in the matter of the Taumatamahoe block (MLC 249) being lands adjacent to the Whanganui River. 'NO SURVEY OF THE TAUMATAMAHOE BLOCK HAS EVER BEEN COMPLETED FOR THE PURPOSE/S OF THE ISSUE OF A TITLE AS IS REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 27-33 OF THE NATIVE LAND COURT ACT 1880. THEREFORE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS TITLE IS ISSUED THE BLOCK REMAINS MAORI MULTIPLY-OWNED FREE-HOLD LAND. DESPITE THIS, A NUMBER OF SETTLERS, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE CROWN HAVE UP FARMLANDS, AND IN THE REMAINING SECTIONS OF THE BLOCK, THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION HAS ESTABLISHED A NATIONAL PARK AND OTHER CONSERVATION AREAS.' 4

Definitions

'Conservation' The word 'conservation' is problematic because of its two clusters of meanings. I use the word to mean pennanent preservation and protection. This is the way the scenery preservationists of the early twentieth century used it and the meaning given to it in the Conservation Act 1987. Its other cluster of meanings relates to the wise use of resources, sustainable management, and progressive conservation? I would have liked to include a definition of conservation in tenns of the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust but, when I met Tamahaki in Raetihi at the end of May 2003, they were not agreeable to discussion.

'Maoriness' and a 'Maori' National Park It is not possible for me to say exactly what Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi meant in their use of these tenns but, from their submissions, they appear to mean at the time of the park proposal the inclusion of spiritual values as well as material practice. They also seem to have meant the inclusion of considerable Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi input into management. By 2000 a 'Maori' national park appears to have meant Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ownership of the park. In the text I have provided defmitions of'Maoriness' as given by themselves in their submissions. Perhaps Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi will expand on their meanings in Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

Spelling I have adopted the spelling used in The Whanganui River Report; that is Whanganui for the river and Wanganui for the city and region. When the latter spelling has been used in the past for the river or associated regulatory bodies in titles or quotes I have retained that spelling.4 Words like wahi tapu and Tamaupoko are sometimes spelt waahi tapu and Tama Upoko. Unless they are in quotes, I have used the spelling wahi tapu and Tamaupoko.

3 Ross Galbreath, 'Displacement, Conservation and Customary Use of Native Plants and Animals in New Zealand', New Zealand Journal D/Histmy, vol 36, no 1,2002, P 41; Paul Star, 'T. H. Potts and the Origins of Conservation in New Zealand (1850-1890)" MA thesis, University of Otago, 1992, p 5 4Waitangi Tribunal, Whanganui River Report, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999, p xxi 5

Commission I was asked to cover the following matters which have been copied from the cOlmnission: a) The legislative background to the creation of the national park dating from the National Parks Act 1952; b) The adequacy of consultation with Whanganui Maori from the time of the fIrst initiatives to establish a national park in the early 1980s; c) The extent to which Whanganui Maori conditions regarding representation on the park board and employment in park jobs, et cetera, were met; d) The quality of the relationship between the Department of Conservation in Wanganui and Whanganui Maori; e) The recognition and protection (or not) ofwahi tapu (particularly urupa) within the park; f) Maori concerns over DoC methods of pest control in the park (such as 1080 poisoning and protests about the numbers of dead goats washed down the river); g) The occupation of John Coull and Tieke Huts and the eventual creation of the DoC-sanctioned marae within the park; h) Post-1986 DoC proposals to make additions to the park and Maori opposition thereto; i) The introduction of the facilities user pass and Maori opposition thereto.

I was not required to provide an enviromnental impact report.

I was advised of the 'need to be careful not to cover issues relating to the once-proposed inclusion of the river in the national park that have already been traversed in the Tribunal's Whanganui River Report.,5

The cOlmnission cOlmnenced on 27 January 2003. The draft was due to be

5 Project Brief, 11 July 2002, Wai 903 6 completed on 14 July 2003 and the final report on 15 August 2003. 6

Sources Following the commission direction to proceed with the project structure suggested in my scoping report, I have used written sources of evidence. These came from Department of Conservation archives at the Depaliment's Head Office in Wellington and at the Wanganui Conservancy office. I have also used archives from the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board in Taumarunui. I asked to use Tamahaki Incorporation archives but the Incorporation members were not willing to let me do so when I spoke to them in May 2003. In a subsequent letter, dated 4 June 2003, their Chairperson Robert Cribb, offered to begin discussions with me about my research and report writing. But, because the time was nearing for me to complete my draft, I was unable to accept this offer.? No fonnal interviews were undertaken for this report although I had infonnal discussions with Whanganui iwi at a hui at Putilci marae in September 2002. The possibility of an interview, after I had examined the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board records, was discussed on the phone with Archie Taiaroa. The interview did not eventuate, largely again because time ran out for the completion of my draft. I understood that, while my report would be based on written evidence, Whanganui iwi would have the opportunity at the Ttibunal hearing to present evidence based on their own sources. I would lilce to thank all those who have provided archival material and James Mitchell and Noel Harris of the Waitangi Tribunal for their assistance.

Structure The methodology I have adopted is the Olihodox historical procedure of fonning conclusions after the examination of evidence. The first part of the report, chapters one to six, covers the fonnation and early years of the national park. In chapters seven to ten particular issues are examined. The report covers the time period late 1970s to 2000. I chose the year 2000 as the conclusion date because Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and Tamahalci Incorporation both withdrew from consultations with DOC at that time, and because I found no further

6 Direction Commissioning Research, 13 July 2002, Wai 903 (record of enquiry, doc 3.5); Extension to Direction Commissioning Research, 30 January 2003, Wai 903 (record of enquiry, doc 3.9) 7 Cribb to Hodge, 4 June 2003 and Hodge to Cribb, 29 June 2003, personal communications 7 relevant material in archives.

Chapter one outlines the legislation under which Whanganui National Park is controlled and managed. The chapter also describes groupings ofTe Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi who participate in the management, activities, and discussion relating to the park. Preparatory moves towards the park, to 1982, are discussed in chapter two. Chapter three examines events in the fonnation of the park in 1983-84. They include Lands and Survey research into land ownership and publication of assessments. The chapter also includes Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's submission on the proposal. Chapter four, which covers 1985 and 1986, describes the proposed school of conservation devised by the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust. It examines Crown­ Iwi discussions on ways to accommodate iwi requests within procedures acceptable to both parties. It also examines the fmancial and restructrning policies of the 1984 Labour govermnent which delayed the gazettal of the parle. Chapter five discusses the claim by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi that they were promised what they called a 'Maori' national park in the Whanganui River region. The process of developing a management plan in the first years ofWhanganui National Park, between 1987 and 1989, is the subject of chapter six. Chapter seven examines the issues that arose in relation to the John Coull and Tieke huts. The proposed additions to Whanganui National Park are the subject of chapter eight. Chapter nine looks at three issues which were concerns for Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi. These are urupa, employment and concessions, and animal pest control. The latter includes goats and possums, and the use of 1080 pesticide. The relationship between Crown agencies with responsibility for Whanganui National Park and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi is examined in chapter ten. Aspects of this include consultation, the extent to which iwi conditions regarding park board membership have been met, and the quality of the relationship between the Department of Conservation in Wanganui and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi.

The report concludes that, like the scenic reserves earlier in the twentieth 8

century, the establishment of Whanganui National Park was driven by conservation ideals to which Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had to react. Initially, the iwi cautiously welcomed the idea. They were motivated by the potential of the area - Whanganui River and its surrounding lands - to be the first national park to project an image of 'Maoriness'. They envisaged a park in which iwi, holding spiritual as well as material values, would be able to play an equal, part in management. This vision conflicted with legislative provisions that require the park to be controlled and managed by the Department of Conservation. National and Labour governments of the 1980s were not prepared to change legislation to pennit an expanded conservation perception and a different management fonnat for Whanganui National Parle Governments did, however, want to publicly recognise Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi spirituality and mana. The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was created and, under legislation in 1990, provides one representative on the Taranaki/Wanganui Conservation Board. This board is required to seek advice of the WRMTB on any matter involving the spiritual, historical and cultural significance of the park to Whanganui iwi. DOC is required to consult and give consideration to the advice of the WRMTB on all matters of concern to iwi. Because ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, the Whanganui River was not included in the national parle Perceived delays in the settlement of land claims were factors in some issues discussed in this report. The park was also affected by financial and restructuring constraints imposed by different governments. Differing visions, legislation, land claims, and financial constraints soured the relationship between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the Department of Conservation in Wanganui as the Crown agent responsible for Whanganui National Parle 9

1 Chapter 1 : Legislation and Participating Groups of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi

This chapter outlines the legislation under which the Whanganui National Park is controlled and managed. It begins with the National Parks Act 1952, although the relevant Acts today are the National Parks Act 1980, the Conservation Act 1987, the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board Act 1988, and the Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990. The chapter also describes groupings ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi who participate in the management, activities, and discussion relating to the national park. The groups include the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board and Tamahaki Incorporation.

1.1 National Parks Act 1952 The National Parks Act 1952 consolidated previous national parks' legislation which included the Tongariro National Park Act 1894 and amendments in 1922 and 1927, the Egmont National Park Act 1900 and an amendment in 1933, and the Public Reserves, Domains, and National Parks Act 1928. The purpose of the 1952 Act was to preserve in perpetuity, for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, 'areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality or natural features so beautiful or unique that their preservation is in the national interest.' These areas were to be preserved as far as possible in their natural state. Native flora and fauna were to be preserved. Introduced flora and fauna were to be extenninated as far as possible. There was to be freedom of entry and access for the public so that they might 'receive in full measure the inspiration, enjoyment, recreation, and other benefits that may be derived from mountains, forests, sounds, lakes, and rivers.' 8 The Act provided for the establishment of the National Parks Authority to advocate and adopt schemes for the protection of national parks and for their development on a national basis; to recommend the enlargement of existing parks and the setting apart of new ones; to allocate funds for the administration, maintenance, and improvement of national parks; and to control the administration of New Zealand

8 National Parks Act 1952, s 3, ss 1,2 10 national parks in the national interest.9 It provided for the establishment of National Park Boards to administer, manage, and control each national park subject to the general policy and direction of the Authority. 10 It provided for delegation of the

Authority's powers and functions to the Department of Lands and Survey. II It pennitted the Governor General, on the recommendation of the Authority to the

Minister of Lands, to declare any Crown land to be a national parle. 12 In introducing the 1952 National Parks Bill, the Minister of Lands acknowledged the role of Horonuku Te Heu Heu Tukino in New Zealand's fIrst national park and said that the Bill continued the provision for the paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa to be represented on the Tongariro National Park Board. Speaking in the debate, Emera Tirikatene, MP for Southern Maori, suppOlied the Bill and endorsed the Minister's comments on Te Heu Heu Tukino. But he, like his predecessors in Parliament, raised points that had long been of concern to Maori in relation to reserved lands for scenic or preservation purposes. The points were Maori rights to use their land and its resources; compensation; and the methods by which the Crown had acquired areas for scenic reserve. Tirikatene said he would like discussion to take place with Maori owners so that they were fully aware of which areas were recommended for national parks. If Maori owners were holding property for the benefIt of themselves or their families in the future, he said, he would like that to be taken into consideration when compensation was computed. 13 The intent of the Act was conservationist; an outcome oflobbying by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Federated Mountain Clubs, and the Royal Society of New Zealand. All three were given representation on the National

Parks Authority. 14 Various actions were offences under the Act. They included: the lighting of fIres within national parks, or fIres which spread into a national park, and caused damage; stock trespass; the introduction of any fauna and flora; damage to or removal of flora, fauna, and minerals; wilful damage to buildings or soil, or the

9 ibid, s 4 to 6 10 ibid, s 9 to 41 11 ibid, s 8(3) and (4) 12 ibid, s 10 13 E Tirikatene, 5 August 1952, NZPD, 1952, vol 297, pp 723-724 14 National Parks Act, s 4, ss If, 19, 1h; M Stopdijk, 'Between Two Acts. An Investigation Into Attitudes and Lobbying in New Zealand's National Parks Movement 1928-1952', MA thesis, University of Canterbury, 1988; Jane Thomson, Origins ofthe National Parks Act, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1976 11

erection of buildings or hoardings; and illegal possession of a firearm. 15

1.2 National Parks Act 1980 The National Parks Act 1980 retained the conservationist principles of the previous Act but reintegrated the administration of scenic and other classifications of reserves with national parks. 16 The National Parks Authority and National Parks Boards became respectively the National Parks and Reserves Authority and National Parks and Reserves Boards. The Royal Society, Forest and Bird, and the Federated Mountain Clubs retained their statutory positions on the Authority. Descendants ofTe

Heu Heu Tukino retained representation on the responsible Board. 17 The Taranaki Maori Trust Board was given authority to recommend one person to the Board responsible for Taranaki National Park. 18 National Parks were to be administered by the Lands Department but the Minister of Lands could not make any recommendation except on the recommendation of the Authority which was made after consultation with the appropriate board. 19 The National Parks and Reserves Authority was given power 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 policies; and to consider and make proposals for additions or new parks.2o The National Parks and Reserves Boards were given power to prepare, review, and amend management plans; 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; give advice to the CCL and the NP&RA on the interpretation of any management plan; or on any proposal for additions ofland.21 No Maori MPs spoke in the debate on the National Parks Bill 1980.

1.3 Conservation Act 1987 The Conservation Act 1987, establishing the Department of Conservation, became law on 31 March 1987. The department's functions included the management

15 National Parks Act 1952, s 53, 54 16 National Parks Act 1980, s 4-16 17 ibid, s 17-39; s 18 ss 2a, b, c; s 32 ss 4b, 5b 18 ibid, s 32 ss 5b 19 ibid, s 43, s 7 ss 2 20 ibid, s 18 s4 a-e 21 ibid, s 30, a, d, f 12 of its lands for conservation purposes and the administration of the National Parks Act 1980. Its management was to be guided by the 1983 General Policy for National 22 Parks and national parks' management plans. Section 4 of the Act required DOC to interpret and administer the Conservation Act 1987 as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi?3 This requirement led to debate in the late 1980s and 1990s about its meaning. Debate has focused on the Acts listed in the First Schedule, including the National Parks Act 1980, which do not contain any reference to the Treaty ofWaitangi, and on whether the principle of conservation overrides Treaty of Waitangi principles. Court cases in 1989 and in 1995 give differing judgements. In 1989, the conservation principle was paramount. In 1995, the Court of Appeal found that the department is bound to give effect to the principles of the Treaty.24 Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 also led DOC to begin to implement government policy outlined in the paper 'Te Urupare Rangapu, Partnership Perspectives'. In tum, this led to the Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy in 1997 as part of Atawhai Ruamano Conservation 2000. The strategy provided for the fostering of a Maori contribution to conservation management by: supporting the development of a tilcanga approach; integrating Maori initiatives; and adopting aspects of tilcanga into management practices.

1.4 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board Act 1988 Under this Act the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was given authority to negotiate with the government or any other body or authority, for the settlement of all outstanding claims relating to customary rights and usages of te iwi 0 Whanganui or any particular hapu, whanau or group in respect of the Whanganui River.25 Although the Act does not mention the Whanganui National Park, the WRMTB gained power, under the Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990, to recOlmnend one person to the TaranakiIWanganui Conservation Board.26 The WRMTB was the body which the government recognised as having authority to discuss park matters. The legislation was prepared by the Department of Maori Affairs. By

22 Robert McLean and Trecia Smith, 'The Crown and Flora and Fauna: Legislation, Policies, and Practices, 1983-98, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2001, pp 327-328; Nicola Wheen, 'A History of New Zealand Environmental Law', in Environmental Histories ofNew Zealand, Eric Pawson and Tom Brooking (eds), South Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp 269-270 23 Conservation Act 1987, s 4 24 McLean, pp 373-374, 414 25ibid, s 6 13

December 1987 the Bill was in the current legislative progrmmne.27 The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was constituted as a Maori Trust Board within the meaning and for the purposes of the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. The WRMTB Act declared the Board's beneficiaries to be the descendants of the hapu of Tama Upoko, Hinengakau, and Tupoho. The Board was to consist of nine initial members who were to prepare a roll of all the adult beneficiaries of the Board and then hold an election of members for the Board.28 Draft legislation, which was rejected by the government because it included unacceptable provisions, had been prepared in November 1986 for the Wanganui River Reserve Trust by its lawyers.29 Their proposed legislation linked the topics of the Trust Board's establishment and composition, compensation for the effects of gravel extraction, and mana and spiritual sovereignty. The draft had a Maori emphasis, which echoed the values in Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's submissions on Whanganui National Park, and which was omitted from the legislation which was eventually passed in 1988. The Preamble stated that it is an Act:

to establish the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board and to settle various matters relating to the unjust appropriation of customary land, rights, and resources that was owned by the three children of the Grand Ancestor of all the Maori people of the Wanganui River, namely Tamakehu, and his wife Ruaka.

Tamakehu cherished every reach, every pool, and every eddy of the Wanganui River. Ownership of the river gave him a mana greater than that of the other men. His children, Tama Upoko, Hinengakau and Tupoho inherited that river, the land beneath, and that mana.30

The document traced the history of the dispossession by the Crown of the river from the sub-tribes of the Whanganui people as descendant hapu from the three tupuna. 31 Under the section, 'Compensation', they claimed the smn of not less than $4,000,000. They requested $100,000 in part payment so that the Trust Board could

26 See following paragraph 27 DG Cons to Min Cons, 15 December 1987, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board; and correspondence in 1987, Box 34, WR 35 vol 7 Whanganui National Park, DOC Wanganui 28 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board Act 1988, ss 4,5 (1-3) 29 The Wanganui River Reserve Trust was an earlier group formed in 1981 to represent Tamaupoko, Hinengakau and Tupoho; see next section 30 'A Whanganui River Maori Trust Board', Whanganui River Maori Reserves Trust, 18 February 1986,0060, Box 1179, L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment of Possible National Park Areas Wanganui River, DOC HO Wellington; File Wanganui River, Box Wanganui National Park, WRMTB Taumarunui; Waitangi Tribunal, The Whanganui River Report, Wai 167, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999, pp 244 14 acquire necessary premises, equipment, and other establishment expenses.32 Under the section, 'Mana and Spiritual Sovereignty', they asked the government to legally recognise hapu mana and spiritual sovereignty over the bed and waters of the Wanganui River by the issuing of title showing that spiritual sovereignty. The membership of the Trust Board was to consist of not more than nine people, three to represent each tupuna. The beneficiaries of the Trust Board were to be 'noho kainga' defmed as 'resident in the area to which that section or division relates'. The Trust Board was to recognise and take notice of the advice of 'Kamnatua Kaitiaki', defmed as a tupuna representative of elder guardians.33 The proposed national park and its management were only briefly alluded to as an additional right and power of the Trust Board.34

1.5 Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 The Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990 created a new fonn of authority for national parks and other conservation areas. The New Zealand Conservation Authority replaced the National Parks and Reserves Authority. In the Whanganui River area, the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board replaced the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. The Conservation Boards have responsibility for advising the Deparhnent of Conservation on management planning and national park administration. The New Zealand Conservation Authority prepares statements of general policy on national parks and approves management plans.35 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi has statutory representation on the TaranakiIWanganui Conservation Board. The person is to be recommended by the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. The Conservation Board was also required, 'to have regard to the spiritual, historical, and cultural significance of the Whanganui River to the Whanganui iwi' and to 'seek advice of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on any matter that involves the spiritual, historical, and cultural significance of the park to the Whanganui iwi,.36 The wording of the latter clause was on the recOlmnendation of the WRMTB who explained that such wording was consistent

31 ibid, clauses 1-9 32 ibid, pp 2, 4 33 ibid, pp 2, 3 34 ibid, P 4 35 McLean, p 424 36 Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990, Pt 11A, s 6p(7)(b); McLean, pp 346-347 15 with the Whanganui National Park's Management Plan, policies 8.3 and 9.2.5.37

1.6 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board The Oligins of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board derive from the Wanganui River Reserve Trust, also known as Te Tikanga Commission for Evangelisation Justice and Development, which was fonned in 1981. Its kaumatua was Titi Tihu and its chainnan was Hikaia Amohia. Each of the three tupuna, Hinengakau, Tamaupoko, and Tupoho, had three representatives on the WRRT. At this time the Trust was concerned that control of the Whanganui River scenic reserves was to move from Wanganui to Wellington. In a submission on the management plan for the scenic reserves in 1981, the trust argued that control should remain in Wanganui, that the management authority should have more Maori members, and that the Whanganui River and scenic reserves should be under the control of the truSt. 38 As discussions proceeded and submissions were required for the proposed national park, the trust, through a research committee, organised them. The Wanganui River Reserve Trust was not registered as an incorporated society. The Department of Maori Affairs first suggested that it become incorporated under the Friendly Societies Act so that, in the event of any compensation for gravel extraction from the Whanganui River, the trust could receive the funds. 39 But J E Nelson, a researcher for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, proposed the establishment of a Whanganui Maori Trust Board under the Maori Trust Board Act 1955. Nelson argued that there was a need for such a trust to act as a focal point to promote the unity of the people; to be recognised and supported by the government; and to represent the people in activities like tourism, the national park proposal, and aspects of vested Maori lands.40 This proposal received the support of the WRRT at a meeting on 3 March 1985. 41 Another factor was the government's willingness, after its rejection of the 1979 petition by Tihu and Amohia claiming title to the bed of the Whanganui River, to recognise fonnally the river's spiritual significance and mana to Te Atihaunui-a-

37 Henry to Secretary for Environment, 7 September 1989, file Whanganui National Park, WRMTB Taumarunui 38 Hodge, 'Scenic Reserves', Chapter 12 39 Jaram to MA HO, 12 December 1983; Taiaroa to Wanganui MA, 5 December 1983; Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves. National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 40 J E Nelson, 'A Whanganui Maori Trust Board', undated, 0060, Box 1179, L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 16

Paparangi. The government sought to lin1e compensation for gravel extraction, Maori representation on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, and the proposed national parle. 42 At the same time, in presenting Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's submission on the national park in November 1983, a Wanganui River Reserves Trust subcommittee discussed iwi representation in park management with the Lands Department. A tentative proposition from this meeting was that three Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi representatives - one from each tupuna - be appointed to the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. The department later amended this to just one. In addition, the department suggested an advisory committee of nine Wanganui Maori (three from each tupuna) be established, to be appointed by the tribe, to act in an advisory capacity to the WNP&RB and to the department. The WNP&RB would be required to consult the advisory cOlmnittee in all matters within the Board's jurisdiction relating to Maoridom.43 Aspects of all these factors were incorporated in legislation which was eventually passed in December 1988. In the meantime, Tupoho approved the name Whanganui River Maori Trust Board at a meeting at Putiki Marae on 11 January 1986.44 From the gazettal ofWhanganui National Park in December 1986, the Wanganui River Reserves Trust became the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. It was funded by $140,500 as over-expenditure from Vote: Lands and Survey. This was to cover establishment and first year operating costs, and expenditure to date during negotiations. The money was to be the only interim payment made towards the final cost of settlement for the metal extraction from the Whanganui River. 45 During 1988, when he was no longer chainnan of the IWRMTB, Hikaia Amohia attempted to revive Te Tikanga as the Taumarunui-based iwi authority for Whanganui River.46

41 Minutes WRRT meeting 3 March 1985, Box Wanganui National Park, WRMTB Taumarunui 42 Couch to Amohia, 29 November 1983; CCL to Amohia, 13 September 1984, Box 34, WR 35 vol 4 Wanganui River Reserves. National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 43 See Chapter 5 44 Minutes ofWRRT (Tupoho), 11 January 1986, file Wanganui River Proposed National Park, WRMTB Taumarunui 45 Cabinet Policy Committee, 17 March 1987, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 46 File note J. S. Ombler 12 April 1988, Regional Manager to Central Office, 6 May 1988, Box 6, WR 4 vol 5 Wanganui River Scenic Board River Control and Use; Amohia to Clark, 22 July 1988, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board; DOC Wanganui 17

1. 7 Tamahald Incorporation The Tamahaki Incorporation began as the Tamahaki Council of Hapu in the autumn of 1993 under the leadership ofkamnatua Mark Koro Cribb. Tamahaki whanau and hapu, claiming descent from the upper-Whanganui River tupuna Tamahaki, desire the return of their taonga of ancestral lands, waterways, and airways to express their philosophy and practice in the exercise of their tino rangatiratanga. These are on both sides of the river in the middle reaches. Tamahald Incorporation was fonned by 20 April 1994.47 The Department of Conservation understands the Tamahaki Council of Hapu to be the tribal body while the Tamahald Incorporated Society is the legal entity of the Tamahald hapu collective.48 The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, which is mandated to represent the hapu oftupuna Hinengakau, Tamaupoko, and Tupoho, has been antagonistic towards Tamahald although Larry Ponga, chainnan ofTamahaki in 1995, considered Archie Taiaroa, as chainnan of the WRMTB, to have been an exception to this. Tamahaki understood that the occupation of Tieke in 1993 was bitterly opposed by a large section of what Tamahald called 'the IWI', and that prominent Whanganui tribal 49 leaders attempted to force Te Whanau 0 Tieke to abandon their position. Tamahald believes that the roots of the tribal debate with lower-Whanganui tribal leadership go back to the Battle ofMoutoa. 'To varying degrees the descendants of the Ancestor Tamahald have been on the receiving end from that time being powerless to prevent their expUlsion from their Ancestral Lands and the looting of their Ancestral Taonga.,50

Tamahaki Incorporation claims that the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board cannot represent Tamahald descendants because the WRMTB Act states that the beneficiaries are the descendants ofHinengakau, Tamaupoko and Tupoho. Tamahald Incorporation states that, according to Maori Land Court records, Tamahaki is the reference ancestor along side the Whanganui River from hmnediately below Pipiriki

47 Tamahaki Submission document, undated; Acting Cons Manager, Raetihi, 'Tamahaki Council of Hapu. A Background Paper', 2 February 1995, MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 48 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 49 'Tamahaki Background Paper', original emphasis, MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 50 Ponga to Bolger, 26 November 1995; 'Tamahaki Background Paper', MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 18 upstream towards Tamnarunui. 51 Several groupings within Tamahaki Incorporation have been activist in respect of Whanganui National Parle They include the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust and

Te Whanau 0 Tieke which are discussed in later chapters.

This chapter has outlined legislation under which the Whanganui National Park is controlled and managed. The specific statute is the National Parks Act 1980. This provided for the National Parks and Reserves Authority to prepare general policy and to have a general oversight of national parks. Regional National Parks and Reserves Boards had an advisory role to the Lands Department which was the administering agency. The Minister of Lands could not make any recommendation except on the recommendation of the Authority which was made after consultation with the appropriate board. The Department of Conservation became the administering agency under the Conservation Act 1987 while the NP &RA and the NP&R Boards became, respectively, the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards under the Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990. The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board Act 1988 established the WRMTB. Under the Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990, the Trust Board has statutory authority to recOlmnend one representative to the Taranaki/Wanganui Conservation Board. The Conservation Board is required to seek advice of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on any matter that involves the spiritual, historical, and cultural significance ofthe park to the Whanganui iwi. The chapter also examined groups ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi who participate in management, activities, and discussion relating to the national parle These include the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board which, under its Act, is mandated to represent the descendants of the tupuna Hinengakau, Tamaupoko, and Tupoho. The other body discussed was Tamahaki Incorporation, including its constituent groupings of the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust and Te Whanau 0 Tieke. The Tamahaki Incorporation fonned in 1993. Because they claim descent from the upper-Whanganui River tupuna, Tamahaki, they believe the WRMTB has no mandate to represent them. They have encountered antagonism from some in the

51 Ponga and Cribb to Min MA, 2 May 1995; Bell Gully to Waitangi Tribunal, 26 August 1996; MAO 19

Trust Board.

0004-02 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui

21

2 Chapter 2 Preparatory Moves to 1982

This chapter discusses initial ideas, proposals, and work towards the fonnation ofWhanganui National Parle Conservationist pressure from the National Parks and Reserves Authority for improved protection of the Whanganui River and its iImnediate environs was the catalyst for the national park proposal. The chapter looks at government ideas and actions up to November 1982 when the NP&RA agreed that further investigations should proceed. During this period, Lands Department officials regarded the proposal as inhouse and therefore did not discuss it fonnally with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Some infonnal meetings were held and, from these, officials felt able to COlmnent on Maori attitudes and concerns towards the proposed parle Officials did not take these concerns seriously at this stage. Preparations were complicated by several factors. These were the death of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi representative on the Wanganui River Reserves Board at about the tiIne of the Board's abolition. Control of the reserves, which fonned a major part of the national park proposal, moved to Wellington under the Commissioner of Crown Lands with an oversight by the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi did not have a voice on this board until 1984.

2.1 Initial Moves by the Crown; 1940s - 1982

2.1.1 National Park Potential The potential of the Wanganui watershed for designation as a national park was discussed sporadically by government officials from the 1940s. In 1945 and 1946, suggestions were made by the Public Works Department and within the Lands Department that the Whanganui watershed should be investigated for its tourist

potential. 52 The river's tourist potential was again considered in 1952. The COlmnissioner of Crown Lands thought there was no reason why the river should not be reinstated as a major tourist attraction under the administration of a local body like the fonner Wanganui River Trust. In 1953, the CCL proposed to submit the idea of a national park to the National Parks and Reserves Authority and to call a meeting of 22 interested people in Wanganui to discuss it.53 The national park proposal was still a possibility in 1955 when the Wanganui Town Clerk enquired about future control of the reserves and financial obligations. 54 But the NP&RA rejected the idea for a number of reasons including its belief that a limited nmnber of national parks was desirable. The authority also considered that fmances were unceliain, and that the river would need to be inspected beforehand for which the authority could not spare staff. If tourism did not pay when tourism was leisurely, it argued, tourism would not pay then. In addition, it said, there was little local body interest. 55 However local interest gained momentmn under John Coull, a Wanganui businessman. From discussions came the idea of a single body to control the scenic reserves on the river banks. The Wanganui River Scenic Board was established in August 1958.56 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had official representation on the WRSB and its successor, the Wanganui River Reserves Board. The iwi was represented by Iriaka Ratana between 1958 and 1972, and by Whakaari Mete Kingi (Rangi) between 1973 and 1981. Mrs A Henry was an honorary board member between 1972 and 1975.57 In 1973, the Wanganui River Scenic Board and the Lands Department began to plan towards the establishment of what they first called a 'scenic waterway' .58 During the next two years, the 'waterway' or 'scenic highway' concept evolved within the NP &RA into the idea of a national parle.

2.1.2 Development ofthe National Park Idea In 1975, the National Parks and Reserves Authority delegated to its Planning and Classification Committee power to act in setting priorities and initiating action

52 District Engineer PW to CCL, 24 August 1945 and Field Inspector to Lands, 7 January 1946, Box 95,8/3/1 vol 2 Domains & Reserves General, DOC Wanganui 53 CCL Wellington to CCL New Plymouth, 23 March 1953, Box 131, 13/1/8 Scenic Reserves - Assessment and Identification of Possible National Park Areas; CCL Wellington to CCL Hamilton, 27 July 1953, Box 149, 13/223 vol 10 S.R. Wanganui River 1953, DOC Wanganui 54 Town Clerk to Asst CCL, 5 December 1955, Box 149, 13/223 vol 11 S.R. Wanganui River, DOC Wanganui 55 Grieg to CCL Wellington, 4 October 1955, Box 1, WR 1 vol 1 Wanganui River Scenic Board: General Correspondence 1964-81, DOC Wanganui 56 Board Appointed to Have Control ofWanganui River Scenic Reserves, 21 August 1958, New Zealand Gazette, 1958, no 53, p 1139 57 Hodge, 'Scenic Reserves', Chapter 12 58 CCL Wellington to CCL New Plymouth, 19 November 1973, Box 132, 13/11 vol 3 Scenic Reserve­ Wanganui S.R.; 'Introduction to the Wanganui River Scenic Reserves', Box 13, WR 11 vol 1 Wanganui River Scenic Board Publications: Publicity & Printing; WRSB meeting 2 October 1974, Box 5, WR 3B vol 1 Wanganui River Reserves Board: Minutes of Meetings, DOC Wanganui 23

about possible national parks. 59 The authority requested all district offices of Lands and Survey to assess areas within their districts for possible suitability as national park lands. This was to ensure that the conservation option would be considered in land­ use decisions. 6o The Whanganui River scenic reserves complex was identified for further examination, together with unoccupied Crown land and State Forest in the area.61 Wellington members inspected the area and agreed that it met national park criteria. The NP&RA considered that the present status of the area was inadequate recognition of, and protection for, 'this most significant resource. Both its legislative status and management should therefore be consistent with its unique position among New Zealand's river systems.,62 However further examination was not seen as urgent. It was not begun for several years because studies under the 1948 Land Act relating to the use of the unoccupied Crown land, which included the Mangapuma, Mangatiti, and Ahu Ahu Valleys and the Aotuhia region, were already underway. The New Zealand Forest Service may not have been consulted at this stage as the Waitotara State Forest was specifically excluded but the Lands Department aclmowledged that the service's Indigenous State Forest Management Policy would be a factor in the national park proposal. 63

2.1.3 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin', 1980, and Subsequent Crown Actions Examination of the Whanganui River scenic reserves resulted in the 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin', which was completed in November 1980. It was prepared by officers of Lands and Survey, G A Turner, W A Kimber, J Ombler, and M Britton, with assistance from Dr J Skipworth of Massey University and K Ombler, a writer and wife of John Ombler. The assessment covered a number of factors. It provided descriptions of the geology, flora, and fauna of the area, and a history of Maori and Pakeha use. It discussed investigations of the river for power

59 DG Lands to CCL Wellington, 12 November 1976, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 60 David Thorn, Heritage. The Parks ofthe People, Auckland, Landsdowne Press, 1987, p 193 61 Department of Lands and Survey, Proposed Wanganui River National Park. Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, March 1984, p 1 62 National Parks and Reserves Authority, 'Report, Proposed National Park - Wanganui River Valley', Wellington, 1981, pp 1, 5 ; Box 131, 1311/8 Scenic Reserves - Assessment & Identification of Possible National Park Areas, DOC Wanganui 63 Correspondence within Lands, 2 September 1975, 14 February 1978, 13 March 1978,23 February 1981; 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 24 generation. It assessed and evaluated the area in tenns of national park criteria. The authors considered that it contained outstanding visual qualities of natural landscape which were not already represented in existing national parks. A significant aspect of the 1980 assessment for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi was that a small area of Maori land was included in the proposed parle. The authors also aclmowledged the distinctiveness of Maori cultural history and Maori traditional fishing activities. They recommended approval in principle of the national park.64 The study was considered by the Planning and Classification COlmnittee of the National Parks and Reserves Authority at its meeting in February 1981. The cOlmnittee accepted that the report established a prima facie case for national park status and agreed to recOlmnend to the NP&RA that the proposal be subject to a more detailed examination. The authority, at its meeting on 12 March 1981, noted the cOlmnittee's recOlmnendation and resolved to ask for such an examination.65 The 1980 assessment was not publicly released, despite interest from conservationist and recreational groups like the Federated Mountain Clubs, because the NP&RA considered it 'only preliminary'. Also, since the proposal included some private land - possibly a reference to the Maori land - the authority also believed it was 'open to possible misinterpretation' .66 Twenty months passed before the NP&RA made a decision at its meeting on 10 and 11 November 1982 to request further investigations and another report on the proposal. 67 A number of events took place in those months. In June 1981, the Mangatiti­ Mangapurua study cOlmnented on the banks of the Whanganui River and recOlmnended the amalgamation of a number of scenic reserve areas and other Crown land management areas to fonn the basis of the national park. 68 Administration changes occurred at the national and regional level in 1981-82. Under the National Parks Act 1980, which came into force from 1 April 1981, the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board was established. This body was given

64 Department of Lands and Survey, 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin', Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, November 1980, pp 1,2,8-9, 14-16; 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 6S Meetings, 5 and 12 March 1981,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC Wellington 66 Lucas to Secretary Federated Mountains Clubs, 1 September 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 67 NP&RA meeting, 10, 11 November 1982, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 25 a policy oversight for the Whanganui River reserves on the disestablishment of the Wanganui River Reserves Board on 31 March 1982, although the reserves were to be administered by the Wellington COlmnissioner of Crown Lands. The administrative change, from local Wanganui to regional Wellington control, was resented and drew strong protest from the WRRB and from Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi who no longer had an official voice in the management of the reserves.69 The Atihau Incorporation nominated to the WNP&RB, Ian Webster, an Englishman, according to a note to be discussed in the next section.7o

2.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Reaction In this period to 1982, there was no fonnal, and little infonnal, government consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi over the national park proposal despite the long-demonstrated significance of the river and environs to iwi. In August 1981, Mete Kingi wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Maori Affairs asking the Secretary to convey to the Director General of Lands, Mete Kingi's 'strongest possible objection' to any proposal that transferred control ofthe scenic reserves to the National Parks and Reserves Authority. It was the wish of Maori, he said, that control remain in the hands of local representatives.71 The Director General of Lands and Survey, P H C Lucas, was cavalier in his response. He suggested the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands should explain the national park investigation to Mete Kingi and discuss with him the steps that still had to be taken before a decision was made on the proposaL 'In other words,' Lucas wrote, 'a public relations move aimed at possibly defusing Maori objection at a later date'. 72 A note, signed by the Acting Chainnan of the NP&RA, on this letter said that Mete Kingi was not aware of the proposed national park exercise; that Mete Kingi's basic concern was the demise of the Wanganui River Reserves Board. The writer continued that it was a pity that the Atihau Incorporation did not nominate a Maori with standing on to the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. 'Maori

68 Correspondence within Lands Dept, 27 March to 4 June 1981, 0060, Box 1179 vol 1 L&S 7114 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 69 Hodge, 'Scenic Reserves', Chapter 12 70 Note, signed [DW] A CPR on Lucas to CCL Wellington, 25 September 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 71 Harris to DG Lands, 25 August 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 72 Lucas to CCL Wellington, 25 September 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 26 representation would certainly have defused concern at what is seen as "administration from Wellington"'. He added that he did not think any discussion at that stage was necessary or desirable. 73 Lucas asked to learn the outcome of any discussion with Mete Kingi. None may have been held as Mete Kingi died in 1981. Not until April 1984 did Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi have its own voice on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board when Reimana Bailey was appointed. He had been nominated by the Aotea District Maori Council at the end of 1983.74 During 1981, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi from the length of the Whanganui River fonned Te Tikanga COlmnission for Evangelisation Justice and Development, also known as the Wanganui River Reserve Trust. 75 The executive members were Titi Tihu, Kaumatua/Maori Theologian; Hikaia Amohia, Director/Chainnan; Eugene D Morgan, Solicitor/Secretary; and Father Mikaere, Theological Advisor. The members were: Tupuna 1) Tamaupoko - Taitoko Tawhiri, Paul Mareikura, Joan Alcapita 2) Hinengakau - Archie Taiaroa, Kevin Amohia, Linda Henry 3) Tupoho - Heemi Bailey, Rangi Mete Kingi, Sir Hepi Te Heuheu In 1983, Taiaroa described the Wanganui River Reserve Trust as a body representative of the people and tribes of the river but not set up under existing law as it did not wish to be governed by the Government Trusts Act. Taiaroa considered it was 'a body better represented for Wanganui River purposes than the Aotea District

Maori Council'. 76 In a submission on the Wanganui River Reserves Board's management plan in 1981, the Wanganui River Reserve Trust presented its case that, not only should the Wanganui River Reserves Board be retained and have more Maori members, but also that the Wanganui River and all lands under the control of the WRRB should be under the control of the trust.77 The Wanganui River was sacred, the WRRT stated, from

73 ibid 74 Min Lands to Bailey, 27 April 1984, 0060, Box AX 0907, IINP7W, ss2, DOC HO Wellington 75 In subsequent references it will be the Wanganui River Reserve Trust, WRRT 76 Taiaroa, 5 December 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 77 Even though investigations were underway into national park status, the Whanganui River reserves were managed under the Reserves Act 1977 27 the first rapid Ngahuinga to 23 miles out to sea and the emphasis was on spirituality.78 The trust asked to be heard at the WRRB's hearing on the management plan. The Wanganui River Reserve Board resolved that, because the submission did not involve management considerations within the requirements of the Act, there would be little purpose in the trust presenting its submission at the hearing but that the WRRB would receive it at Wanganui.79 The submission was not included in the sUlmnary of submissions by Kimber, presumably because it did not directly address the 1981 management plan. 8o These appeals for involvement in management were supported by A C A Palliser, Secretary of the Wanganui Historical Society. In August 1981, Palliser expressed concern to the Minister of Lands at the abolition of the Wanganui River Reserves Board. If the national park went ahead, Palliser suggested, then its managing board should 'have as its cornerstone representation from the Maori tribes along the river as it is a great shame that the present administration of the river is being done by an organisation in which the Maori people, so intimately connected with the river, now have no part in discussion. ,81 On the reply, a note states, 'As I recall, Maori interests made nominations and their nominee was appointed.' This must have been Webster, the Atihau Incorporation nominee, judging from names of those at the Board's inaugural meeting on 4 August 1981.82 In this period to 1982, there was no fonnal, and little infonnal, government consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi over the national park proposal despite the long-demonstrated significance of the river and environs to iwi.

2.3 Further Crown Preparations for the National Park Proposal As planning towards national park status continued within the Lands Department and the National Parks and Reserves Authority, Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi concern had a spin-off effect in that Maori land was removed from

78 Amohia to WRRB, 3 November 1981, Box 9, WR 5/1 vo11 Wanganui River Scenic Board Management Plan, DOC Wanganui 79 WRRB meeting, 18 November 1981, Box 5, WR 3B vol 2 Wanganui River Scenic Board: Minutes of Meetings, DOC Wanganui 80 Summary 17 November 1981, Box 9, WR 5/1 vol 1 Wanganui River Scenic Board Management Plan, DOC Wanganui 81 Palliser to Min Lands, 8 August 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 82 Min Lands to Palliser, 13 August 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. ; WNP&RB meeting 4 August 1981, 0060, Box AX 0907, 3NP7W; DOC HO Wellington. Signature indecipherable on note 28 inclusion within the national parle. 83 This was confmned publicly in May 1982, when J Ombler, the reserves Ranger based at Pipiriki, told a meeting of Hospitality Wanganui that the area under consideration was 'totally Crown-owned land'. Ombler went on to say that public submissions would be called for in the near future. 84 A 'critical path analysis' , prepared by the Lands Department to delineate the necessary steps, estimated that it would be 15 months before an Order in Council on the national park appeared in the New Zealand Gazette. 85 The analysis revealed that additional infonnation would be required from that in the 1980 assessment before the idea could be presented to the public. In the course of this, I R H Whitwell, Executive Officer of the National Parks and Reserves Authority, critiqued the assessment in October 1982. While his critique did not mention Maori aspects, Whitwell thought the assessment should be 'tidied up' before release for public consmnption. It was, he wrote, 'somewhat lightweight', 'lacked rigour in argmnents', and did not take the step from resource inventory to assessment for national park purposes. It failed to cite a report which referred to one in three canoeists on the river contracting stomach disorders because of the water quality.86 This critique was supported by the Acting Director of the NP &RA although he considered that the assessment was one of those 'caught in midstream with the passing of the new [1980] National Parks Act'.87

2.3.1 Maori Views as Discussed by Lands Department Officials At its meeting on 10 and 11 November 1982, the National Parks and Reserves Authority gave the go-ahead for further investigations. At that meeting, which was attended by the Chairman of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board G Mollett, the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands Wellington A H Phillips, and Ombler, the Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi position on the national park was discussed. Phillips said there had not been much contact with the Maori people but there were differing views.

83 Correspondence Lands Department, April and June 1982, Box 34, WR 35 vo11 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposal, DOC Wanganui 84 Wanganui Herald, 27 May 1982, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 85 CCL Wellington to DG Lands, 8 July 1982, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 86 Whitwell, 25 October 1982, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington. The report was Devlin, P J, Hoskyn, M L, Simmons, D G, The Wanganui River - a Recreation Survey, Bulletin No 31, Department of Parks, Lincoln College, 1980 87 AD NP&RA, 26 October 1982,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 29

(These are not elaborated in the extract from the minutes.) Ombler said that many Maori were apprehensive but less so when they heard more about the park proposal. He said that, to date, the proposal had been treated as more or less an in-house matter and he had been unable to broach it publicly on a marae. The population of the area, he said, had declined markedly and the creation of a national park should make funds more readily available for upgrading roads, while increased use of the area would create a need for servicing industries and employment opportunities. An authority member, Mr Jamieson, related that he had discussed the tourist potential with 'a prominent local Maori'. From the minutes it is not clear whether Jamieson or the Maori considered that anything promoting a cash flow into the area would be welcomed. Another uthority member, the archaeologist Mr Jones, said that archaeological, pa, and fishing sites were important factors. The infonnal discussions referred to by Ombler and Jamieson may have taken place at a meeting called by the Wanganui River Reserve TlUst at Ngapuwaiwaha marae, TaumalUnui, in August 1982. A number of organisations, including local government bodies, the New Zealand Boating Association, Forest and Bird, and National Parks and Reserves Board officials, were invited to attend. The principal purpose of the meeting was to discuss gravel extraction from the Whanganui River but other issues were also on the agenda. These included the sacred character of some sites like burial grounds, land owners' rights, the effects of boating, and lamprey fishing. 88 Perhaps Ombler was referring to this meeting when he said he had been unable to talk about the proposed national park publicly on a marae. From the agenda, it seems that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi people were beginning to link river issues to the proposed national park. With its decision to go ahead with further investigations, the Authority recommended consultation with the Maori people and other directly affected groups, and asked that COlmnent be obtained from interested government departments.89 The Land Settlement Board responded iImnediately to the latter. It wanted the opportunity to assess the economic potential of Crown land areas being considered, especially the Aotuhia area. The board wanted recorded in any public material that the board was intending to proceed with the Crown Land Management Plan for Crown land in the

88 Morgan to Sec, Wellington NP&RB, 11 August 1982, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposal, DOC Wanganui 30

Mangapruua Valley.90 An undated srunmary of the 10-11 November meeting noted two Crown concessions to Maori. First, because many Maori considered a period of two months too short a time for the production of a response to the national park proposal, the period was to be extended to four months. Secondly, because of Maori concerns about the Crown's title to lands to go into the park, Lands and Survey would research the titles and prepare a document to account for them. 91 This would become 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916' which will be discussed in the next chapter. However, notes by Lands and Survey officers in the Wanganui area show some ambivalence at that time towards Hikaia Amohia, Director of the WRRT. Amohia called on D Gullen and on Ombler in January 1983. Gullen reported that Amohia wanted Maori representation on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board and was concerned for Maori sacred areas. Gullen observed that it was obvious Amohia would prefer Maori to control the river. In Gullen's opinion, Amohia should be included in the national park assessment consultation exercise as part of the Taumarunui deputation but should not be accorded individual treatment, 'as I doubt that he has very high rank in Maori circles.' Gullen continued that he did not touch on the consultation exercise with Amohia and he doubted that Amohia was aware of the progress with the national park proposa1. 92 Ombler added that Amohia frequently called on him.

Our approach has been to murmur concurrence, and to nod occasionally in mock agreement, but by and large to ignore him. This seems to work. As Dave has surmised he doesn't rank very high, and is very poorly thought of by many of his own people. However he is a stirrer and we need to be careful of him.

Amohia had of late told Ombler, Ombler continued, that he would 'occupy' the public shelter at Pipiriki for a dining hall for the marae; that he would charge cOlnmercial operators 50 percent of their profit; that he would rebuild and occupy old pa sites; that they had appointed him their ranger and bought their own boat to patrol

89 NP&RA meeting, 10-11 November 1982,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 90 Meeting Land Settlement Board 7 December 1982, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 91 NP&RA, Wanganui River national park proposal, no date, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposal, DOC Wanganui 31

'their' reserves.93 The attitudes shown by Gullen and Ombler at this time are similar in character to that displayed to Mete Kingi by Lucas, although the personal COlmnents are quite different. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi concerns were not taken seriously. Nevertheless they recognised Amohia's value as a 'stirrer'. The issues he raised would be reiterated frequently from then on. In contrast to these views on Amohia, Archie Taiaroa then Assistant Director Maori Affairs in Tamnarunui, considered that Amohia was 'well known but for wrong reasons as he is never given real credit for his ideas.' Taiaroa said that these ideas included mooting and starting the Morikau and Atihau Incorporations, and the Tuwharetoa Afforestation Programme.94 W N J aram, Director of Maori Affairs in Wanganui, considered that, not withstanding the difficulties the department had encountered with Amohia, he should be on the board of the proposed park. 'He has a wide knowledge of the region and is also well versed in the spiritual and cultural aspects of Maoridom. ,95

This chapter has discussed initial ideas, proposals, and work towards the fonnation of Whanganui National Park between the 1940s and 1982. It has covered Lands Department developments including the preparation of the 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin' in 1980 and subsequent comments by National Parks and Reserves Authority officials. The authority agreed in November 1982 that further investigations into the national park proposal proceed. During this period, Lands Department officials regarded the proposal as in­ house and therefore did not hold fonnal meetings with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. This was despite the fact that iwi had consistently demonstrated the significance to them of the river and its surrounding lands. Some infonnal discussions were held and, from these, the officials felt able to COlmnent on Maori attitudes and concerns towards the proposed parle At this stage it appears that officials did not take these concerns

92 File note, D Gullen, 27 January 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 93 File note, J S Ombler, 1 February 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 94 Taiaroa, 5 December 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 95 Jaram to MA RO, 12 December 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 32 seriously. Mete Kingi's initial enquiry about local control received a cavalier response. His death may have caused difficulties for ongoing discussions with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi when control of the reserves, which were a major part of the national park proposal, moved to Wellington under the Commissioner of Crown Lands Wellington with an oversight by the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi did not have their own voice on the board until 1984 when Reimana Bailey was appointed. But at least one senior Crown official thought discussions at that time neither necessary or desirable. Amohia's potential as a 'stirrer' was recognised but the seriousness for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi of the issues he raised, to do with authority and control on the river and reserves, was underestimated by Lands and Survey. From the 1982 meeting called by the Wanganui River Reserve Trust, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi people began to linlc river issues to the proposed national park. The department did, however, make two concessions to Maori concerns. These were the extension of time allowed for responses to the national park proposals, and an investigation of the Crown's title to lands that were to go into the park. 33

3 Chapter 3 Park Planning: 1983-84

This chapter describes events in the national park's fonnation during 1983 and 1984. The chapter looks at continuing Lands and Survey work to advance the national park project through consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, research into land titles, and the publication of discussion docmnents. These include the 1983 Wanganui River National Park Assessment, on which submissions were based, and the 1984 Proposed Wanganui River National Park. Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority. The chapter also examines Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's response to the national park proposals. From March 1983, their dominant theme in discussions and submissions on the park assessments was the need for 'Maoriness'. The need for 'Maoriness' was recognised to a limited extent by the government. After its rejection of the tribal claim to ownership of the bed of the Whanganui River, the government sought to acknowledge in legislation its recognition of the spiritual significance and mana of the river to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Discussions on ways to achieve this, which were acceptable to both government and iwi, continued during 1984.

3.1 Crown Actions

3.1.1 Consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Following the National Parks and Reserves Authority's resolve to seek Maori opinion, early in February 1983, the Lands Deparhnent invited Morikaunui, Atihau­ Whanganui, and Pipiriki Incorporations to meetings in Wanganui. The deparhnent also held meetings with local bodies and other interested groups. Records do not show invitations to the Wanganui River Reserve Trust but meetings were also held with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi on marae at Hiruharama, Parikino, Tamnarunui, and Raetihi. Slides and maps of the proposed park area were on display to provide visual infonnation. Deparhnenta1 smmnaries of some of these meetings exist. Of the Wanganui meeting, the summary stated that between 60 and 70 people ofMorikaunui and Atihau-Whanganui Incorporations attended. The department concluded that most present agreed that national park status would ensure the area's preservation and that people thought the proposal should proceed although they were not prepared to 34

commit themselves. One question raised was the inclusion of the Whanganui River, but the department explained the river was not included in the proposed parle. Another issue was the legitimacy of Crown title. The department replied that, if title was not acquired legitimately, steps would be taken to rectify it. The deparhnent would supply written assurance that the Crown did not intend to compulsorily acquire any Maori or private land for the proposal; and that no Maori land was lmowingly included in the proposed park boundaries. Other issues were the possible disturbance of sacred sites from increased visitation, traditional fishing rights, boundary fences, and the effect of national park status on adjoining lands. The deparhnent suggested these could be addressed in the park's management plan. More general questions were the condition of the River Road, a hydro dam, and the fanning potential of Mangapurua Valley. The deparhnent considered a benefit would be the provision of accOlmnodation facilities at, possibly, Pipiriki. Administration of the park and the composition of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board was raised. The department reported that some present wanted a greater say in management and increased Maori representation on the board. Some of those present also sought further employment opportunities for Maori as reserves rangers. One man, described as a prominent Maori elder, asked whether his land, which he considered just as beautiful as lands in the proposal, could be included. 96 There is a brief report in the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board archive at Taumarunui of the Hiruharama meeting on 12 March 1983. Ownership and wahi tapu were issues. Bill Peehi, after saying that Lands and Survey should answer the land ownership question, seemingly refelTed to ownership of the proposed national park. 'Under Maori ownership it will be shared. Other National Parks don't do this.' Kevin Amohia agreed to the national park proposal and with Peehi, that it must be retained for the people by the Maori people.97 Mr Rongonui spoke against the opening of tracks on land at Parawaewae because they would advertise old pa sites and urupa there. He did not want 'it easier for certain types of people to desecrate' them, nor did

96 Summary of meeting Morikaunui and Atihau-Whanganui Incorporations, [April 1983], 0060 Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington; Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui; Report NP&RA, 7 Apri11983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 97 Minutes, meeting Wanganui Iwi, 12 March 1983, Hiruharama, file 'Wanganui River Proposed National Park', WRMTB Taurnarunui 35 he want the Crown to exchange land.98 In reporting on the Wanganui and Hiruharama meetings, Nonn Hubbard, a Wanganui member of the Wellington National Parks and Reserve Board but not officially representing the board, said that he gained 'no clear feeling' from the meeting at Jerusalem but felt from the Incorporation meetings that the Board had a 90 percent backing for the park proposal.99 The departmental report of the Raetihi meeting noted that it included members of the Pipiriki Incorporation and others. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi were concerned about Crown titles to the lands under consideration for the proposed parle. If lands had not been sold, they would not agree to the lands' inclusion. They were also concerned about more possible takings. The second issue concerned Maori representation on the board of control. Some present were concerned at the lack of cOlmnunication between the Lands Department and the grass roots level of Maori society. The department explained that it had asked the three incorporations to infonn their people. 100 At the Taumarunui marae meeting future ownership of the river bed and customary title to the surrounding lands were discussed. The departmental report said that Mr Amohia, one of the petitioners for the river bed claim, agreed that the national park proposal and the claim could run parallel courses, and that the national park proposal need not be held in abeyance. There was a strong feeling, the department reported, that at least 30 percent of all those employed in the park should be Maori; that Maori cOlmnercial interests should be given every assistance; and that there should be greater representation on any decision-making body. The department replied that, of the 14 persons currently employed with the existing reserves complex, eight were local Maori. It also reiterated that steps would be taken to confmn acquisition procedures on all lands within the proposal. 101 The Lands Department recorded approval for the proposed national park from local bodies like the Taranaki Regional Development Council and the Wanganui City

Council, from Forest and Bird, and from individuals. 102

98 ibid 99 Report by Norm Hubbard, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui; WNP&RB meeting 31 March 1983,0060, AX 0907 3 NP7W, DOC HO Wellington 100 Department summary of meetings, Raetihi, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 101 Summary of marae meeting Taumarunui, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 102 Summary reports in 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington; Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposal, DOC Wanganui 36

3.1.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Deputation to Minister of Lands In March 1983 a deputation, consisting of Titi Tihu, Hikaia Amohia, and A Taiaroa on behalf of the Maori people of the Whanganui River, visited the Minister of Lands, J Elworthy. They stated that their major concerns were the affect of the national park on the claim to the river bed, the acquisition of scenic reserve and Crown lands, and the lack of real Maori input and Maori features in previous national parks. They explained the latter as the utilisation of Maori building designs, the use of established settlements, and Maori manpower; 'Maoriness with Tourist potential'. Taiaroa believed that, in the possible creation of the national park, 'it is felt that this is one great chance for the Government to take some note of Maori input and encourage such.' 103 The 'Maoriness' of the park was to become Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's overarching theme in the years ahead. It will be discussed in Chapter five. The Wellington Commissioner of Crown Lands, A H Phillips, sUlmnarised Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi attitudes towards the proposed national park as follows. Although there had been support for the proposal to be taken a stage further, a small group (unidentified but which must have been the deputation of Tihu, Amohia, and Taiaroa) had subsequently met the Minister who agreed to talk to them again after studying the detailed assessment and considering their reaction. Phillips said that the lower-river Maori were in support. On the matter of Crown ownership of land, he said that some had not accepted the preliminary investigations. Phillips hoped this could be solved by the final report. Advertising for submissions, Phillips continued, would begin about June and that the Minister of Lands had assured TaUlnarunui Maori he would meet them prior to the closing date, after they had time to consider the report (the 1983 Assessment, to be discussed below) and that a late submission would be accepted. 104 Late in April 1983 the National Parks and Reserves Authority, having supported the proposal for the park at its meeting on 7 April 1983, fonnally requested the Director General of Lands to carry out an investigation under the tenns of section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980. These tenns included giving public notice of the

103 Taiaroa to Elworthy, 4 March 1983 and 31 March 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui; Taiaroa to Gledhill, 28 March 1983, file 'Wanganui River Proposed National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 104 NP&RA meeting 7 April 1983; The Dominion, 8 April 1983; 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 37 proposed national park through advertising, inviting written submissions, giving notice to the Minister of Energy, the investigation itself, and the production of a report to the NP&RA.105

3.1.3 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916' In March 1983, Taiaroa wrote to the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands Wellington saying that he had been instructed to ask for infonnation on how each area in the proposed national park had been obtained by the Crown. 106 Early in April 1983, the MP for Western Maori, K T Wetere, wrote to the Minister of Lands to enquire about the progress of the department's research. Elworthy replied that it was underway and would be sent to him when it was fmalised. The research involved searching the records of the Deparhnents of Lands, Justice (Land and Deeds IO Division), the Maori Land Court, and original deeds of the land acquisitions. ? The results of this investigation were presented in 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916' produced in June 1983. Copies were sent to Wetere, Taiaroa, Hikaia Amohia, and marae at Ranana, Matahiwi, Koroniti, Ohakune, Parikino, and Hiruharama. They were also made available for public perusal at local authority offices and public libraries in the Taumarunui and Wanganui regions. 108 The enquiry covered lands in the Oliginal Maori blocks Ahu Ahu F, Aratawa, Kirikau, Koiro, Mangapukatea, Ohutu, .ohura South F, H, and K No 1 section 2, Opatu A, Popotea, Raoraomauku, Rawhitiroa A, Retaruke, Tauakira, Taumatamahoe No 2, No 2B, and No 2B2, Te Tuhi, Waharangi, Waimarino, Waimarino B3B1, B3B2A and B3B2B, Whakaihuwaka and Whitianga. The foreword states that the research confinned that 'all lands within the national park proposal were acquired by the Crown from willing sellers either by way of purchase or exchange.' 109 But some of the acquisitions for scenic reserves were not from willing sellers. They were obtained by the Crown under the Public Works Act

105 Sec NP&RA to DO Lands, 28 Apri11983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 106 Taiaroa to CCL Wellington, 16 March 1983, file 'Wanganui River Proposed National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 107 Correspondence Wetere and Elworthy, April 1983,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 108 Correspondence, 14, 16 and 22 June 1983, 19 August 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 109 Department of Lands and Survey, Foreword to 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916. A Schedule of Acquisitions by the Crown from Original Maori Owners of Lands Within the Proposed Wanganui River National Park', Wellington, June 1983 38

1908. 'Crown Land Acquisitions' shows that some 5613 acres of the 7500 acres approximately, which were gazetted as scenic reserve by 1958, were acquired by compulsion. I 10 While Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi considered land transactions legitimate when they were between a willing seller and a willing buyer, they were unhappy with the compulsory acquisitions. This was discussed at a meeting of the

Aotea District Maori Council in April 1983 . III It was also pursued later in the year at tribal hui, which will be discussed in following sections.

3.1.4 Wanganui River National Park Assessment, June 1983 This was an expanded version of the 1980 assessment by the Department of Lands and Survey. It covered the natural features of geology, landscape, vegetation, and wildlife as well as a smmnary of historical and archaeological data. It discussed boundary identification, economic considerations such as tourism, and social considerations. Under the latter, the assessment considered that the creation of the national park would not have a major effect on the lifestyles of the small populations ilmnediately adjacent to the suggested boundaries. 112 As the title of the assessment indicated, the Whanganui River was seen as the 'dominating' feature of the region. 'It provides the unifying linle for the recreational activities throughout the proposed parle.' The assessment stated that the river had traditionally been used as an accessway tlu'ough the region and that this traditional use would be protected and managed through the department's delegation under the Harbours Act 1950 and through liaison with the RangitikeilWanganui Catclunent Board. 113 Of Maori it said little. It aclmowledged a large Maori population in pre­ European tilnes because the natural character of the land offered 'excellent sites for fortified pa'. It said that there were 147 known archaeological sites within the proposed park which have 'direct traditionallinles' to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The sites included trenches, pa sites, rua pits, dwelling sites, graves and burial grounds, and hangi stones on kainga sites. 'It is ilnportant to the Maori people that their sacred sites be accorded the greatest possible protection. Inclusion of these areas within a

110 'Acquisitions', pp 31-37; Hodge, 'Scenic Reserves', Chapters 4 and 7 III Jaram to CCL Wellington, 19 April 1983, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 112 Department of Lands and Survey, Wanganui River National Park Assessment, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, June 1983, p 65 113 ibid, pp 11,65 39 national park would represent one of the highest fonns of protection that they can be given.' Of Maori fishing rights, the assessment said that traditional Maori fishing 1 techniques would not be effected by national park status. 14 The public was asked to COlmnent by 21 October 1983. As part of the assessment a social scientist, Nicholas Rea, prepared a study on the economic and social consequences of the proposed national parle. In his study outline/brief, Rea suggested that the change of status from reserve to national park might not be considered to have much impact in itself but that the attention focused on it by the assessment exercise 'may lead to the surfacing of concerns for the control of the area. This may be particularly so for the Wanganui Maori people because of their historical associations with the area particularly in relation to graves and burial sites.'ll5 Rea's comment was prescient.

3.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Response Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi held a number ofhui at different marae between May and October 1983 to fonnu1ate their response to the Wanganui River National Park Assessment. During these months, Taiaroa asked questions which indicate his concern for government recognition of Maori's special relationship with the proposed parle. He told the Lands Department that Sir Graham Latimer had advised the New Zealand Maori Council in June that provision should be made for a Maori representative similar to that under the National Parks Act 1980,66 s 32(4)(b) and 32 (5)(b). Taiaroa asked for advice. 116 He also asked for an indication of when the Minister of Lands would meet the Maori people to hear submissions. Elworthy replied that it would be inappropriate for him to hear the submissions as it was a statutory process but that the submissions would be included in the report to be considered by the National Parks and Reserves Authority. The authority would then make its recOlmnendations to him as minister. He said he would meet the Maori people after the authority had made its

114 ibid, pp 10, 27 -28, 65 115 Nicholas J Rea, Study Outline/Brief and Revised Study Brief/Outline, Economic and Social Consequences ofa Wanganui River National Park, 24 June and 7 July 1983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 116 Taiaroa to CCL Wellington, 21 June 1983,0060 Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington. The sections allowed for representation by Ngati Tuwharetoa and the Taranaki Maori Trust Board on the Tongariro and Egmont National Park Boards, respectively. 40

recOlmnendations and before he made his decision. I 17 The Minister's offer was a partial recognition ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's special position, and it was fulfilled by a later Minister of Lands, K T Wetere, on 6 December 1985.

3.2.1 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's Initial Decisions, August 1983 Decisions were reached by representatives of the three tribal groups Hinengakau, Tamaupoko, and Tupoho at a meeting at Te Ao Hou Marae, Wanganui, on 12-13 August 1983. 118 These were: • Interim submissions would be made in order to meet the October deadline and a request would be made for an extension of time for further submissions; • There should be 50 percent Maori representation Qn any national park board; • A special subcommittee of the national park board should be established with responsibility to advise on the protection of archaeological sites within the park, and legislation should give teeth to that protection; • Land in the proposed national park and the river bed claim, although two separate issues, were closely-linked; • Appreciation and compliments for Lands and Survey on 'Crown Land Acquisitions' but further investigations were needed because sellers of blocks of land may not have had the right to do so; • Further investigation was also needed of lands taken under the Public Works Act to see if they were still required for the purpose taken. If not, they should be returned to Maori ownership. On specific issues, the leaders disagreed with several points made in the assessment. • Under 4.1 Social Considerations (Local COlmnunities) they accepted the total population figure as 400 but said this was under-estimated when urban Maori returned to marae during holidays for traditional and cultural needs;

117 Correspondence Taiaroa and Elworthy, 21 June and 11 July 1983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington liB Taiaroa to Elworthy, 17 August 1983, Report of meeting 12-13 August 1983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 41

• They did not agree that the creation of the national park would not have a major effect on lifestyles of the people of the area. Visitors would intrude on privacy of traditional customs and way of life. There was the likelihood of cultural shock as espoused by Tofler; • On 4.1(a) Employment, they sought assurances that Maori people would be employed in the full range of opportunities; (b) road access needed upgrading; (c) a special cOlmnittee under the National Park Board be appointed to order traditional rituals be observed and legislative measures given to protect archaeological and sacred sites; (d) they disagreed that traditional Maori fishing would not be affected by national park status. They said that the statement required supportive legislation to sustain it; • On 3 Economic Considerations, they believed it was a vital aspect and that more time and thought was needed. They invited the Minister of Maori Affairs to make the concerns known to the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands and the Minister of Lands. A copy was to go to Wetere. • They appointed a research cOlmnittee to make further submissions. This was: Hinengakau Kevin Amohia, Archie Taiaroa, Linda Henry Tamaupoko John Tahu, Joan Akipita, Julie Ranginui Tupoho Rangipo Mete Kingi, Hoeroa Marumaru, Hemi Bailey This cOlmnittee, although it was called the Aotea Research COlmnittee, was also the Wanganui River Reserves Trust. 119 Its secretary, Mrs R L Henry, wrote to the Minister of Lands telling him that their research investigations would be presented to Aotea iwi at a hui in mid-October 1983. She also thanked him for agreeing to an extension of time for submissions until 21 November 1983. 120

3.2.2 Strengthening of 'Maoriness' in the Proposed Park About this time a strengthening of the 'Maoriness' theme with regard to the proposed park appears. Hikaia Amohia wrote to the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands,

119 Minutes 15 October 1983, Minute Book Research Committee, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 42 under the separate letterheads ofWanganui River Reserve Trust and Te Tikanga, to say that he preferred submissions to be made to a tribunal consisting of equal numbers of WRRT members and national park board members and that he would be most reluctant to present otherwise. This evidence, he said, would substantiate a claim to ownership by way of 'Take Tupuna - Customary Title'. For tribal recommendations he listed the names 1) Archie Taiaroa 2) Heemi Bailey 3) Milton Hohaia 4) Judge E. Durie 5) Hoeroa Marumaru. 121 Matiu Mareikura of Ohakune, on behalf of 35 people of the Wanganui River Tribes, petitioned that neither the waters nor the bed of the river be included in the proposed parle. 122 The river was not included in the national park.

3.2.3 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Submissions on National Park Proposal The extensive submission, prepared by the Aotea Research Committee, comprised nine parts. The early parts contained the tribal historical occupation of, and spiritual associations with, the Whanganui River in relation to the river claim. The middle sections outlined other issues like that of the Wanganui River Scenic Protection Zone scheme. Part 9 enumerated Whanganui iwi requests for the national parle. These were devised, the submission explained in Part 8, from 'well-attended and represented Tribal meetings' at seven venues between 17 February and 3 November 1983. While there was divided support for the national park, the iwi stated, there was unanimous support for the protection of river waters, trees, soil, sacredness, landscape, uniqueness, and the Maori values of the Whanganui River region. Their main area of concern, they reported, was in the management and administration of the national park and for full Maori involvement, input, and participation. 123 Part 9 requested: 1. That provision be made in the National Parks Act 1980 Part 11.[s]17 for the appointment of a Maori to the National Parks and Reserves Authority; 2. That a Wanganui River National Parks Board be established if the lands as

120 Correspondence with Min Lands, 5, 17 October and 23 November 1983,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 2 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington; Minutes, Research Committee, 24 September 1983, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 121 Amohia to CCL, 21 November 1983, 0060 Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 2 Identification and Assessment, DOC HO Wellington 122 Petition from Matiu Mareikura [undated], Box 10, WR 5/5/1 Management Plan Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 123 Te Iwi 0 Te Awa Whanganui, 'Wanganui River National Park Submissions', 1983, Ss 1, 5, 8,9, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 43

proposed were declared a national park; 3. (a) That its membership always include six Maori people - two each to represent Hinengakau, Tamaupoko and Tupoho; (b) The six Maori people be charged with specific responsibility to: • advise on and implement a management plan on the location and protection of historical and archaeological Maori sites, tapu sites and umpa; • protect traditional hunting and fishing rights and areas; marae, religious sites and buildings; • protect and observe proper traditional rituals; • protect traditional use of natural raw materials; • protect sacred waters; • ensure that peoples' lifestyles were not greatly affected; • ensure Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi participate in national park affairs; • ensure employment and training opportunities for Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi; • make MaOli owners of adjacent areas aware of their responsibilities and encourage the utilisation of these areas 'even to additional inclusion for National Park purposes'; • protect traditional Maori resources from exploitation. 4. That special legislation be enacted for the above. 5. That land in the proposed national park and the Wanganui River bed claim although separate issues are none the less interlinked. 6. That the waters be given the utmost protection from pollution and low flow. 7. That the tapu and sacredness of the waters be always protected. 8. That the rivers be protected from dams for any reason. 9. That traditional Maori fishing rights, techniques, and grounds be protected for the traditional use of the local Wanganui River Tribe. 10. That privately-owned land adjacent to or close to the park be protected from high rates increases, access difficulties, and clearing and grassing as the result of the parle. 11. That no cOlmnercialisation of Maori resources be exercised without the 44

control or pennission of the Wanganui River Maori Tribe. 12. That the gathering of material from within the park for traditional Maori users be pennitted to members of the Wanganui River Maori Tribe and only on a carefully monitored basis. 13. That ample off road parking be provided at special park sites. 14. That the architectural style of any buildings within and close to the national park area be colonial or traditional Maori. On Employment and Economy, the petitioners asked that, because of high unemployment levels among local Maori, they be given the first opportunity for training and employment within, and resulting from, the establishment of the national parle. They also asked that tourism and other enterprise oppOltunities be

offered first to locally-resident Wanganui River Maori. 124 The requests in this submission are similar to some of the decisions arrived at in the August 1983 hui but many had been elaborated or refined. The submitters allowed for the river waters to be included in the proposed park. They proposed a Wanganui River National Parks Board which would include two Maori from each of the three reaches of the river valley. This was different from Hikaia Amohia's petition for the Wanganui River Reserves Trust to control the proposed parle. In Department of Conservation files there is another undated submission from Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi which was quite different to the above although it, too, emphasised the 'Maoriness' theme. The submission began:

This Assembly of Maori People being members of the Wanganui River Tribe Te Atihau-Nui-A-Paparangi whose Customary and Tribal lands made up all that area (Reserve and Custom Land) that is proposed for a National Park together with the bed of the Wanganui River objects to the proposal to set aside reserves and crown land as a national park for the following reasons. Firstly, they claimed customary title and usage in accordance with the Treaty ofWaitangi. Secondly, they wanted to know in detail how the Crown acquired the land. Thirdly, they said the hearing of the Maori claim to the river was still proceeding and that the national park claim contravened the very claim the Maori make for customary native land and usage. In addition, the submission continued, in other national parks in New Zealand, 'no positive attempt has been made to fully utilise the Special Maori cultural quality

124 Submission, Part 9, ibid; Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 45 and character that sets New Zealand apart from any other country'. The staffmg of the national park should be predominantly Maori. Maori cOlmnercial interests should be given opportunity in overall national park proposals. There should be more Maori representation on decision-making bodies and more effort made to include the Maori viewpoint. 125 While some of the points raised are similar to the decisions of August 1983, the second petition rejected the national park proposal because the proposed park contravened the Maori claim for customary Maori land and usage. The Maori perspective dominated the petition. Both submissions show that Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi requirements for the 'Maoriness' of the proposed park had hardened. The submissions also show that the iwi' s requirements for the park were very different from the Lands Department proposals. For the fIrst submission, Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi requested a hearing with the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands to present their proposals. This hearing took place in Wellington on 24 November 1983. A representative group of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi spoke to their submission and gained the impression that their request for a 'Maori' national park could possibly be granted. Chapter fIve below will analyse the differences that are revealed from accounts of this meeting. The hearing also occurred in the context of the government's rejection of the 1979 petition by Titi Tihu and Hikaia Amohia to have the title to the bed of the Whanganui River vested in the nine Atihaunui-a-Paparangi tribes. This led to the establishment of an interdepartmental cOlmnittee to consider how the government might recognise the spiritual signifIcance and mana ofthe river to the people.

3.3 Crown Actions

3.3.1 Proposed Wanganui River National Park - Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority, March 1984 The publication of the 'Report on the Proposed Wanganui River National Park', prepared for the National Parks and Reserves Authority, was a defming event in the park's establishment. After consultation with and submissions from Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, local bodies, conservationists, and user groups, the Deparhnent of Lands and Survey published its report in March 1984. The size of the

125 Typewritten script, no author, no date, Box 34, WR 35 vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves National 46 proposed park was smaller than in the 1983 assessment. In the 1984 report it was 79,028 hectares, comprising 35,809 hectares of scenic reserve, 3071 hectares of state forest, and 40,148 hectares of unalienated Crown land. The proposed park did not include the Whanganui River. The report stated that 93 of the 1219 submissions received had cOlmnented on the need to include or protect the river bed. It repOlied that the government had declined the 1979 petition but was cun-ently engaged in finding ways of fonnalising recognition of the spiritual significance and mana attached by the nine Wanganui tribes to the river. 126 The report smmnarised cultural aspects of the river and surrounding land, climate, topography, river/hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife_ It discussed tourism, recreation, social and economic considerations, and possible additions. It smmnarised an analysis of the submissions received. Overall, the proposed park was assessed at meeting the criteria for new national parks, in tenns of natural features and other criteria, as delineated in the National Parks and Reserves Authority'S General Policy on National Parks. 'lfthe Wanganui River itself were added, the proposed park would contain a river ecosystem unparalleled in any national park in New Zealand.' 127 Aspects ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's historic and contemporary life and of their values were noted in the report. Under the heading 'Historical Recognition and Use' were listed habitation sites with extensive earthworks and significant niu poles. These features were enlarged upon later in the report and the observation made that it was important to Maori that the many wahi tapu sites were 'offered the highest possible protection.' The report noted that these would be inundated by a dam should hydro-electric development on the river proceed. Under 'Wildlife', the report noted that the 'traditional Maori lamprey fishery at Pipiriki is unique and the traditional smelt fishery below Pipiriki is notable.' This, too, was elaborated later in the report with the COlmnent that the extent of cOlmnercial fishing, using traditional methods, was not lmown. It was noted that some Maori people spoken to felt that recreational activities on the river conflicted with their traditional fishing. 128 On the subject of possible additions of privately-owned land to the national park, the report said this was a long-tenn option and would be negotiated on a willing

Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 126 Department of Lands and Survey, Proposed Wanganui River National Parle. Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, March 1984, p 193 127 ibid, P 37 128 ibid, pp 19,71-72,153-154,18,105,123,166 47

seller-willing buyer basis. Specific areas of Maori-owned land mentioned were on the true left of Mangapurua Valley, and on the true left of the Whanganui River south of the Manganui-a-te-ao River. 129 Two of the 141 submissions from groups of people were from Maori; Aotea Maori Research COlmnittee (Taumarunui) and Maori Tribes of the Wanganui River. As Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi submitted such a small proportion of the total number of petitions, Maori concerns were almost lost in issues of importance to other groups. For example, in the analysis of such issues, that of the adequacy of Maori representation of any administering authority was No 45 out of 50 issues given in descending order of frequency. 130 Looking at the report in its entirety, there is little to suggest that Lands and Survey considered Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to be more than just another interested group, like canoeing or conservation associations. Certainly the report stated that the 'proposal also has major implications for the cultural associations that the Maori people hold with the area' and it continued, '[t]hese aspects will need careful treatment and sensitive management in any new park that may be created.' 131 Such a comment suggests that the department was not prepared to allow Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi an influential and integral role in the park's management. Even though it was the department responsible for national parks, it should have been aware from petitions, correspondence and meetings during the past 80 years, that Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi considered themselves more than just another stakeholder. The report does not provide a Maori world-view, nor incorporate Maori knowledge in its physical description of the area. Little space is given to Maori history or opinion. There seems to have been no interview with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi regarding traditional fishing; a Fisheries Enviromnent Report was cited. 132 There is nothing about a guaranteed Maori input into tourism and cOlmnercial activities. Yet these were raised by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi time and time again in discussions on the proposed park. There is certainly no emphasis in the report on the Maoriness of the proposed national parle.

129 ibid, p 192 130 ibid, pp 178-181 131 ibid, pp 165, also 172 132 ibid, P 105 48

3.3.2 Subsequent Crown Actions Following the report's publication in March 1984, government departments and agencies continued preparations towards the national park's establishment. The National Parks and Reserves Authority and the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board held discussions with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to continue to fmd a mechanism which would accommodate Maori aspirations in a manner compatible with the government's view. The authority believed that iwi generally expressed support for the project subject to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi having a role in the national park's future management. 133 The Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board consulted Te Atihaunui-a­

Paparangi about a suitable name for the national parle. 134 The Lands Department produced an unpublished, internal report by Jenny Hellen and Kate Olsen, 'Archaeological Survey Proposed Wanganui River National Park', in May 1984. The authors wrote that Maori were approached. Kaumatua of the middle and lower reaches of the river were pleased that work was being done to give legal protection to their wahi tapu but were concerned by fossicking and the possibility that sites might be open to damage if the infonnation became public. Some felt, Hellen and Olsen said, that the sites should be left to return to the ground. Taumarunui kaumatua, they wrote, were not as keen on the survey and thought that the work should be done by Maori although they recognised that Maori might not be willing because of the tapu nature of the sites. 135 In a long memorandum of 15 June 1984, Phillips, the Wellington COlmnissioner of Crown Lands, sUlmnarised the position from Lands' viewpoint, outlined possibilities, and made recOlmnendations for further action. 136 He suggested one option of a separate Wanganui River Act to set up the park and make it and the river subject to the National Parks Act 1980. He suspected, he said, that in the Maori view the most important part of any legislation would be the part relating to their mana and spiritual significance and that they might well desire this to be the main

133 Lucas to Chair NP&RA, 2 April 1984 and Minutes NP&RA meetings, March to May 1984,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 2 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 134 Gullen to Sec, NP&RA, 22 May 1984, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 2 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 135 Jenny Hellen and Kate Olsen, 'Archaeological Survey Proposed Wanganui River National Park', Department of Lands and Survey, May 1984, section 4 136 Phillips to DG L&S, 15 June 1984, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 2 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington. The next paragraphs are from this memo 49 thrust of the legislation. There was, he continued, a question of how much of the river would be included in any legislation. Currently the river, from virtually the tidal limits to Whakapapa Island, was controlled by the Minister of Transport under the Harbours Act. But Phillips recommended that the national park, excluding the river, should be established in tenns of the National Parks Act with separate legislation dealing with the river only. It was preferable for both to be dealt with contemporaneously but the park 'should be established without too much delay to maintain credibility with all those persons and organisations who so strongly support the proposal. ' The Deparhnent of Maori Affairs, Phillips said, was currently engaged in consultations about the proposed Bill. Phillips also considered representation on the controlling board. There would be representation as of right for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, similar to both Egmont and Tongariro National Parks, he suggested, but he saw the actual numbers as a controversial issue. Maori, he said, had consistently argued for three to represent the three ancestral groupings. He thought it would be difficult, although not necessarily impossible, to get their agreement to a lesser number. The only options were one or three. If three, the legislation would need to provide for an augmented board for the current three-year tenn. There would also need to be provision for a Maori Advisory Committee of perhaps nine people to be elected or appointed by the Maori people. It could possibly be constituted as a Maori Trust Board. Provision would need to be made for the Wellington National Parks and Reserve Board to consult the Maori Advisory Committee on the requirements of 3b (of the Submission above), and to have regard to the Committee's views and representations. On protection for the Whanganui River, Phillips outlined the views of other government deparhnents and agencies. Energy, he said, wanted the status quo. Water and Soil wanted responsibility to continue with the Rangitikei-Wanganui Catchment Board. There would also be a need to limit cOlmnercial activities, which was not possible under the Harbours Act, and the need to control the erection of jetties and ramps. The Fisheries Act would need to recognise the traditional right of Maori to take fish. On the name of the park, Phillips said he had requested the Maori group to advise him of their recommendation. He suggested further consultation with Maori Affairs and with the Maori people over the draft legislation. At its meeting of 18 June 1984, the National Parks and Reserves Authority 50 resolved to recOlmnend to the Minister of Lands under Section 7 of the National Parks Act 1980, that he jointly with the Minister of Forests recOlmnend to the Governor

General that he declare the area reported on in March 1984 to be a national parle. 137 The river was excluded, according to a letter from the Minister of Lands nine months later, because the issues of future ownership of the river bed, control of the waters, and control of surface activities posed different problems under different Acts and delegations. 138 In July 1984 the government changed from National to Labour and K T Wetere became Minister of Lands as well as of Maori Affairs. The NP&RA, reporting on the proposed national park, said that officers were consulting with the Maori people and with Maori Affairs on proposed legislation. The previous minister had undertaken to meet with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to finalise an agreement prior to the promotion ofthe legislation and the NP&RA believed that the meeting should take place prior to Wetere's decision on the park proposal. 139 In August G D Fouhy of Maori Affairs, who chaired the interdepartmental cOlmnittee, sUlmnarised the position given by Phillips to the departments of Energy, Agriculture and Fisheries, Transport, Works, and Justice. He requested their views before further discussion with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. 140 In the replies, Energy said it wanted to retain the option of developing the river for energy. The river, it said, represented a remaining renewable energy source. Therefore the national park's management plan should refer to the hydro-electric potential of the river and note that it may have to be considered in the future. The plan should also take into account the possibility of transmission lines in the northern area of the proposed park. Fisheries said that recognition of Maori fishing rights was a direct concern to it and wanted to be involved as a cOlmnercial eel fishery existed. Transport outlined the position in regard to its control of the river. 141 At the interdepartmental meeting on 16 October 1984 to discuss legislation

137 Minutes NP&RA meeting 18 June 1984,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 2 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 138 Wetere to Bolger, 26 March 1985,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 3 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 139 Report from NP&RA to Min Lands, 15 August 1984, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 2 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 140 Fouhy to Energy, MAP, MOT, MOWD, Justice, 30 August 1984 and 5 October 1984, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 51 affecting the Whanganui River, Fouhy suggested three alternatives to provide a spiritual defmition of the river. But he concluded that, as none was particularly acceptable, it was difficult to detennine what direction a spiritual definition should take. The alternatives were: 1. That special legislation mention Maori spiritual attachment to the river and recognise their contribution to the national park. Maori expressions would be used where appropriate but difficulties could arise in doing this in tenns of the general interpretation of the meanings of the expressions; 2. A modified Mt Egmont arrangement. This would not be acceptable to Maori and probably not acceptable to government; 3. Leaseback arrangement. This would require a title to the riverbed and this was unacceptable. It presented practical problems for a survey to be carried out. 142

The leaseback proposition, as a means of spiritual recognition, had been explained by Fouhy in August although, he said, it was not put to the previous Minister or Cabinet. The idea was that the Crown transfer the legal title to Wanganui Maori people and the people would agree to transfer back to the Crown the legal title but the people would retain the custody of the 'mana' or 'awa Wanganui' on behalf of the tribes of the river and the people of New Zealand. Nothing in the transfer process was to derogate from the Crown's uses of the river. The Lands Department, however, was opposed to the 'transfer and return' option and said that the Maori people themselves treated the suggestion with scorn. 143 Wetere received correspondence supporting the aclmowledgement of Maori in the national park legislation. One correspondent, J K J Moore ofWanganui, said that legislation should aclmowledge in full the vital importance of Maori history, legends, customs, cultures, traditional practices, usages, and beliefs. Another, Graham Marks, argued that the proposed park should be operated solely by Maori who were, he said, conservationists by nature and culture. There would be objections but local people

141Energy, 24 September and 16 October 1984; Fisheries, 18 September 1984; Transport 12 September 1984 to Fouhy; 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 142 Fouhy report, interdepartmental meeting 16 October 1984, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment, DOC HO Wellington 143 Correspondence, Fouhy , Phillips, August 1984, Box 34, WR 35 vol 5 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 52

should be given a chance to run their own country in their own way. 144 The year 1984 concluded with little decided other than the National Parks and Reserves Authority's resolution to recommend that the national park proceed.

This chapter has described events in the national park's fonnation in 1983 and 1984. It looked at continuing Lands and Survey work to advance the national park project. These included: consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi; research into land ownership presented in 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916'; and the publications of the Wanganui River National Park Assessment in 1983 and the Proposed Wanganui River National Park. Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority in 1984. From March 1983, the lack of real Maori input in previous parks, and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's desire to prevent this in the Whanganui River region, became their major theme in discussions and submissions on the various assessments and reports. It underlay their requirements in their two submissions. The 'Maoriness' theme was acknowledged to a limited extent by the government. After its rejection of the tribal claim to ownership of the bed of the Whanganui River, it sought to acknowledge in legislation its recognition of the spiritual significance and mana of the river region to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Discussions on ways to achieve this, which were acceptable to both the government and iwi, continued during 1984. But, from their public documents like the 1984 report on the proposed national park, it is obvious that Lands and Survey ignored the intent ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's submissions, that is, the acceptance of a Maori world­ view and a substantial iwi input into all aspects of management and activity.

144 Correspondence from Moore and Marks, August 1984, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 53

4 Chapter 4 Park Planning: 1985-86

Although the National Parks and Reserves Authority recOlmnended in June 1984 that the proposed national park proceed, it was not approved in principle by the Minister of Lands until November 1985. Another year passed before Whanganui National Park was gazetted in December 1986. This chapter discusses the actions of government and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi during this time. In the intervening years between recOlmnendation and gazettal, discussions continued to take place between government and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi on how to accommodate Maori wishes within procedures that were acceptable to government. When the national park was declared, few ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi proposals had been agreed to by the government. Delays were caused by the new fmancial policies introduced by the Labour government after its election in July 1984. Conservationists lobbied for the creation of the park. The Wanganui Whare Wananga Trust devised a school of conservation to introduce a Maori conservation perspective. This was generally welcomed by government officials but failed to proceed.

4.1 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Action

4.1.1 Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust The Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust was fonned on 4 October 1984. 145 In January 1985 its Secretary, P N O'SUllivan, wrote to the government with infonnation about its establishment and objectives. It proposed to organise and maintain a school of conservation in the area of the proposed Whanganui River National Park and

adjoining Maori-owned lands. 146 The school was seen by the Wanganui River Reserve Trust as a project of 'the People' with conservation teaching in advance of anything

the state had to offer. 147 The WWWT envisaged a school of esoteric culture and a school of indigenous material culture. It had two aims. The first was to discuss the effect of the proposed

145 Trust Deed and Certificate ofIncorporation for the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust, 4 October 1984, Information supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan 146 O'Sullivan to Wetere, Tapsell and others, January 1985,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 147 Minutes WRRT meetings 24 July 1987, vol: 11 and 7 December 1985, Minute Book, Box, 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 54 national park on those Whanganui tribes who retained land in the area. The second was to examine lines of development which would best preserve the cultural integrity of the tribes concerned, and which would enhance New Zealand society as a whole. The trust enumerated what it saw as major issues for the Whanganui tribes: retention of culture; a cluster of issues around greater leisure time and the outdoor culture in the New Zealand psyche; employment; Maori and Western ideals of conservation; what it called the biotic revolution and the move away from agriculture as an economic locomotive; and continued retention and utilisation of lands in tribal ownership. The trust was concerned that the national park proposal, as it stood, did not acknowledge the cultural requirements of the people in the area. The trust wished to develop what it called 'a deeper appreciation' of conservation among New Zealanders. It believed the then methods pursued were limited because the methods did not include the Maori of the Whanganui tribes or Maoridom as a whole. The trust believed that people would gain a greater understanding after instruction in such things as pa tuna, pa pinarau, hinaki, medicinal skills, and bird life in the Te Wau Nui a Taane. 148 The trust anticipated an eventual total school staff of 39. They comprised a Tumu Whakarae Chief Lecturer under whom were lecturers, a research officer, and a Pouwhenua Administration Manager. Under the latter were Awhina Nurse, Manukura Logistics, Tumuaki Chief Clerk, and other staff to work in the kitchen, hostel, library, and vehicle maintenance. The initial staff of seven comprised Kaumaatua Advisory Elders, Te Ahorangi Senior Lecturer, Tumaki Whakahaere Planning Co-ordinator, Kai Tuhi Secretary/Typist, and Manukura Logistics Manager. This initial development stage was to last for eight months. Kaumaatua were to be seen as consultants and to be paid as such. The buildings proposed included a marae complex, a classroom for 20 pupils, social rooms for 35 people, workshop, accommodation, and a sick bay. It was suggested that the school could be temporarily accOlmnodated in the old Pipiriki school house. Vehicles proposed included a minibus and a jet boat. The proposed curriculum for the school of indigenous material culture included instruction in food, fishing, canoes, houses, clothing, stone tools, woven objects, games and pastimes, personal decoration, Maori art, miscellaneous items like

148 O'Sullivan, January 1985, first enclosure, ibid 55

aka ladders, and courses by Lands and Survey rangers. [49 The Lands Department and the National Parks and Reserves Authority generally welcomed the proposal. The Wellington Commissioner of Crown Lands said he had discussed it infonnally with O'Sullivan and saw no conflict between it and the national park proposal. It was his understanding that the school would be established on Maori-owned land just outside the proposed park boundaries and would use the natural resources of the park in much the same way as the Outdoor Pursuits Centre used Tongariro National Parle. 'r ... would be inclined to welcome it as a very appropriate use of the proposed national park. ' [50 The Management Planning Working Party of the National Parks and Reserves Authority discussed the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust at a meeting on 10 April 1984 after a letter from Maori Affairs advising them of the trust's establishment. The working party considered the trust's proposals were of interest and could be of considerable value to the attractions of the parle. They felt that no detailed comment could be made at that stage as the intended location of the facilities was not clear. They assumed it would be outside the parle. The school was, they considered, a matter to be worked through in management planning and they noted, fi.-om the March 1984 Proposed Whanganui River National Park, that 'such aspects will need careful . . ,[5[ treatment an d senSItIve management. According to O'Sullivan, the school did not begin because arrangements with the government for the trust to lease the decommissioned prison buildings at Waikune did not proceed. Again, according to O'Sullivan, the government wanted to use the opportunity to commemorate the centenary of Tongariro National Park but the trust refused this. The government had the buildings demolished even though the

Wanganui River Reserve Trust sought an injunction to prevent this. [52 However Whanganui River Maori Trust Board records show that the trust agreed only to check on whether an injunction had been served and, if not, to instruct the Whare Wananga to do so. [53 It hoped the Deparhnent of Maori Affairs would purchase the buildings

149 ibid, second enclosure 150 Phillips to DG Lands, 1 April 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 151 Wetere to Thorn, 23 January 1985; Notes of meeting and Notes used for discussion, 10 April 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 152 Telephone conversation with P O'Sullivan, 12 May 2003 153 Minutes WRRT meeting 5 December 1987, Vol:11 5/3/87-11, WRMTB Taumarunui 56

and return land and buildings to the iwi. 154

4.2 Government Actions

4.2.1 Submission to Cabinet Social Equity Committee In January 1985, Maori Affairs and the Lands Department began preparations for a submission on the proposed park to the Cabinet Social Equity Committee. This required reports from the State Services COlmnission, Treasury, Tourist and Publicity, Agriculture and Fisheries, Energy, Works and Development, and Justice. Preparations for the submission included an estimate of additional fmance required from Vote: Lands and Survey (Activity 11, National Parks) to provide an infrastructure to establish a 'reasonable level' of tourist activity. This was estimated for the 1985/86 financial year to be a 5 percent increase on the existing allocation for national parks. The submission noted that $125,000 was currently spent on the Wanganui Reserves complex. 155 Wetere also wanted what he called 'the Maori grievance' to be included in the same submission as that relating to the national parle. 156 This issue covered three facets. The first was how government would recognise the relationship between the river and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. None of the possibilities discussed up until that time had received full support from iwi. 'They are still seeking title in the legal sense of the word i.e. practical control.' The second was a possible resolution of the claim for compensation for gravel extraction, and the figure of $100,000 was mentioned in association with this. The third was the creation of an advisory Maori group, possibly a Maori Trust Board, for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The draft submission said that, before he held another meeting with the Taumarunui Maori people, Wetere wanted to ensure that the proposals generally had the support of the government. I57 The departments and ministries of Tourism and Recreation, Agriculture and Fisheries, Energy, Works and Development, and Justice confmned that they had no objections to the proposals. 158 Two more requests from Wetere to the SSC and

154 Minutes WRRT meeting 10 January 1987, Box, 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 155 No 8, Draft Memorandum to Cabinet Social Equity Committee, [January 1985], 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 156 Fouhy to DO LS, 5 January 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 157 Nos 9, 12, 14, 15, 10c, Draft Memorandum [January 1985], ibid 158 Min Tourism to Wetere, 10 April 1985 and Draft Memorandum [January 1985], 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 57

Treasury in May and July 1985 were required until these departments replied. 159 The SSC response was more cautious than affmning. It approved in principle five facets, subject to Cabinet approval: • A settlement of iwi claims in respect of the river which would include recognition of traditional rights in legislation tying river recreation use with the national park but subject to broad agreement being reached in advance with the Maori people; • The establishment of an advisory group to the WNP&RB on matters that might affect Maori traditions or culture; • The provision for one person to represent Te Atihau-Wanganui people on the Wellinton National Parks and Reserves Board; • Title in the cOlmnonly used legal sense was not transferred to the Maori people;

• Traditional Maori fishing rights on the river be preserved. 160

A later SSC paper recOlmnended further constraints, especially financial, to Cabinet: • The proposal be referred to the Cabinet Development and Marketing COlmnittee for consideration and report; • Lands and Survey prepare revised proposals for management resource requirements prior to the establishment of an approved management plan; • Cabinet defer consideration of requests for additional resources until the 1986/87 estimates round as a new policy proposal; • Note that any staff increases approved before then should be absorbed within the total staff ceiling of departments in the sector concemed. 161

Treasury's response applied further financial analysis and constraints to the national park proposal. 162 It began by listing the total costs outlined in the park

159 Wetere to Min sse and Min Finance, 14 May and 23 July 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 160 sse Recommendation, 11 July 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 4 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 161 sse Recommendation, 16 July 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 3 Identification and Assessment, DOC HO Wellington 162 Treasury Recommendation, 7 August 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 58 proposal: $443,000 in 1985-86; $642,000 in 1986-87; $646,000 in 1987-88; ongoing costs of $344,000 in 1988-89. The figures included the current costs, $125,000, of the Reserves complex and excluded cost of the land since it was already owned by State Forests and Lands and Survey. Next, Treasury identified the OPPOliunity costs defined as 'cost incurred through the land in the Wanganui River region being used for a national park development rather than some other development': • Hydro-electric generation; • Forestry; • Agriculture. The area of land in the park has a potential value ranging from $20 per hectare to $300. Valuing it at $20 gives a minimum value in excess of $1.5 million; • Use of resources to develop Wanganui River National Park rather than some other national park. On the latter point, Treasury criticised Lands and Survey. 'Treasury is concerned that proposals for such national park developments are being presented in a piecemeal fashion rather than as part of a nationwide strategy for national parks in New Zealand.' It advised Lands and Survey and the National Parks and Reserves Authority to develop a list of likely proposals and place a priority ranking on them. Treasury was equally severe on the Minister of Lands for offering no compensatory savings to finance the national park proposal. 'It is difficult to believe that savings of [$306,000] per annum could not be made if the Minister attached sufficiently high priority to the proposal. ' Treasury gave the examples of a charging policy, entrance fees, and a licensing system as ways to recover costs. Treasury described the proposal as a new policy without compensatory savings and recOlmnended that, as it had not been submitted at draft estimates time, a decision be deferred until either adequate funding was found from within the vote or the proposal be considered in the new policy pool the following year. On the question of Maori claims, Treasury said there was a good case to be made for Maori representation in the management of the area but recOlmnended further consideration of the $100,000 figure and other factors. Treasury's overall recOlmnendations were: • That the Cabinet Development and Marketing Committee decline the 59

Minister of Lands' proposal for additional staff and finance for the national park; • To invite the Minister, ifhe wished, to either 1) resubmit his proposal identifying adequate compensatory savings or funding from within Vote: Lands and Surveyor 2) resubmit the proposal to be considered with the other new policies in the 1986/87 new policy pool; • To invite the Minister of Lands to direct his department to identify priorities for the development of all future national parks; • To invite the Cabinet Social Equity COlmnittee to 1) note that compensation for the loss of ownership by the Wanganui Maori people of the bed of the Wanganui River, or the granting to them of some fonn of direct control over the river, could have far-reaching implications in the area of Maori land claims; 2) invite the Minister of Lands and Maori Affairs to consider further the basis of claim for financial compensation, particularly in light of an earlier Treasury report No 6086 dated 27 October 1983. The differing recOlmnendations from Treasury and the SSC caused problems for the Lands Deparhnent and the National Parks and Reserves Authority in their presentation of the national park proposal to the Cabinet Social Equity Committee. Cabinet required papers to be coherent and concise [resulting from Cabinet Policy COlmnittee decision P(8S) M21 Pt 8]. Officials thought this would be hard to achieve given the SSC and Treasury positions, the possibility of a further paper from the Minister of Energy, and because of the two interrelated proposals of national park and settlement of the river bed claim. An officials' Co-ordinating COlmnittee was set up to bring together the differing viewpoints into a single succinct submission. 163 During October 1985, the officials' Co-ordinating COlmnittee prepared and amended several draft papers. These preparations resulted in a fmal paper which was discussed by the Cabinet Development and Marketing Committee, chaired by the Minister of Finance R 0 Douglas, on 23 October. The Cabinet COlmnittee's decision was similar to the earlier recOlmnendations of Treasury. It noted the intention to recOlmnend the establishment of a new national park in the Whanganui River area. It declined the proposal for additional staff and finance. It invited the minister to 60 resubmit the proposal, either identifying compensatory savings within the Vote: Lands and Survey, or as a new policy in the 1986/87 new policy pool. 164 The Cabinet Social Equity COlmnittee met early in November 1985. It agreed to recOlmnend that Cabinet approve in principle a settlement of the claims of the Maori people in respect of the Wanganui whereby the recognition of their traditional rights was included in legislation necessary to tie in recreational uses of the river waters with the Wanganui River National Parle. Any such recognition was subject to broad agreement being reached in advance with the Maori people. They also agreed to recOlmnend the establishment of a group to advise the Wellington National Parks and Reserve Board on all matters pertaining to the national park management that would affect Maori. 165 Cabinet, at meetings in November 1985, noted these reports and invited the Minister of Lands and of Maori Affairs to consider further the basis of claims for financial compensation. 166 The Director General of Lands urged that no steps be taken to declare in principle the park's establishment or to discuss with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi any propositions for settling their claims through the national park proposal until adequate resources were assured. He argued that, if reductions in expenditure were to be made in other national parks and reserves, the result would be the withdrawal of services and deterioration in stewardship. He was concerned that the publicity about the proposed Whanganui national park had led to public concerns and expectations that could not be met without additional staff and fmance. He contended that, if the national park proposal was to be presented as a new policy in the next year's estimates, it would need 'considerable political support' .167 By February 1986 the department had decided to submit a new policy bid for additional staff and financial resources which it saw as necessary to manage the area

163 Ryan to DG Lands, 8 August 1985; Note Whitwell, 28 August [1985], 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 4 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 164 Draft papers 4,8,10,14 October 1985; meeting 23 October 1985 Cabinet Development and Marketing Committee; 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vo14 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 165 Meeting Cabinet Social Equity Committee, 8 November 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vo14 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 166 Cabinet meeting 25 November 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vo14 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 167 DG Lands to Min Lands, 1 November 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vo14 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 61

in accordance with national parks standards and values. 168

4.3 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Reflections The National Parks and Reserves Authority, by September 1985, seems to have abandoned the possibility of the park's establishment that year. 169 But Te

Atihaunui-a-Paparangi was pressing for urgency and reviewing their position. 170 Hikaia Amohia and Titi Tihu were 'deeply concerned' at the delays in the government's settling their claim to the river bed title and compensation for metal extraction, and to the national park's establishment with Maori representation. They considered beginning a land march from one of the ancient marae to Parliament buildings. 171 The Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust questioned the validity of some of the ownership infonnation in the Lands Department's investigation of title, 'Crown

Land Acquisitions' .172 In August 1985, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi began to prepare for their promised meeting with Wetere. A smmnary of proposals to be put to the Minister included the statement, 'We do not want a mere statement in a statute that spiritual ownership vests in trustees for the descendants. We need an actual title.' Whether 'title' referred to the river or the national park is unclear. The slumnary continued that the preamble to the proposed act should state that, in recognition of the special Maori history and attributes, the new park was to be constituted a Maori national parlc. 173

4.4 Announcement of the National Park Throughout 1985 there was pressure on Wetere from conservationists, mayors, local bodies, and MPs of the Wanganui and Taranaki regions, as well as from Te

Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, to declare the establishment of the national park, 174 On 13

168 DO Lands to Min Lands, 14 February 1986, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 169 Whitwell to SSC and Treasury, 8 September 1985,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 4 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 170 Fouhy to DO Lands, 22 August 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 171 Morgan to Wetere, 17 July 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 172 Correspondence Min Environment, LS, and WWWT, October 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 173 'Summary of proposals to be put to Minister of Maori Affairs ... for 6 December next', undated, file 'Wanganui River Proposed National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui; Taiaroa, Meeting Notice [undated], 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 174 Correspondence, January to July 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 3 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC Ho Wellington 62

November 1985, Wetere announced that the park had been approved in principle but not yet fonnally established and named. After outlining its values in tenns of natural features, tourism, and recreation, he said, 'But of major significance is the Maori interest and perspective. The tribes of the Wanganui River have centuries of historic, cultural and spiritual association with the river and the area.' He said he would meet with Wanganui River tribes on 6 December 1985 at Taumarunui to discuss the name, traditional rights such as fishing, the claim to the river, metal extraction, the establishment of an advisory Maori body, and Maori membership of the park board. 'After these and other discussions, it will then be possible to move to the fonnal establishment of the park and to seek resources for staffmg, administration and new facilities. ' 175

4.5 Further Action from December 1985

4.5.1 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's Position Together with the establishment in principle of the national park, Wetere announced his intention to fulfil the cOlmnitment of a previous Minister of Lands, J Elworthy, to meet with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. This meeting was held at Ngapuwaiwaha Marae, Taumarunui on 6 December 1985. The iwi presented to Wetere the following resolutions. These were signed by ten members, representing the three Tupuna, of the Wanganui River Reserve Trust: 1. That the Wanganui River not be included in any proposed national park in the Wanganui River region; 2. That the proposed Wanganui Park be administered, maintained and managed by representatives of the Whanganui River Tribes with the assistance of government; 3. That no name can be decided for the proposed Wanganui National Park by the Maori Tribes of the Whanganui River region until satisfactory assurances [are] given to those Maori tribes by government in regard to

numbers 1 and 2 above. 176 These three resolutions were expanded upon in an address from Te Atihaunui­ a-Paparangi to the Minister. In the 'SUlmnary of Resolutions', nUlnbers 1 and 2

175 Wetere, 13 November 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington and file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 63 related to the title to the bed of the river and compensation for metal taken. The others were: 3. That a Whanganui River Maori Trust Board of nine members be established. Three members from each of the descendants of the three ancestors nominated Qy the descendants. 4. That the proposed national park not be established until: (a) All issues relating to the river are settled (b) All issues relating to the land proposed to be included in the national park are settled. 5. In the event that a national park is fonned: (a) The Whanganui Tribes have total administrative responsibility for the national park; (b) The administrative body for the national park nominate a representative to the national park board. 6. That consideration of a name for any national park be deferred until a park is to be fonned. In presenting these resolutions, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi referred to their lost mana when the Crown 'seized ownership' of the river under the Coal Mines Act, and their wish to have their mana restored. They sought, they said, the rights guaranteed under the second article of the Treaty ofWaitangi. 'As we put these Resolutions to you, we sense the mighty spirits of the past coming back to this Historic Marae. We feel the weight of their presence as we make this plea for the return of our lands, our

River and our Sacred Honour. ,177

4.5.2 Crown Response Wetere declined Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi proposals regarding the river title, total administrative responsibility for Wanganui tribes, and postponement of the national park until all the issues relating to the river were settled. 'We have to bear in mind other interest groups such as trampers, canoeists, recreational people and other enviromnental groups', he was reported as saying. However he agreed that the naming

176 Proposed Wanganui National Park, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 4 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington, emphasis in original 177 Address to Minister of Maori Affairs, 8 December 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 4 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington, emphasis in original. Another submission dated 5 December 1985 was presented from R. R. W. Wright ofWaikanae. The gist of the speech was similar but stronger language and challenges were used. 64 of the national park could be deferred until the very last minute in terms of Maori spiritual and cultural feelings. He also agreed that retrospective compensation for metal extraction be paid, and that a Maori trust board be set up with representation on the national parks board. He also noted that he was continuing to look at the question of mana and Maori spirituality within the law. 178 In a letter to Taiaroa, Wetere clarified some of these decisions. Firstly, he was willing to introduce legislation to establish a Maori trust board for the Maori people of the Whanganui River but he wanted them to decide on matters like its constitution and name. He also asked them to consider a name for the national park 'although at this stage that will be established consisting wholly of Crown owned land excluding the river.' Secondly, linking the national park and negotiation for compensation for the metal extraction, Wetere said that he had previously thought the trust board should be established before the negotiations but now considered that the early resolution of the metal question had some appeal. He implied that this was because he was 'under some considerable pressure to establish the National Park without delay.' The introduction of the enabling legislation could be delayed until the middle of 1986, he said, and could cover the trust board establishment, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi involvement in the management of the national park and protection of areas of traditional and cultural concern, and the question of mana or spiritual sovereignty. This latter would 'need very careful wording.' Thirdly, Wetere touched on the issue of the Crown's title to the lands in the proposed parle. He could not agree with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. 'As far as I am concerned, the title is legitimate from both a legal and a moral point of view; but I realise that your people still have some doubts on this issue.' But he was happy for discussions on it to continue between the tribe and officials of Maori Affairs and

Lands and Survey. 179

4.6 Hardening Attitudes - Wetere and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, 1986 On 18 February 1986, the Wanganui River Reserve Trust presented another

178 'River Tribes Represented by Maori Trust Board', DG [Lands] to eeL Wellington, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 4 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOe HO Wellington 179 Wetere to Taiaroa, 18 December 1985, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 4 Identification and Assessment, DOe HO Wellington 65 petition to Wetere. It repeated their conditions that the Whanganui River should not be included in the park; that the park should be managed by the iwi with assistance from government; and that no name could be decided until satisfactory assurances about the other two conditions were given. 180 By this time, Wetere appears to have also hardened his attitude. He replied that, if the Whanganui River was not to be included in the national park, the trust board had no grounds to seek involvement in the administration and management of the national parle. On Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi questioning of the Crown purchase of the Waimarino block, Wetere said that he would consider further any dispute regarding lands within the proposed park boundaries. He added that Lands and Survey had provided' a very comprehensive report' on the purchases and that he had asked Taiaroa for details of the disputes but Taiaroa had not yet provided them. Wetere concluded by suggesting that Taiaroa appoint a small committee of two or three Wanganui River Reserve Trust members to work with officials on details of the proposed legislation. 181 At its meeting of28 July 1986, the WRRT also took a much tougher stance. Members con finned that they would not recOlmnend a name for the national park until the minister gave assurances over the resolutions they presented at Taumamnui on 6 December 1985. 'If the Minister wishes to celebrate the opening of the Park, [he] may do so but the people will not be there to support him'. The meeting noted that the negotiating subcommittee of three had not been invited to meet officials. Overall, the members of the WRRT considered they needed to remain finn in their resolutions. They wanted matters resolved before Russell Marshall took over the Conservation portfolio in 1987. 'The Minister has purposely ignored the total wishes of the people and has contradicted all assurances he has previously given.' 182 At their meeting of 9 August 1986, the Wanganui River Reserve Trust received a report from their negotiating subcommittee. They learned then that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi would be given only one seat on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board and would have only an advisory role in management in such areas as the naming of the park, and the spiritual aspects of land and water. They

180 Petition 'Proposed National Park', undated, Waitangi Tribunal, The Wanganui River Report, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999, p 243 181 Wetere to Taiaroa, draft, undated, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 1 Identification and Assessment, DOC HO Wellington; Wetere to Taiaroa, 3 April 1986 cited in Whanganui River Report, p 243 66 feared that, once they gave Wetere their name for the national park, all their concerns would be ignored. They wanted written confmnation from Wetere that submission of the name would not jeopardise further negotiations. 'A need for written confmnation from Koro. His past actions have been contrary to his Word.' They agreed that, if total managerial and administrative control was refused, the negotiating subcommittee could negotiate for equal representation on the management cOlmnittee of the proposed national park. 183 These points, confinned in a letter from Wetere dated 10 September 1986, were considered and deprecated by the Wanganui River Reserve Trust. 'In short, the Board will have minimal power in Wellington Parks Board. No power and control in management of proposed Park.' Nevertheless, the WRRT authorised the negotiating subcommittee to detennine the numbers of trust board representation on the joint subcOlmnittee for the management plan of the parle It resolved upon the name, Wanganui National Park, to be submitted 'under the Provision of Customary Title, and, recognised by the Maori Tribes within the Existence of Customary Title'. The WRRT agreed that the proviso be included to safeguard future negotiations with the government. 184 The name was later amended to Whanganui National Parle 185 As Wetere gave written assurance about future negotiations, the Wanganui River Reserve Trust confinned that there was no opposition to the dedication of the Whanganui National Park. Amohia had opposed the dedication unless the government guaranteed the return of customary title to the bed of the river at the same time but he must have been persuaded to withdraw his opposition by others in the WRRT although the trust agreed this remained their eventual aim. The COlmnissioner of Crown Land, A H Phillips, attended their meeting on 11 November. He confinned that the minister would make clear publicly that future negotiations would not be prejudiced. Dates for the opening ceremony were discussed. Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi agreed to 7 February 1987. 186

182 Minutes WRRT meeting 28 July 1986, citing a letter from Wetere dated 14 July 1986; also Minutes WRRT meeting 3 May 1986; Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 183 Minutes WRRT meeting 9 August 1986, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 184 Minutes WRRT meeting 20 September 1986, citing letter from Wetere 10 September 1986, Box 'Wanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 185 Takarangi to Wetere, 16 October 1986, Waitangi Tribunal Report, doc B8(a) 186 Minutes WRRT meeting 11 November 1986, WRMTB Taumarunui 67

4.7 Crown's Announcement of Whanganui National Park On the 24 November 1986, the Governor-General in Council announced that Whanganui National Park, subject to the National Parks Act 1980, would come into effect on 6 December 1986. The national park was to cover an area of approximately 75,000 hectares. Of this, approximately 36,200 hectares were fonner scenic reserves; 35,700 hectares were fonner Crown lands; and 2000 hectares fonner State Forest land. 187 The administrative centre was to be in Wanganui with park offices and infonnation centres at Pipiriki and Taumarunui. 188 The Whanganui National Park was opened at Pipiriki by the Governor­ General, Sir Paul Reeves, on 7 February 1987. Among those welcoming guests were Tihu and Amohia. 189 In his book on New Zealand's national parks, David Thom wrote, 'The Maori people of the Wanganui River had pondered long about their land but now, the ceremony and generous welcome on the marae, signified their agreement to their taonga (treasured possession) joining the other great heritage areas of the

Maori people.' 190 Given that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi received from the government only a token of what they had requested in submissions and meetings prior to the national park's fonnation, their welcome can indeed be seen as generous. Their requests for an equal managerial voice, let alone total managerial control, were not met. They believed Wetere's actions had been contrary to his verbal assurances. There was no government guarantee on the return of title to the bed of the Whanganui River. Whanganui National Park was certainly not constituted as a 'Maori' national park. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi may have felt they [mally had no choice but to accede to the government's wishes in regard to the park's establishment. This chapter has discussed Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and Crown negotiations, thought, and actions during 1985-86 about the creation of Whanganui National Parle. Although the National Parks and Reserves Authority had recommended in June 1984 that the proposal proceed, it was not approved in principle by the Minister of Lands until November 1985. Another year passed before the Whanganui National Park was

187 Order in Council declaring lands to be The Whanganui National Park Order, 27 November 1986, New Zealand Gazette, 1986, no 189, pp 5062-5068. See Figure 1 188 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Management Plan, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, March 1989, p 46 189 Waimarino Bulletin, 10 February 1987 190 David Thorn, Heritage. The Parks o/the People, Auckland, Landsdowne Press, 1987, p 198 68 gazetted to come into being on 6 December 1986. It was opened on 7 February 1987. During this time, discussions continued between government and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi on how to accommodate Maori wishes within procedures that were acceptable to government. The national park was declared with only token iwi requests agreed to. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had wanted their claim to title to the river bed and for compensation for gravel extraction to be settled before they considered the national parle. They also wanted to be the administering body for any national park with assistance fl:om the government. The government did not agree to these. However, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's wish that the river be excluded from the national park was met. Discussions were ongoing about legislation which would recognise Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi mana and spiritual sovereignty in the river, and which would establish a Whanganui River Maori Trust Board to be an advisory body on Maori matters in connection with the national parle. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi advanced its own conservation ideas during this period. The Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust was fonned in October 1984 to organise and maintain a school of conservation in the area of the proposed national park and adjoining Maori-owned lands. Crown officials welcomed it as an appropriate use of a national park but the school did not eventuate largely, it appears, because the trust did not get the use of the decOlmnissioned Waikune prison. Conservationists, local bodies, and recreational users lobbied for the creation of the park. Wetere, as Minister of Maori Affairs and of Lands and Survey, was under considerable pressure from these groups to declare the national park, and from Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to meet iwi expectations. Delays in the establishment of Whanganui National Park were largely the result of new financial policies introduced by the Labour government after its election in July 1984. 69

5 Chapter 5 A Maori National Park?

In 1988, the Wanganui City Council proposed that Whanganui National Park, together with Tongariro and Taranaki National Parks, become an extension of the World Heritage Park concept to celebrate New Zealand's sesquicentennial in 1990. The proposal was to be in tenns of Maori legend, Maori history, and Maori taonga, and of bicultural settlement and development since 1840. 191 The proposal did not eventuate. It has some irony since Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi have consistently claimed that they were promised a 'Maori' national park by the Lands Department or by the Minister of Lands and that this promise has not been kept. This chapter investigates the origins ofthis claim and assesses the available evidence. The iwi's discussions with the Lands Department must also be seen in the context of the Crown's rejection of the 1979 petition by Titi Tihu and Hikaia Amohia. The chapter concludes that, while Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's claim can partly be justified, there was no definite promise made by Lands Department officials. The tape recording, in which the Minister is reported to have spoken of Whanganui Maori National Park, has not been found. Therefore the claim cannot be confmned.

Almost immediately after the opening of Whanganui National Park, there were claims that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had been advised that Whanganui National Park would be a Maori national parle. Their lawyer, Ed Morgan, noted this in a letter to the Minister of Conservation in July 1987. 192 The claims continued into the 1990s. In 1994, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi told the Minister of Conservation that, in the three years' negotiation for the national park, 'iwi were promised by the then Minister of Lands a major part to play in the daily

administration of the park'. 193 Department of Conservation summaries of meetings

with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi in the 1990s refer to these viewpoints. 194 A sUlmnary ofa meeting on 6 Apri11995 states that the iwi undertook to give DOC a tape

191 Taiaroa to Thorn, 27 October 1988, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 192 Morgan to Min Cons, 28 July 1987, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 193 Presentation to Min Cons and Lands, Kaiwhaiki, 20 December 1994, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 194 eg, McDonnell to Simmons, 29 November 1993, MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki; Edmonds to Min Cons, 9 December 1994, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 70 recording of a speech by the Minister of Lands and Maori Affairs, K T Wetere, in which he called the park Whanganui Maori National Park. 195 The Maori national park concept is implicit in The Whanganui River Report which quotes a statement from the Wellington CCL in 1984 that he thought the then proposals would result in a 'very

"[M]aori" national park' .196 Archie Taiaroa has also said that they were told it would be a Maori national parle. 197 Previous chapters have shown that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi submissions asked for considerable Maori involvement in all aspects of the control, management, and activities of the parle. The next chapter will show that they repeated the requests in submissions on the draft management plan. 198 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's belief that the Crown agreed to these iwi submissions appears to have originated from a hearing on 24 November 1983. At this hearing, iwi presented their 1983 submission to the Wellington COlmnissioner of Crown Lands and discussed it with him.

5.1 Submission Hearing, 24 November 1983 There are four reports extant from the hearing. One is a report written by Taiaroa the following day to the Research COlmnittee of the Wanganui River

Reserves Trust. 199 The second is a brief summary in a memo the same day from the Director General of Lands to the Minister of Lands. 20o The third is a sUlmnary of the hearing by the Lands Department two months later. 201 The fourth is what appears to be a verbatim transcript of the hearing in the Record of Documents for the Waitangi Tribunal's Whanganui River Report.202 Those attending the hearing on behalf of the iwi were Taiaroa, Hikaia Amohia, Tahu Rangitihi, Delphinia Peke, Heemi Bailey, and Peeti TUlnango. Taiaroa wrote a report of the meeting and asked that its subject - a management structure for the

195 Joris de Bres, Report of meeting between DOC and Whanganui Iwi at Pipiriki, 6 April 1995, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 196 Waitangi Tribunal, Whanganui River Report, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999, p 242 197 Phone conversation with Archie Taiaroa, 8 July 2003 198 See Chapters 3-5, 6 199 A Taiaroa, 'Brief Report', 25 November 1983, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui

200 DG to Min Lands, 24 November 1983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vol 2 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 201 'Wanganui River National Park Proposal', January 1984, Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 202 'Wanganui River National Park Proposal. Submission', Document B8(a), Whanganui River Report Wai 167. There is no date or archival source on this document. It was not among DOC Whanganui National Park files that I searched in Wellington and Wanganui 71 national park - be discussed with iwi before further imminent discussions with the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Taiaroa set considerable store on the hearing. He believed, he said, it was only through the personal attendance of the representatives that a better communication and dialogue were established for the future proposed parle 'WE MUST PROCEED WITH CAUTION although I personally feel we have gained some ground,' he wrote. 203

5.1.1 Taiaroa's Report of Submission Hearing In their submission Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had requested a separate board to control the proposed Wanganui River National Parle But, at the hearing, they were told this would not be possible and that the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board would be the administering authority. Discussions then focused on another management structure. The plan envisaged a seemingly equal input from both the WNP&RB, which would have three iwi members out often, and a Whanganui River Advisory Committee of nine Whanganui River Maori. The Lands Department would carry out the work and the management plan as required by both the WNP&RB and the Maori advisory cOlmnittee. Taiaroa presented this structure in diagralmnatic fonn. He warned that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi must ensure that the advisory cOlmnittee received statutory authority and be given 'teeth' and expenses. Then he wrote,

This committee formulates the Management Plan for implementation by the Department of Lands, as it affects the Wanganui River National Park. If this Committee is not satisfied then it can work directly with the Minister of Lands. This Committee will ensure that the recommendations made in the submissions and agreed to must be carried out. Taiaroa reported that this structure would also be the controlling authority for the Whanganui River. The COlmnissioner of Crown Lands, Taiaroa said, would put the plan to his Department heads and the Minister of Lands. Taiaroa added that the CCL, '[fJeels this may be acceptable in light of the Wanganui River Petition, Claims and now the National Parle ,204

5.1.2 Director General's Memo The Director General's Memo of24 November discussed possibilities for legislation for the national park in light of the Crown's rejection ofTihu and Hikaia

203 Taiaroa, 'Brief Report' , ibid, his emphasis 72

Amohia's petition and the Crown's willingness to fonnally recognise the river's spiritual significance and mana to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The Director General offered the following options. The national park could be set up either by special legislation or in the nonnal way under the National Parks Act 1980. If the latter, the legislation could: (a) associate the river with the park which, the DG considered, would meet petitioners' wishes in a tangible way and integrate the management of the waterway into the park; (b) would state the government's recognition of the river's significance to Maori; (c) guarantee protection of Maori sacred sites in and along the river; (d) confmn and protect Maori fishing and access rights as given by the Treaty of Waitangi; (e) allow funds from gravel removal to go to local Maori community projects; (f) guarantee Maori representation on the board responsible for the parle. The Director General then considered the inclusion of Whanganui River in the park, evidently from infonnation from the hearing discussions. He said that Maori tribal representatives saw the river's inclusion as desirable and it was one theme in submissions on the parle. The COlmnissioner of Crown Lands had come to a similar conclusion and had floated the idea 'without prejudice' to Maori representatives with an assurance of 'a certain level' of Maori representation on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. The idea had received 'a very positive response' particularly ifit was to be supported by recognition of Maori links with the river. It would meet, the Director General concluded, 'the aspirations of the mainstream of interested Maori. ,205

5.1.3 Lands Department Summary of Hearing The Lands Department also smmnarised the presentation but not until January 1984. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi said, according to the Lands Department, that title to the river bed and surrounding lands was less important than control and management and that, if iwi were given sufficient input into the control and management, the question of title could be left to lie where it was.

204 Taiaroa, 'Brief Report' , ibid 205 DO to Min Lands, 24 November 1983, 0060 Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol2 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 73

The Lands Department offered the following proposition as a tentative basis for further discussion without prejudice, as the decision rested with the National Parks and Reserves Authority and the Minister of Lands. Firstly, that special legislation be promoted to establish the national park including the river. Secondly, that legislation provide for three members of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board to be appointed by the Minister of Lands on the nomination ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, one each to represent the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the river. Thirdly, that an advisory cOlmnittee of nine Whanganui Maori (three from each river reach) be established, to be appointed by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, to act in an advisory capacity to the WNP&RB and the Lands Department. Fourthly, that the WNP&RB be required to consult the advisory cOlmnittee in all matters within the board's jurisdiction relating to Maoridom and particularly in the preparation and review of the management plan and those matters listed in 3(b) of the submission. The Lands Department smmnary then went on to say that, after a discussion amongst themselves, the group accepted that the proposition would probably be acceptable; and that Taiaroa had undertaken to sound out tribal reaction. He had later confinned, the smmnary added, that the proposition was favourably received.206

5.1.4 Differences Between the Taiaroa and Lands Department Reports There are clear differences between the reports of Taiaroa and those of the Lands Department. Taiaroa's report indicates a statutory, managerial, and virtually equal role for the iwi in all aspects of park management. This would be achieved through three members of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board and the Maori advisory cOlmnittee, with the Lands Deparhnent as the implementing agency. The Lands Deparhnent agreed with three iwi members of the WNP&RB but saw the Maori advisory committee's role as simply advisory to the board and to the deparhnent. The Director General said nothing about the Maori advisory committee and noted 'a certain level' only of Maori representation on the WNP&RB. Taiaroa reported that the Maori advisory committee would fonnulate the management plan for implementation by the Department of Lands. The Maori advisory committee would also ensure that the submission recommendations, which

206 'Wanganui River National Park Proposal', January 1984, Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 74 had been agreed to, would be carried out. The Lands Department stated only that the WNP&RB would be required to consult the Maori advisory cOlmnittee on matters relating to Maoridom and on the preparation and review of the management plan, particularly for section 3(b) ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's submission.207 The Lands Department report said nothing about the Maori advisory committee's ability to work directly with the Minister of Lands if it was not satisfied. Taiaroa's report indicates a positive outcome for the hearing proposals by suggesting the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands thought the proposals might be acceptable to the department and minister in light of the several issues involved. The Lands Department, though, stated that the discussions were tentative, made without prejudice, and required approval from the National Parks and Reserves Authority and the Minister of Lands. The Director General of Lands also noted that the ideas were floated without prejudice.

5.1.5 Verbatim Transcript, Submission Hearing on 24 November 1983 Commissioner . .. I think this national park will be a unique one for lots of reasons. One being the very strong association (maori association) with it. I think there may have to be some new rules set up for this park that will be acceptable to Government for managing this area. I think you should moderate your request ... to 3 people because as I said this board[ s] takes in a wide area and other districts will want some representation on the board. If you had 3 would you consider it reasonable for Government to change legislation to provide for on an infonnal and statutory basis, another group which would be associated with this board and would have a statutory function to advise the park board. This cOlmnittee would be made up from your people. The board would be responsible for the policies of the management plan. You would still have the board with your three members on it and it seems to me that if that could be brought about some how you would have a full participation into the management of this area and into the setting up of policies

207 See Chapter 3 above for the 1983 submission 75

over it. 208 If you think it is worthwhile that this idea go ahead I will talk to my head office about it and advise them that I have floated the idea with you. 209 . .. The board would be required to consult that group before making any decisions which would affect the maoriness of the river and valley. The group would have contact through the 3 maori representatives on the board to advise them of any things that it sees and when decisions were made of things to be done the department would have to provide the resources and the money. When it comes to the question of producing management plans, costs associated with

that would be made by the department. 210 ... [The Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board] would carry out its function as it is now. In respect ofWanganui National Park they would have to liaise with the other group before making any decisions.211 . .. It is going to be a very "maori" national park. I think that there will be a very large influence of maoriness in the management of the park.212 Archie Taiaroa Will the advisory cOlmnittee have "teeth" or will it be a cOlmnittee that the board won't listen to.213 COlmnissioner We need to say to the Minister that these ought to be the rules and you enact them. If you give advice to the board and the board decides not to accept that advice that you have the right to go to the Minister direct.214 ... It has got to have teeth similar to the National Parks and Reserves Board. They have to have a full say in the policies that are developed, like Tongm1ro. All decisions that the department makes

208 Document B8(a), pp 92, 93 209 ibid, p 93, original emphasis 210 ibid, P 93 211 ibid, p 94 212 ibid, p 94 213 ibid, P 95 76

have to be in accordance with that management plan?15 . .. As far as possible the manpower we will be employing will be from your people apart from the rangers, that is currently the situation. The rangers are different. They have to have qualifications which they get from Lincoln University.216 . .. Currently there are nominations called for reappointment of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board because the new tenn of this board expires on 31 March 1984. What I propose to suggest is that if it is acceptable that to the Minister to hold off the nominations and that he then accept late nominations if your people agree to the three nominations on the board.217

5.1.6 Assessment of the Verbatim, Taiaroa, and Lands Department Reports In the Verbatim transcript there are several references by the Commissioner of Crown Lands to the Maoriness of the national parle. It would have a 'very strong' Maori association. 'It is going to be a very maori national parle.' 'I think there will be a very large influence ofmaoriness in the management of the park'. In this sense Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi is justified in claiming that the Lands Department agreed to Whanganui's becoming a Maori national park. On the question of management and control, the verbatim transcript reveals ambiguities. The first is on the precise roles of the Maori advisory committee, the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, and the Lands Department. To begin with, the Commissioner of Crown Lands offered Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi a compromise about numbers on the WNP&RB. Ifiwi withdrew their requests for six members of the WNP &RB and accepted three, he said, he would suggest to the Minister a Maori cOlmnittee with statutory authority to advise the park board. Then the ambiguities begin. The CCL said that the board would be responsible for the policies of the management plan; that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi would have their three members on it; and that 'somehow' iwi could have a full participation into the management and into the setting up of policies. At his first mention of the Maori advisory cOlmnittee, the CCL made no qualification that the advisory cOlmnittee's

214 ibid, p 95 215 ibid, P 96 216 ibid, P 98 217 ibid, P 98 77 role would be limited. But in the next mention he said, 'The board would be required to consult that group before making any decisions which would affect the maoriness of the river and valley.' Later, he said that the Maori advisory committee would have to have 'teeth', 'similar to the National Parks and Reserves Board'. A second factor is possible different interpretations of the phrase 'the maoriness of the river and valley' which may account for the differing emphases between the Lands Department and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. To the iwi, everything material and spiritual in the river and valley was maoriness, and therefore they should be involved in all aspects of park management. To the Lands Deparhnent, although it recognised Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi felt a spiritual connection, maoriness lay more in material aspects - the sacred and cultural sites, and the use of flora and fauna. Therefore iwi's management role would be confmed to advice on these aspects. Another possibility to account for the differing emphases could be that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's limited role was underplayed at the hearing. As the above quotes from the verbatim transcript show, more was said about iwi participation than about limitations to it. The Director General had nothing to say on the idea of a Maori advisory committee. He suggested 'mainstream' Maori aspirations would be accommodated by including the Whanganui River in the national park and by a 'certain level' of representation for the iwi on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. His use of the adjective 'mainstream' suggests that he separated the iwi into two; a broad group of moderates and a smaller, activist element. If that is so, he was mistaken as time would show. To sum up, it can be seen why Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi fonned the impression that they were promised a Maori national parle. From their perspective, the positive references were many and the qualifying COlmnents few. They accepted the word of the Commissioner of Crown Lands when he said that, if the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board did not take the advice of the Maori advisory cOlmnittee, iwi could go directly to the minister. They took his comment on 'teeth' to imply an equality for the Maori advisory cOlmnittee similar to the WNP&RB. They may have taken 'maoriness of the river and valley' to mean an input into all aspects of management and activity. From the perspective of the Lands Deparhnent, its report makes clear that the proposals were tentative and made without prejudice; that the WNP&RB would be 78 required only to 'consult' the Maori advisory committee on all matters relating to Maoridom.

5.2 Further Action On Maori Representation in Control and Management The Lands Department subsequently discussed their version of the management structure with their Director General and Minister of Lands who gave approval for further exploratory talks with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. This agreement led to a meeting of the interdepartmental cOlmnittee to explain the proposition. G D F ouhy of Maori Affairs, who chaired it, agreed that the proposition appeared to present an acceptable solution to the national park proposal, Cabinet's desire to publicly recognise the mana and spirituality attaching to the river, the matters raised in petition 1979/55, and possibly the question of compensation for gravel removal. Fouhy then alTanged with Taiaroa for a meeting with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi on 23 February 1984 at Ngapuwaiwaha Marae, Taumarunui. Government officials who attended included Phillips the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands and D McKerchar, Director of National Parks, and Fouhy, Jaram, and Taiaroa from Maori Affairs.218 Prior to this meeting, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi met and made the following nominations: For the Wellington National Parks Board: Hinengakau, Hikaia Amohia; Tamaupoko, Tahu Rangitihi; Tupoho, Rangipo Mete Kingi; For the Wanganui River Advisory Authority: the nine committee members of the Wanganui River Reserve Trust. These were: Hinengakau, Hikaia Amohia, Linda Henry, Archie Taiaroa; Tamaupoko, Joan Akapita, Julie Ranginui, Tahu Rangitihi; Tupoho, Rangipo Mete Kingi, Hoeroa Marumaru, Hemi Bailey.219 At the meeting with the government officials, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi passed the following resolution on the proposed national parle They agreed in principle to the establishment ofWanganui River National Park subject to: 1. Management of the river being included by way of special legislation;

218 Fouhy to Amohia, 13 January 1984, Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 79

2. Special legislation to provide for pennanent representation as of right of three members nominated by the Wanganui Three Tribes, and a committee of Maori people appointed by the Wanganui Maori Tribes with power to advise the National Parks and Reserves Board; 3. The agreement and paragraphs 1 and 2 above in no way to prejudice the claims of the Wanganui River Maori Tribes to land or ownership of the bed

of the Wanganui River. 220 Eventually, in 1988, the Maori advisory committee was constituted as the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. Until then, it was known as the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi did not receive three places on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board. They achieved only one. This had ramifications. The first was that they did not iImnediately receive their official representation on the WNP&RB on the establishment of the park in 1986. The Conservation Department concluded there was a delay in the recOlmnendation to the WNP&RB because Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi could not agree on their sole representative.22I The second ramification was that they continued to press for an expanded representation. The InteriIn Whanganui River Maori Trust Board revisited the idea of a separate Whanganui River Park Board with three Maori and six non-Maori representatives in a letter to the Minister of Conservation. 'Such a representation would go a little closer towards the ideal of the "truly Maori National Park" which

Maori were advised Whanganui would be. ,222 The Minister suggested the iwi wait until the quango review was complete, when a new regional board was more likely to be made up of local people.223 The Director General of Conservation also revisited the idea of three iwi

219 Minutes, Wanganui River and Proposed Wanganui River National Park, 23 February [1984], concluded 12.30 pm, Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui 220 Minutes Wanganui River and Proposed Wanganui River National Park, 23 February [1984], concluded 5.00 pm, Box 34, WR 35 vol 3 Wanganui River Reserves National Park Proposals, DOC Wanganui; emphasis in document

221 Edmund to Min Cons, 4 October 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 222 Morgan to Mins Cons, 28 July 1987, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 223 Correspondence between Cooney, Lees & Morgan [on behalf ofIWRMTB] and Min Cons, March­ December 1987, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board; Box 10, WR 5/511 Management Plan Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 80 representatives in what he called a third option, 'Full Partnership'. He said,

It could be decided that a single Maori voice on the national parks and reserves board does not in fact reflect Government's idea of a partnership and that three representatives of the trust board would, in fact, more accurately reflect Government's view. If this third option was favoured it could have implications

fior ot her sImI"1 ar sItuatIOns. . t hroug hout t h e country. 224

This option was again suggested the following year. The Director of Advocacy and Extension within the Department's head office considered that the present institutional arrangement, in which the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board had an advisory role, was 'a far cry from partnership'; that, where culturally sensitive resources were being administered, the present structure for administering national parks might not be appropriate. An alternative suggested by the Director was to vest the lands in trust to an appropriate body responsible to the National Parks and Reserves Authority and/or the minister.225 This was not taken up. Another official wrote that, 'I doubt whether [the IWRMTB] will ever have complete 'control' of the parle. Certainly they will have a say in its management ... but day to day control will always lie with DOC. ,226 The 'Full partnership' option would have met Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi wishes for a representative from each tupuna but it was not taken up by the government in the quango review and subsequent legislation. The Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990, which established Conservation Boards, again allotted only one place on the Taranaki/Wanganui Conservation Board to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Little of the Maoriness revealed in the discussions in this chapter appeared in the 1984 Proposed Wanganui River National Park - Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority.227

5.3 Speech by the Minister of Lands Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi also claim that the Minister of Lands and Maori

224 DG Cons to Min Cons, 15 December 1987, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 225 Director Advocacy and Extension to Regional Manager, 11 April 1988, 0060, AX 0907, NP7W/4/1, DOC HO Wellington 226 Notes on briefing paper (his emphasis) Acting DG Cons to Min Cons, 10 June 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 227 See Chapter 3 above 81

Affairs, K T Wetere, gave a speech in which he called the park Whanganui Maori National Park. Iwi seemingly undertook to give DOC a tape recording of this speech.228 The Regional Conservator, W F Carlin, told me that the department has not seen the tape.229 Archie Taiaroa also told me of this speech. The tape was searched for while I was at the Taumarunui Whanganui River Maori Trust Board office but was not found then. I understand that the tape has also been searched for in the trust board's office in Wanganui. Wetere may have spoken along these lines as the Wanganui River Reserves Trust minutes for 9 August 1986 indicate that his speech was sometimes at variance with his written word. 23o

This chapter has examined Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's claim that they were promised a Maori national park in the Whanganui region. This appears to have originated from discussions between the iwi and the COlmnissioner of Crown Lands at the hearing on 24 November 1983 in which Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi presented their submission on the national parle From what appears to be a verbatim transcript of the hearing, it can be seen that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi was partly justified in this claim. The CCL mentioned the Maoriness of the park on several occasions. He suggested that three Te Atihaunui­ a-Paparangi representatives on the Wellington National Park and Reserves Board and a Maori advisory cOlmnittee with a statutory role, would allow a full say in policies and management. Although he qualified the advisory committee's role to advising on Maori matters, he did this only once. He also suggested that, if the Maori advisory cOlmnittee was not satisfied with WNP &RB decisions, the advisory cOlmnittee could go directly to the minister. His emphasis was on iwi participation, employment, and fmance for costs associated with producing management plans. Taiaroa's sUlmnary of the hearing discussions, though tempered with caution, shows he believed Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi would gain an equal part, with the WNP&RB, in management of the park and river. In contrast, the Lands Deparhnent sUlmnary and the Director General's memo reveal their understanding that the proposals were tentative and made without prejudice. Although the option of three places on the WNP&RB was suggested to the

228 Joris de Bres, Report of DOC-Whanganui Iwi meeting at Pipiriki, 6 April 1995, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 229 Comment with author, 28 March 2003 82

Minister, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi achieved only one place. Iwi and the department appear to have had different interpretations of the 'maoriness of the river and valley'. To iwi, it was in everything and therefore they should have a role in all aspects of management. To the department, 'maoriness' lay in material things Maori and therefore the iwi's role should be confmed to advice on those matters. On the iwi's claim that Wetere, as Minister of Lands, promised a Maori National Park in a tape recording, I have not been able to either confinn or refute this assertion as no recording has been fotmd. The only indication that he may have done so is the remark that his spoken word did not always agree with his written word.

230 See Chapter 4 above 83

6 Chapter 6 Whanganui National Park: Management Plan 1989

This chapter discusses the Whanganui National Park Draft Management Plan and the Whanganui National Park Management Plan which were published in 1987 and 1989 respectively. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi produced submissions to the Draft Plan, based on their earlier submissions to the national park proposal. The intent, and much of the detail, of their submissions were ignored in the plans by the Department of Conservation. This led the iwi to reject the Draft Management Plan even though they had representatives on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board's subcOlmnittee which produced it. Because of this pmiicipation, the government expressed surprise at Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's rejection but the iwi explained that their representatives had been unhappy with the draft.

6.1 Whanganui National Park Draft Management Plan, 1987

6.1.1 Preparations Under the National Parks Act 1980, a management plan must be prepared within two years of the constitution of a new national parle. The process requires public notification of the intention to prepare the plan and calls for submissions from those interested, the preparation and publication of a draft management plan, a call for public submissions on the draft, any required amendments written, and fmally the publication of the Management Plan.231 Since the Department of Conservation did not come into effect until 1 April 1987, the COlmnissioner Crown Lands began the process of preparation by announcing the intention to prepare the plan and calling for submissions. Notices were placed in newspapers in March 1987. The closing date for submissions was 5 June 1987.232

6.1.2 Submissions by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi After J S Ombler, by then District Conservator, had attended a meeting of the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board to explain the management plan and the

231 National Parks Act 1980, ss 45-48 232 eeL to DG Lands, 5 March 1987, 0060, AX 0907, NP7W/411, DOe HO Wellington 84

relationship of the various bodies in national park planning, members of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi sent submissions.233 People of the Pipirilci community and other descendants of Hinengakau and Tama-Upoko offered theirs in the hope of 'a harmonious relationship between the Tangata-Whenua and the Department of Conservation'. They defmed tangata whenua as the direct descendants of Hinengakau, Tama-Upoko and Tupoho. They submitted that: • All burial and other sacred areas be located and registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, and that these areas be given priority in being enclosed to prevent any public desecration; • Tangata Whenua be given unrestricted traditional usage of the lands, forests, and waterways in tenns of traditional plants used for medicinal and cultural purposes, and traditional food gathering; • Tangata Whenua and their future descendants be exempt from levies and restrictions imposed on the national park and river users, in consideration of the contribution made by tangata whenua towards the fonnation of the park; • Tangata Whenua fishing rights, areas, and methods be preserved in perpetuity; • The current policy of providing pennanent employment for tangata whenua be continued when future opportunities arose; • Due consideration be given to any policies that might conflict with traditional values oftangata whenua, e.g. imposing a monetary levy on a local facility when a koha would be a more acceptable alternative; • Future developments concerning the national park and sacred areas be discussed with the Whanganui River Trust Board.234

Another submission came from 'Tupoho of the lower reaches supported by Tamaupoko of the middle reaches'. They began by emphasising the spiritual dimension:

We believe that every bend of the River and every rapid has its own protecting deity and that all who enter the 'rohe' of the Whanganui River valley be made

233 Minutes IWRMTB meeting 26 February 1987, file 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 234 Submission, people ofPipiriki community and other descendants ofHinengakau and Tama-Upoko, received 5 June 1987, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 85

aware of this spiritual dimension. For the River people this spiritual essence in our time is manifest in the person ofTiti Tihu a tohunga of the old world.

Their submission contained the following: 1. They submitted that the management plan should include the special spiritual status accorded to the protecting deities; that Titi Tihu was a manifestation of the deities; and that each generation of River people should elevate his successor; 2. They wished to keep the national park in its state of unspoiled wilderness, without the establishment of further huts and campsites, so that the mystique of the river could be understood. They wanted no modification of the Whanganui River channel; 3. They asked for the Maori advisory board to be set up under the Whanganui River Maori Tmst Board in consultation with the Whanganui River people, and that the Board be involved with any education and interpretation of historic sites; 4. While sites of historical significance should be represented on a map, they wished to employ local people in this work so that knowledge of particular stones, logs, trees, earthworks, and umpa would remain secret; 5. They supported tramping tours and adventure trips in the park but wanted local people to run them; 6. They wanted the river people to be involved in the management of the park at all levels, and what they called 'Maori authorities' of the region to supply back up resources to ensure that happened; 7. They recOlmnended traditional fonns of architecture and engineering for the park headquarters to reflect the spiritual philosophy and values ofthe river; 8. The Maori advisory board should consist of three members from each tupuna and be a properly constituted part of the management plan; 9. There should be two members of the Maori advisory board on the park board; 10. The Maori advisory board should, of right, be kept fully infonned of the park board's workings and be allowed to sit in on park board meetings; 11. The Maori advisory board should be empowered and funded to set up a team to identify and map special sites, objects and tapu places in the park, with the documentation held by the Whanganui River Maori Tmst Board; 86

12. The Maori advisory board should be empowered to make any area a Specially Protected Area; 13. An awareness of the special Maori values embodied in an area should be in all educational material, park policy, and management practices; 14. Whanganui River Maori people should be able to gather traditional food, craft, building, and medicinal supplies from the park; 15. They should have the right to continue to hunt and fish in the park; 16. No part of the park should be sold or exchanged, or leased to anyone other than local people; 17. The park board should exercise strict cont!ol over the use of motorboats near traditional fishing sites and where protecting deities and kaitiaki are known to exist.235

Three submissions from individuals were from a Maori perspective. L Joyce Davy submitted that the Maori-owned national park be jointly administered through helpful, amiable negotiation with appointed government officials. Hori McLeod submitted that Maori cultural values should be recognised by not building huts like John Coull on urupa; that there should be free Maori access to hunting and cultural items like flax; and that there should be Maori Wardens for historical marae, treasures, and employment. Commercial firms, he said, should recognise Maori values. He argued that Maori were better conservationists which was the reason for the continuing existence of lowland forest. He also suggested that the Whare Wananga Trust had much to offer in knowledge of ancestors and language restoration.236 Another submission was from G S Marks. He submitted that the national park's management should be grounded in the need to recognise the park's Maoriness and spirituality to the Maori people. He requested that the Maori Advisory Committee, of three members from each of the three tribal areas, be set up; that it be properly constituted as a part of the formal structure of the park; that it have two members on the park board. He also submitted that the Maori Advisory Committee be given the same sort of facilities and fmance as the park board itself to employ local Maori to survey important sites; that commercial and other development be in Maori

235 Submission, Tupoho of the Lower Reaches Supported by Tamaupoko of the Middle Reaches, undated, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol I Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 87

hands or under their direction; and that Maori should continue full rights of access, hunting, fishing, and gathering. 237

6.1.3 Assessment of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Submissions These submissions elaborate the Maoriness theme, which had first been proposed for the national park in March 1983, and which the iwi believed they had achieved at the hearing in November that year. • Firstly, the submissions emphasise the dimension of spirituality and its manifestation through exceptional people and places of the Whanganui River; • Second, they request that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi have an equal, if not a controlling, role in the administration of the national park and that they receive financial assistance to do so and be exempt from fees and levies; • Third, that Maori values and customs, like koha, should be paramount; • Fourth, that sites sacred to iwi should be surveyed and preserved as a priority activity; • Fifth, that employment and commercial opportunities should be given to Te Atihaunui-a- Paparangi; • Six, that the iwi's access to traditional fishing and hunting areas, and to the collection of plants for cultural purposes remain.

These submissions are different to those of conservationists, for example, the Wanganui branch of Forest and Bird. The society asked for control of introduced animals and weeds; the inclusion in the national park of contiguous areas of forest; scientific ecosystem research; and the promotion of forest regrowth and wilderness areas. An overriding priority was that, in providing tracks and experiences for tourists, commercial use and development cause as little disturbance as possible.238 The emphasis was on management for conservation purposes rather than on who should manage, and under whose values. While it would not necessarily be impossible to unite the diverse views of Forest and Bird and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, this did not occur in the 1987 Draft or in the 1989 Management Plan. As will be explained

236 Submissions, L Joyce Davy and Hori McLeod, Box 10, WR 5/5 vol 1 Management Plan Submissions Individual, DOC Wanganui 237 Submission, G S Marks, Box 10, WR 5/5 vol 1 Management Plan Submissions Individual, DOC Wanganui 238 Submission, Wanganui branch Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Box 10, WR 5/5 vol 4 Whanganui National Parks Management Plan Submissions Conservation Groups, DOC Wanganui 88

shortly, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi saw the government's failure to truly incorporate Maori values as a betrayal of preceding discussions.

6.1.4 Iwi Participation in Planning For the Draft Management Plan The Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board had representatives on the management planning subcommittee of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board.239 They were, on different occasions, Rangipo Mete Kingi, Matiu Mareikura, Joan Akapita, and Hemi Bailey. Two joint meetings between the IWRMTB and the WNP&RB's subcommittee were held at which several alterations were made to the draft plan at the instigation of the IWRMTB members. Rei Bailey, as a member of the WNP&RB, also attended meetings. Records of the IWRMTB indicate that some members were unhappy with discussions. Mareikura was concerned that DOC seemed preoccupied with the inclusion ofWhanganui River in the national park which, he

said, he had refused because the proposal would need iwi approval. 240 Hikaia Amohia had boycotted the joint meetings but Joan Akapita felt that this would have been more effective if all subcommittee members had boycotted as a group. Other members felt that Amohia's boycott had disadvantaged the iwi's protection.241 Part of the iwi discontent was financial. At the November 1983 hearing, the Commissioner of Crown Lands had said that costs associated with the management plans would be met by the department.242 According to IWRMTB minutes, ambler had said in March 1987 that three iwi members of the subcommittee would be funded. 243 In July 1987 he wrote to say that DOC would not meet their expenses as the funds were supposed to come from the grant of$140,500 already made by the government. He suggested that their expenses could be met by a grant from Maori Affairs. 244 The trust board wrote to the Minister of Conservation to complain, saying that the grant was reserved for research into the river metal issue.245

6.1.5 Draft Management Plan: Description The Draft Management Plan began with the Maori creation legend of the

239 Minutes IWRMTB meeting 5 March 1987, Minutes vol: 11, WRMTB Taumarunui 240 Minutes IWRMTB meeting 12 August 1987, Minutes vol: 11, WRMTB Taumarunui 241 Minutes IWRMTB meeting 5 December 1987, Minutes vol: 11, WRMTB Taumarunui 242 See Chapter 5 above 243 Minutes IWRMTB meeting, I April 1987, WRMTB Taumarunui 244 Ombler to Takarangi, 17 July 1987 and 14 October 1987, Regional Conservator to Regional Manager, 18 April 1988, Box 10, WR 5/5/1 Management Plan Correspondence; District Conservator to Regional Manager, 12 July 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 245 Henry to Min Cons, 27 June 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 89

Whanganui River valley by Taranaki as he sped from his former place with the central North Island mountains, Tongariro, Ngauruhoe, and Pihanga. The plan continued with sections on the background to the national park, the process of development of the plan, and statutory arrangements for the park's overall administration. The national park was to be managed by the Department of Conservation subj ect to the National Parks Act 1980. Navigation of the Whanganui River was to be controlled by DOC subject to Whanganui River Control Bylaws 1983. DOC was responsible only for management of fish in waters in the national park, not the Whanganui River itself. The park headquarters was to be in Wanganui in the district office of the Department of Conservation, with conservation offices at Taumarunui, Pipiriki, and Raetihi. Since the park fell within the Wellington National Park and Reserves Board district, the board had a policy advisory role to DOC and to the National Parks and Reserves Authority on the management of the park. The Draft explained that, in consultation with the department, the board was responsible for the preparation, review, and amendment of the draft management plan. However, because a review of quangos was underway, by the time the final management plan was prepared, a new board might have been established, or the structure and function of the board considerably altered. 246 This body became the TaranakiIW anganui Conservation Board. Throughout the following sections on history, physical descriptions, management objectives and polices on topics such as introduced animals, historic sites, and concessions, the Draft Management Plan made a number of references to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. These included their length of settlement in the river valley, traditional fishing practices and plant collection, and sacred and historic sites.247 In several places, the Draft alluded to the recognition of the spiritual, historical, and cultural significance of the Whanganui National Park and the Whanganui River to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, and to the recognition of this significance in park management. The Draft stated that DOC would seek and have regard to the advice of the local Maori people through the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on all matters of concern to Maori.248 The Draft Management Plan noted possible further acquisitions to the national

246 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Draft Management Plan, Wanganui, Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, December 1987, pp i, 2, 56 247 ibid, policies 2, 3, 4, 9 90

park. These were the Waitotara Conservation Area, Tangarakau Stewardship Area, the Whanganui River flowing through the park, the Manganui-o-te-ao River, Rotokahu, and land near Aotuhia. Private land, the plan noted, would be subject to negotiation and agreement between all parties concerned and be on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. The plan stated that any negotiations for Maori land would be carried out in consultation with the IWRMTB.249 The inclusion of Mangapurua Road was also foreshadowed.250 The final section was on the inclusion of the Whanganui River in the park. The plan envisaged the promotion of this either through legislation, other means, or the early restoration of the Maori claim to ownership of the river bed. The plan argued that special legislation would guarantee a statutory involvement for the Maori people in management of the park in general and the river bed in particular. The river's inclusion in park boundaries, the plan said, had been recommended by many submissions and in submissions to the earlier assessments.251

6.1.6 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Response to the Draft Management Plan The Draft Management Plan was published in December 1987. Between then and February 1988, the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board held three hui-a­ iwi, as well as two meetings with DOC representatives, to discuss the Draft. The tribal hui at Putiki Marae, Wanganui, on 12 December 1987 was attended by 123 people; that at Ngapuwaiwaha Marae, Taumarunui, on 6 February 1988 by 141 people; and that at Patiarero Marae, Hiruharama, on 20 February 1988 by 82 kaumatua. People at these hui asked the IWRMTB to submit their decisions, which were highly critical of the Draft Management Plan, to the Minister of Conservation. Firstly, they recommended that the government reject the Draft plan in its entirety. Secondly, they recommended that control and management of the park be devolved to the Whanganui River Tribes through its trust board, and that funding, training, and resource allocation be phased in over three years. They argued that this 'was entirely consistent with the Government's aims in Tuku Rangitira Tanga (Transferring of mana and resources to communities and iwi).' The latter implied the government's acceptance, they said, that iwi authorities had the ability to manage iwi

248 ibid, eg, policy 9.2.19 249 ibid, policy 9.1.1 250 ibid, policy 9.1.17 251 ibid, policy 9.4.7 91 affairs. Thirdly, they recommended that the Conservation Department assume an advisory role to the trust board. 252 Iwi provided a number of reasons for their recommendations. First, the department's use in the Draft of Maori images and words in logo designs and explanations was not carried out in practice. Second, the department obviously wished to take over control and management of the Whanganui River. Third, some of the department's recommendations were acceptable but others were 'totally unacceptable'. Iwi felt that some recommendations were 'patronising, paternalistic and offensive'. They felt that the idea of PARTNERSHIP as expressed in the Treaty ofWaitangi, and as endorsed by the Court of Appeal in the State Owned Enterprises decision, meant little to the writers of the Draft Plan. They said that after some 200 years of 'raping the environment', the department 'now wants to tell the Maori how to be conservationists of their own resource. ,253

6.1.7 Government Response to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Criticism The Minister of Conservation, Helen Clark, did not reply until five months later. The delay, she said, was caused by the need for investigation.254 The department's files contain a number of memos with explanations ofTe Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi's criticisms. There is a lengthy response from the department's District Conservator, J S Ombler. On the iwi's rejection, he believed that the only point of difference between Maori and themselves by their final meeting was over the inclusion of the Whanganui River in the national park. The iwi's rejection of the Draft was, in his opinion, because they were not privy to all the submissions and the development of the plan. He believed that national park legislation, ethic, and management planning procedure were poorly understood by the people as a whole and not adequately explained by the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. Although he had offered to attend the three hui, this was not taken up. He believed that rejection ofthe Draft in its entirety was 'largely related' to policy on the river's inclusion because neither government nor Maori had been able to separate the issues of the management plan and river-bed ownership.

252 Taiaroa to Min Conservation, 26 February 1988, Box 10, WR 5/5/1 Management Plan Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 253 ibid, emphasis in original; Minutes IWRMTB meeting, 6 February 1988, WRMTB Taumarunui 254 Min Cons to Taiaroa, 4 July 1988, 0060, AX 0907, NP7W/411, DOC HO Wellington 92

On the issue of partnership, ambler said that national parks were national treasure, protected by legislation passed by a multi-racial parliament, for their intrinsic worth and owned by all New Zealanders for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It was recognised that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi have very strong ties with the land and river, and for this reason should have a close involvement in management. There was, he said, more involvement from tangata whenua in the preparation of the Draft Management Plan than any other in the history of New Zealand's national parks. He believed that a lot of the antagonism came from iwi' s feeling of a 'second class' status in the advisory role of the IWRMTB; that they 'would like to have unilateral, day to day control of the park. (NOT partnership!).' He suggested that partnership was happening at a staffing level because, in the most recent appointments, three out of six, were Maori, and two of the seasonal appointments were Maori. Partnership could happen, he advised, at the quango level by the minister's appointment of three Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to the new conservation board. ambler continued with a paragraph-by-paragraph explanation, and departmental justification, of Taiaroa's critique. On the river's inclusion, ambler believed that the wording in 9.4.7 [on the river's inclusion] showed that the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board was striving for some form of partnership which did not currently exist in regard to the river. He believed Taiaroa found areas offensive where the park board 'has tried to reach out towards partnership and has been misinterpreted.' He believed an inspection of policies in the plan would 'show a real and conscious attempt at partnership.' On the letter's comment about raping the land, he said it must be a mistake as DOC was 12 months old and the 'resources are not maori, they're the Crown's - everyone's.' On the devolution of control, ambler said it would be totally unacceptable. 'The Department of Conservation [are] professional resource managers in respect of the public estate and advocates/advisors [of] the public estate. This must not change.' Under the general Maori Affairs' policy of devolution, some functions might be appropriate but not the management of a 'NATIONAL PARK'. In general, ambler believed that they could not find common ground until the Minister 'clarifies a few of the ground rules'; that a statutory exercise like the management plan was not a forum to debate major issues like devolution; and that 'minor items', which were taken as offensive, could be 93 overcome in due course. 255 Discussions continued, both within the DOC and between its Wanganui office and Taiaroa, on ways to address iwi dissatisfaction although Ombler was concerned about the number of meeting postponements and cancellations which, he said, came from the Interim Whanganui Rriver Maori Trust Board's representatives.256 He told a meeting of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board that, if Maori objection continued, it could place the minister and the National Parks and Reserves Authority in a difficult position. Some Maori concerns, he said, could not be met under existing legislation.257 The idea of partnership in administration was again canvassed by the Director of Advocacy and Extension within the DOC's head office.258 Another suggestion was the revival of the idea of statutory authority for the Interim Whanganui Rriver Maori Trust Board to appoint a representative to the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board.259 This was not actioned until the Conservation Law Refonn Act 1990. Wanganui Newspapers Ltd learned ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's rejection of the Draft Management Plan and asked for details from the Minister of Conservation because the IWRMTB had declined to give a copy of Taiaroa's letter to its reporter. The minister refused on the ground that Taiaroa's letter was confidential and that all submissions would be available after the 6 May meeting of the WNP&RB.260 A public hearing of submissions on the Draft Management Plan was held on 30 May 1988 but there is no record that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi spoke to theirs. However it was summarised in newspapers next day.261 Clark's reply to Taiaroa in July 1988 largely followed Ombler's suggestions of 18 April. The rejection, she said, was a surprise to the department because she was advised that the IWRMTB's subcommittee had worked closely with the WNP&RB in the plan's preparation. The subcommittee was thought to disagree only over the

255 Ombler to Regional Manager, 18 Apri11988, Box 10, WR 5/511 Management Plan Correspondence, DOC Wanganui, his emphasis 256 Ombler to Regional Manager, 12 July 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 257 Minutes WNP&RB meeting 6 May 1988, Box 4, WR 2 vol 5 Board Membership and Meetings, DOC Wanganui 258 See Chapter 4 above 259 Ombler, file note, 30 June 1988, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 260 Acting DG Cons to Min Cons, 20 April 1988 and Min Cons to Stoneman, 21 April 1988, 0060, AX 0907, NP7W/411, DOC HO Wellington 261 Wanganui Chronicle and Evening Standard, 31 May 1988, Box 3, WR 1/4/1 vol 2 Newspaper clippings, DOC Wanganui 94 inclusion of the river. She considered that the strength of concern suggested a misunderstanding and that she understood discussions were continuing with the department in Wanganui. It was not legally possible within the present legislation, she said, for the IWRMTB to be responsible for the national park. The concept of partnership, she said, had not been lost sight of. It could only develop over time by agreement between both parties. As one part of partnership, she was advised that three of the six most recent appointments had been Maori. Further strengthening of Maori participation in management should be through additional Maori staff in the Ddpartment and on conservation boards.262 The gist of this reply was published as part of an article on the Draft Management Plan in the Wanganui Chronicle in August. The mnister and the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board were quoted as saying that the Maori plan of devolving control to the river tribes 'would not promote the best "all round" policy oversight or management of the parle ,263

6.1.8 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Response Taiaroa confirmed the iwi's continuing concern that their knowledge of the conservation of land, water, and resources was being ignored by the government, and that they would like to see 'a proper partnership' , not one of 'employee to boss' situation. The one statutory Maori representative on the Tongariro and Taranaki National Park Boards was 'most unsatisfactory'. 'We prefer Iwi authorities such as our Board being equal partners in the management of the national park'. He again referred to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi grievances over the land purchases and proclamations. He also explained that the board's subcommittee, who worked on the Draft Management Plan, 'were never happy as their involvement was limited to what was interpreted as Maori spiritual and traditional areas. They lmow as much about conservation as anyone else, and in many cases - more.' He also said that the legend of the Whanganui River's creation at the beginning of the management plan 'tells us that this is the Whanganui River National Park.'264

6.2 Whanganui National Park Management Plan, 1989 As far as Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi submissions and aspirations were

262 Min Cons to Taiaroa, 4 July 1988, 0060, AX 0907, BP7W/411, DOC HO Wellington 263 Wanganui Chronicle, 6 August 1988, Box 3, WR 1/411 vol 4 All newspaper clippings, DOC Wanganui 264 Taiaroa to Min Cons, 29 August 1988, Box 3, WR 117 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui; his emphasis 95 concerned, the Whanganui National Park Management Plan, which was published in March 1989, had two major policy changes in relation to the Whanganui River. In the Draft (9.4.7), the policy was to promote the inclusion ofWhanganui River in the national park. This became policy 9.4.8 in the Plan and was headed 'Compatible Management of the Whanganui River and the Whanganui National Park'. The Plan's policy, while still considering inclusion desirable, sought to advocate management and uses of the river that were compatible with management and values of the national park which surrounded it.265 The second was on Maori traditional fishing. The plan's policy was to 'support' these, rather than to 'pennit' them, as the Draft stated (9.2.19(c) and 9.2.20). The Plan also omitted references to conditions. Conditions, however, remained for traditional fishing elsewhere in the national park. 266 They related to the use of protected or threatened species; inexcessive use; and non-commercial fishing. There were other changes which attempted to strengthen Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi's role in management. In policy 9.2.5 on Maori interests (9.2.19 in the Draft), the wording was changed to, 'To consult and give full consideration to the advice of the Maori people' .267 Another policy, however, appears to reduce the iwi' s role from the overall 'park management' to 'issues of concern to the Maori people'. In policy 8 on management objectives, the policy was 'to consult with and give full consideration to the views of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on park management issues of concern to the Maori people.' The explanation added that local Maori people 'will be involved, through the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on park management issues of concern to the Maori people.' In the Draft Plan (8.2) this had been 'to liaise with' the local Maori people and to seek their input into park management. 268 With the issues of Maori traditional plant gathering, the Plan's policy was to 'support' these, rather than to 'pennit' them, as the draft stated (9.2.19(c) and 9.2.20). But restrictive conditions remained.269 The policies in relation to historic sites remained. On the question of boundaries and additions, the Management Plan restated

265 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Management Plan, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, March 1989, policy 9.4.8 and p 20 266 ibid, policies 9.4.7, 9.2.4 267 ibid, policy 9.2.5 268 ibid, policy 8.3 96 the policy to identify, evaluate, and seek acquisition or protection of lands with the required values for inclusion in the national park. This would be carried out under Section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980. The same lands (and rivers), as identified in the Draft Management Plan, were named. 'Waitotara Conservation Area, Rotokahu, and Tangarakau Stewardship Area would be logical additions to the park in terms of their natural and recreational values and land tenure.' The Plan noted that private land would be on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. 'Any negotiations for Maori land would be carried out in consultation with the Whanganui River Maori Trust

Board. ,270

In an assessment of these additions, Bruce Clarkson noted that the Maori land, between Crown land north of the Heao Stream and the Tangarakau Scenic Reserve, had 'special scientific significance with the presence of the interface between black beech and hard beech forest. It might be possible with the agreement of the owners to manage this land also for nature conservation under covenant or the like. ,271

6.3 Assessment of Draft and Management Plans Overall, both Draft and Management Plan establish DOC as the authority for Whanganui National Park although the department was pledged to consult with the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board and give full consideration to Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi views on issues of concern to Maori. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi considered this a limited and demeaning involvement. It was neither the equality nor the authority that they had requested in submissions and correspondence, and that they believed they had achieved at the hearing in November 1983. The department's role was established under the Conservation Act 1987 with reference to the National Parks Act 1980. Even though there was a requirement for the department to give effect to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi, the legislation gave the department overall authority. For Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to have had more than just an advisory role through the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, changes in legislation would have been required to make explicit a joint authority with DOC. Even though ideas for this were suggested by some officials, no changes in legislation resulted, presumably because of wider implications for other national parks. In addition, at this time, the implications of the Treaty ofWaitangi clause were

269 ibid, policies 9.2.6 270 ibid, policy 9.1.1 97 only beginning to be worked through. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi believed they had the appropriate philosophy to manage conservation of the national park, provided they were supported with resources from DOC. However, this was not accepted by the Crown because current statutory requirements required it to manage the conservation estate for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The department did not devolve authority to Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi, nor amend managership policies to allow an equal role in all aspects of administration for the iwi. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's participation in management was confined to issues of Maori concern. Even here their requests for unrestricted access to plant material and traditional fishing in waters other than the Whanganui River were not accepted although, on the location and protection of sacred and historic sites, both Plans were in sympathy with their submissions. The possible additions of Maori land, which were desired by the department as acquisitions to the national park, were to be negotiated through the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. Iwi desires for a certain percentage of employment opportunities and of park concessions were not mentioned. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi recommendations for a Maori koha, rather than a fee, were not accepted. Fees were to be a cause of major protest the following decade. The department, in line with government policy, was to pursue a policy of cost recovery for the use of park services and facilities although a firm policy had not yet been established. Entry to the park would be free but a fee might be charged for huts, shelters and serviced campsites to cover provision and maintenance costs. There was thus still the possibility that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi wishes for a koha could be followed but this did not occur. The iwi's request for an emphasis on the Maori spiritual dimension was not incorporated. Even though the creation legend of the Whanganui River was given - Taiaroa criticised the inference from its inclusion in the Plans - and there were several references to the recognition of Maori spirituality, these fell short of acknowledging Maori metaphysics. By this time the supremacy of the Western scientific world-view, under which the Management Plans appear to have been written, was being challenged in Western thinking.272 David Thorn, Chairman of the

271 ibid, Appendix 3, Bruce Clarkson, 'Possible Extensions to the Park Boundaries', 1987 272 Peter J Bowler, The Norton History o/the Environmental Sciences, New York, London, W W Norton and Co, 1993, pp 535-553 98

National Parks and Reserves Authority, noted in 1987 that to Maori people, 'land and people can be one' and the 'material and spiritual were entirely integrated,.273 Therefore it is not presentist to suggest that the Maori world-view and understanding of the Whanganui River and surrounding lands could have been included in the management plans.

This chapter has examined the Whanganui National Park's Draft Management Plan of 1987 and the Management Plan of 1989. In their submissions and correspondence, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi elaborated on the Maoriness theme which they thought had been accepted at the hearing in November 1983. Iwi emphasised the dimension of spirituality and its manifestation through exceptional p-eople and places of the Whanganui River. They requested an equal, ifnot a controlling, role in the administration of the national park and that they receive financial assistance to do so and be exempt from fees and levies. They asked that Maori values and customs, like koha, should be paramount; that sites sacred to iwi should be surveyed and preserved as a priority activity; and that employment and commercial opportunities should be given to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. They submitted that the iwi's access to traditional fishing and hunting areas, and to the collection of plants for cultural purposes, remain. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi believed they had the appropriate philosophy to manage the conservation of the national park, provided they were supported with resources from DOC. However, this was not accepted by the Crown because current statutes required it to manage the conservation estate for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The department did not devolve authority to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, nor amend managership policies to allow an equal role in all aspects of administration for the iwi. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's participation in management was confmed to issues of Maori concern. Even here their requests for unrestricted access to plant material and traditional fishing in waters other than the Whanganui River were not accepted although, on the location and protection of sacred and historic sites, both plan were in sympathy with their submissions. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi recommendations for a Maori koha were not accepted. Neither was their wish for an emphasis on the recognition of the Maori spiritual dimension accepted. Even though the creation legend of the Whanganui River was given and there were several

273 David Thorn, Heritage. The Parks a/the People, Auckland, Landsdowne Press, 1987, pp 43,51 99 references to the recognition of Maori spirituality, these fell short of acknowledging the Maori world-view and holistic understanding of the Whanganui River and surrounding lands. 100 101

7 Chapter 7 John Coull and Tieke Huts

Major confrontations occurred between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the Department of Conservation over huts in Whanganui National Park. This chapter looks at issues relating to the siting of John Coull hut and at the occupation and marae development at Tieke. The huts became issues of conflict for several reasons. These include the radicalisation of some iwi members as their knowledge of their history grew and as they made land claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Another reason was the department's imposition of the Facility User Pass as part of cost-recovery policies by the government, although DOC considered it also had other functions. The FUP applied to canoeists on the Whanganui River which was to be promoted by DOC as a tourist attraction as one of nine New Zealand Great Journeys.

7.1 John Coull Hut

7.1.1 Early buildings The Wanganui River Scenic Board erected the original John Coull hut in the early 1960s.274 During preparations in 1959, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in New Plymouth had suggested that Iriaka Ratana, who held the position of representative of the Maori Race on the Wanganui River Scenic Board, could arrange for an enquiry into urupa in the area. The CCL saw no objection to the hut in the scenic reserve 'provided that Maori rights and interests regarding the urupa are protected.,275 There is no record on file of whether an enquiry was made but it was built near or on Puketapu urupa in Taumatamahoe No 2B2A block.276 The original hut was replaced in 1981. It was situated on the western bank of the Whanganui River approximately three kilometres upstream from the junction with the Tangarakau River.277 While canoeists appreciated the new John Coull hut, there was concern that it was near a historic burial site commemorated by a memorial stone. The Historic Places Trust undertook an archaeological report and thought the site 'not

274 Gilberd to CCL, 3 March 1964, Box 149, 13/223, vol 14 S.R. Wanganui River; Box 13 , WR 1011 Trust Account, DOC Wanganui 275 CCL New Plymouth to CCL Wellington, 7 October 1959, Box 144, 131177 vol 1 S.R. John Coull Memorial Reserve, DOC Wanganui 276 For the Taumatamahoe block, see Stephen Oliver's history 102

Map 2 John Coull and Tieke Huts, Whanganui National Park Mana

I PUteor8C r I \:

, ' )' (' ...... ::> /'

o Huts C] Whanganui National Park

Source: Department o/Conservation, Wanganui, 1989 Map 5

277 See Figure 2 103

significant as a burial ground'. 278 This COlmnent was insensitive. Apparently many Maori did not realise it was an old burial ground. 279

7.1.2 Relocation of John Coull hut, 1988-1990 In January 1988, John Lythgoe, a DOC officer, reported that he had had a meeting with George Matthews and two other Maori people who expressed concern at the siting of John Coull hut and requested that it be located elsewhere. It was agreed, Lythgoe wrote, that Maori, who were aware of DOC's fmancial plight, would write to the department about the possibility of the shift, and of their intention to seek funding for it through other sources.280 Early in 1989, the first in a series of tribal wananga took place down the Whanganui River as the Tira Hoe Waka.281 J S Ombler, then District Conservator Wanganui, learned that those taking part, who included many rangatahi, had been concerned by the proximity of the hut to urupa. By that time the urupa was fenced and contained a headstone, which was covered with a protective grill, in the name of Riwai and dated 27 May 1858. Ombler suggested that he and Dennis McDonnell from DOC, together with Archie Taiaroa, Chairman of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, representatives of Tamaupoko on the WRMTB, and any others, should inspect the site.282 Ombler spoke to the Wanganui Chronicle about the issue. But he drew criticism from a young Maori, Keith Wood, that the hut was 'on top of rather than 'close to' the grave and that this was 'blatant disrespect for our sacred burial sites.' Wood said that prior consultation would have averted 'such an embarrassing

278 WRRB meeting, 18 February 1981, Box 5, WR 3B vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves Board: Minutes of Meetings, DOC Wanganui 279 Archie Taiaroa, quoted in Wanganui Chronicle, 17 April 1989, Box 3, WR 1/4/1 vol 5 All Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 280 File note, John Lythgoe, 26 January 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 281 Wanganui Chronicle, 13 January and 24 February 1989, Box 3, WR 114/1, vol 5 All Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 282 Ombler to Taiaroa, 27 February 1989, August 1989, Box 4, WR 2/1 vall Interim Maori Trust Board; Background Paper Ministerial 1176, August 1989, Box 3, WR 1/7 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence; DOC Wanganui. Puketapu was a battle site in 1857 between Topine Te Mamaku and Te Kere Ngataierua who was an ancestor ofTiti Tihu. It was the site of the grave of Teohu Teiori who was buried there in 1858; David Young, Woven By Water. Histories/rom the Whanganui River, Wellington, Huia, 1998, p 44 104 situation.283 As was noted above, the urupa site had been investigated by the Historic Places Trust but was considered 'insignificant' and therefore the hut building was allowed to proceed. The inspection to discuss the hut's position and possible relocation took place on 18 May 1989.284 Those involved were Tamaupoko representatives Mark Cribb, Noel Akapita, and Bob Gray with McDonnell and Ombler from DOC. The department agreed that the hut had been located in an insensitive manner and that it offended Maori spiritual values as the urupa was a sacred place. Staff asked the rangatahi to appreciate that the location was a result of ignorance rather than any deliberate attempt to offend. Those present seemingly agreed on an alternative site some 40 to 50 metres closer to the river than the existing hut since the department required the site to be mid-way between Whakahoro and Tieke and therefore not far from Puketapu. Gray said that the rangatahi wanted the hut removed before the end of October 1989 but Ombler said the relocation would be expensive and that the department would need to bid for funds. DOC agreed to relocate the hut during 1990 at the latest. Gray volunteered the services of the rangatahi. Ombler said that he was keen for the job to be a joint venture. He felt that everyone involved in the exercise considered it worthwhile and that they should undertake similar joint inspection on future issues and work together. Ombler and Taiaroa, who had discussed the issue with Gray, announced that the hut was to be moved. 285 Cribb raised two connected issues. The first was that documentation indicated that 100 acres in the Puketapu area was Maori-owned. This was also to be one of the Tieke issues. The second was that he and DOC staff should investigate the possibility of other grave sites in the area to ensure no future conflict. A date was set for this but, as no Maori people were able to attend on the day, McDonnell and another DOC staff member dug five or six holes at the proposed new site. Even though no bones or other material indicating a urupa were found, the Maori people wanted to investigate for themselves but had not done so by August 1989.286

283 Keith Wood, Letter to Editor, Wanganui Chronicle, 28 March 1989, Box 3, WR 114/1 vol 5 All Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 284 This and most of the next paragraph come from 'Record ofInspection and Korero at John Coull Hut (Puketapu) on 18 May 1989, Box 3, WR 117 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 285 Taiaroa to Akapita, 29 May 1989, file 'Wanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 286 Background Paper Ministerial 1176, August 1989, Box 3, WR 117 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 105

In August 1989 Gray wrote to the Minister of Conservation requesting the release of sufficient funding of approximately $25,000 to remove the hut since DOC Wanganui did not have the money. The Minister, Philip Woollaston, responded that DOC was awaiting a decision of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on the exact relocation site in order to know the total finance. 287 The minister was told by DOC Wanganui that Gray and the rangatahi were unhappy with the hut being placed anywhere near Puketapu and that they did not agree with the previous decision to move the hut 40 metres. Gray had also indicated that his group would pursue the Tieke issue once the John Coull hut was resolved.288 In September 1989 Woollaston again assured Gray that the hut would be removed and that agreement in principle had been reached with the WRMTB.289 By October 1989 Gray's people had identified a large area surrounding the existing hut site as a wahi tapu which included a former marae approximately 200 metres north of the hut. 29o On 11 October another inspection was carried out by DOC's new Regional Conservator, W F Carlin and DOC staff, Jackie Gray, Mark Cribb, and Bob Gray. According to Carlin, two new possible locations were suggested and both were 'formally "opened up'" that day by kaumatua. One of these sites, approximately 1.5 kilometres upstream, was selected a week later after a report from an engineer and building officer found the other unstable and liable to flooding. It was agreed that Jackie Gray would report to the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board who would then formally write to DOC. The department would wait but move quickly when the trust board's letter came.291 The department's preliminary estimate for the cost was $51,000 which they thought could be reduced by army and rangatahi assistance. The general plan was to clear the site and prepare an access track from the river before or after Christmas, and build a new subfloor and floor on site, before dismantling the present hut and flying it to the new site in February 1990 because of drier weather. 292 The sum of $40,000 was

287 Gray to Min Cons, 8 August 1989, Box 3, WR 1/7 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 288 Background Paper, Ministerial 1176, August 1989, Box 3, WR 1/7 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 289 Woollaston to Gray, 22 September 1989, Box 3, WR 1/7 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 290 Carlin to Sec WRMTB and copy to Gray, 7 November 1989, Box 4, WR 211 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 291 ibid 292 ibid 106 approved but DOC asked for another $8,000 to increase bunk capacity from 12 to at least 24. 293

In November Bob Gray, on behalf ofTe Runanga Rangatahi 0 Te Awa 0 Whanganui, wrote again to say that they wanted the hut removed before 31 December 1989 and that they were concerned at the delay. 'We would like to know why does your department persist in putting the onus back onto the Trust Board, when it has already been established that the hut's present location is offensive to Nga Iwi 0 Whanganui and it is your department's responsibility to remove it.' Gray continued that, if the removal could not be guaranteed before 31 December, the runanga proposed that John Coull hut be closed for all business immediately until it could be relocated.294 In December 1989, DOC staff and three rangatahi cleared the site and track.295 By February 1990 the new floor was finished. McDonnell reported that small quantities of fragments of burnt stone were found at a depth of 600 millimetres but, in his opinion, the site had not been lived in and was not an urupa.296 McDonnell also contacted a researcher in Wellington to check on registered burial sites. Jacky Gray, as kaumatua for Tamaupoko gave his consent and was satisfied, after an inspection, that no urupa was present. The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was also satisfied after Jacky Gray's report.297 By May 1990, the hut was in place and was to be fitted out in a few weeks' time. 298

7.1.3 Tensions, from 1991 Further tensions arose from January 1991 during the annual Tira Hoe Waka. Participants stayed at John Coull hut but refused to pay, saying that they did not need to as they were finalising the opening ceremony performed by kaumatua previously. The department, not accepting this explanation because it had been previously told by Jackie Gray that the ceremonies were complete, asked the trust board. 'I feel 1 ought to say how disappointed I am that we were not consulted by the group on this matter.

293 Simmons to Regional Conservator, 29 November 1989, Box 12, WR 6/5 Huts - General, DOC Wanganui 294 Gray to Carlin, 28 November 1989, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 295 [McDonnell] to Lythgoe, 18 December 1989, Box 12, WR 6/5 Huts - General, DOC Wanganui 296 [McDonnell] to Lythgoe, 26 February 1990, Box 12, WR 6/5 Huts - General, DOC Wanganui 297 [McDonnell] to Lythgoe, 5 February 1990, Box 4, WR 211 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 298 Lythgoe to Wilson, 21 May 1990, Box 12, WR 6/5 Huts - General, DOC Wanganui 107

It is, it seems to me, a major breach of our understanding of partnership and courtesy',

Carlin wrote. 299 Tension rose again after the non-payment of fees by a canoe group organised by Baldy Haitana and Piripi Haami through the Waikato Polytechnic. Part of the dispute included the continued placement of toilets in the vicinity ofPuketapu urupa. During the earlier site inspections, DOC said officials had discussed with Gray, Cribb, and Taiaroa the advisability of erecting a sign at Puketapu to inform visitors of the site. They had also discussed the retention of toilets somewhere in the area to prevent possible desecration of the urupa. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and DOC put up a sign to say that there were urupa and that camping was not appropriate. On the question of toilets, DOC said that Gray, Cribb, and Taiaroa had agreed to their retention provided they were located well down the hill from the urupa. The old toilets by the former hut site were removed and new toilets built down the hill, as agreed, by young people

under a Conservation Corps project. 300 Tamaupoko, angered by what they claimed as DOC's continued advertising of Puketapu as a campsite, and by the new toilets close to or on traditional burial sites, tipped the toilets over the river bank in October 1991.301 The WRMTB investigated the action, found it inappropriate, and compensated DOC for the cost of restoring the toilets. DOC, the trust board, and the Whare Wananga Trust were to meet to discuss a practical solution to the problems.302 Although John Coull hut, and later Tieke hut, were issues in themselves, they were also connected to Waitangi Tribunal claims to the Waimarino block. In November 1992 hapu planned to occupy John Coull hut as a means of protest against the lack of settlement. They were dissuaded by a letter from the Minister of Justice informing them that the Crown would withdraw from the Wai 221 [Waimarino No 1 and others] negotiations if the occupation went ahead. 303 The Justice Department then believed the Crown's 1892 proclamation of Tieke as public domain, under the Wanganui River Trust Act 1891, was illegal but that it was inappropriate for the

299 Carlin to Ch WRMTB, 30 January 1991, Box 12, WR 6/5 Huts - General, DOC Wanganui 300 Carlin to Editor Ruapehu Bulletin, 11 December 1992, FAC 0102-01, John Coull Hut, DOC Wanganui 301 'Puketapu Dispute - the Iwi's Story, Taumaupoko Korero', Ruapehu Bulletin, FAC 0102-01, John Coull Hut; Carlin to Director Waikato Polytechnic, 18 December 1991, MAO 0020 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 302 Carlin to Editor Ruapehu Bulletin, and 'Puketapu Dispute' article 303 Thomas for Sec Justice to Min Justice, undated, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 108

claimants to take action that was both illegal and outside the Waimarino negotiations. Subsequent research showed that, in 1892, the Crown had believed Tieke was acquired from 5 April 1887, not in 1892 as claimants alleged, and therefore the land could legally be proclaimed as public domain. 304

7.1.4 Facility User Pass and the Whanganui River Great Journey Concept, 1988 -1993 As presaged in policy 9.3.3 of the Management Plan, DOC Wanganui stated its intention to apply recovery costs for the use of park services and facilities in line with government policy. These became public knowledge in July 1988 with the department's notification that hut charges of $5.50 per night would be applied from 1 October 1988. 305 But the policy was enmeshed in wider tourism objectives with the development of the Great Journey concept. The Whanganui River was to become one of nine New Zealand Great Journeys which would be promoted nationally and internationally by DOC. Hut and campsite facilities would be improved and charges made. The full journey between Taumarunui or Whakahoro to Pipiriki was to be $25 if paid before travel. It would cover a 6 nightl7 day period although allowances could be made for bad weather. The cost after the travel was to be $35. An overnight journey between Taumarunui and Whakahoro was to be $6. The FUP would be required between 1 October and 30 April each year (although in the off-season normal hut tickets and annual passes would apply), and would come into effect from 1 October 1993.306 The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was officially advised of the Great Journey concept in June 1992. Carlin explained the details including proposals to upgrade facilities, and estimated costs and revenue. The department wished to promote minimum impact on the environment and to remove facilities from where

304 Paul Hamer, 'The Crown's Purchase of the Waimarino Block and Related Issues', Report commissioned by the Treaty ofWaitangi Policy Unit, August 1992 Together with a Supplementary Report, October 1992, (Wai 167 record of document, doc B3). The 267 acres at Tieke were described as 300 acres parts Waimarino in the gazettal notice, New Zealand Gazette, 29 December 1892, no 101, p 1724 ; Ashley Gould, 'Investigation of the Circumstances of the Crown's Acquisition of an Area of Land Located on the Whanganui River and Associated with Tieke Hut', Report prepared for the Crown Law Office, 2 March 1994, (Wai 167 record of document, doc C14); Paul Hamer, 'Commentary on Ashley Gould's Report Dated 2 March 1994 Regarding the Crown's Acquisition ofTieke', 12 July 1994, (Wai 167 record of document, doc E3) 305 Wanganui Chronicle, 15 July, 4 August 1988, Box 3, WR 11411 vol 3 Non-District Newspaper Cuttings, DOC Wanganui 306 Media release from Wanganui Conservancy 28 May 1993, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 109

they offended Maori cultural values. In order to retain the use of campsites on Maori land which were traditionally used, rather than cut forest to develop new sites, Carlin proposed a partnership with the trust board and relevant landowners.307 The three Maori-owned sites in question were Maraekowhai (opposite Mangahuta), Whakahoro, and Kirikiriroa. The department estimated that it would cost between $5,000 and $6,000 per site to improve them with toilets, a water supply and cooking facilities. It suggested the cost could be met either by DOC or by the owners who would then receive a full share of the fees from the FUP. It estimated the revenue at $50,000. Carlin proposed that the department and the trust board form a working group to develop details of the partnership and present them to a full trust board and owners' meeting. He enclosed a consultancy agreement. An undated note on the agreement states 'Never actioned by I wi decision' .308 At the end of 1994 DOC considered that the occupation ofWhakahoro hut was a distinct possibility and began to prepare contingency plans for the police to deal with the situation. The occupation did not take place.309 DOC Wanganui saw the FUP as a means to eliminate or alleviate several problems. These included river users' avoidance of fees by freedom camping in the limited number of flat areas adjacent to Whanganui River. The department believed that this led to overcapacity and problems of vegetation clearance, contaminated water supplies, and people camping on urupa. The department intended to introduce by-laws to prevent freedom camping, thus reducing environmental damage. Pre-purchasing of the pass would ma1ce the fee enforcement simple and cost-effective.31o However Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi saw it as a charge for using the river.311 The FUP became one of the reasons for the occupation of Tieke hut which is discussed below. In the aftermath of Tieke, Carlin reviewed the FUP. He believed the pass system should be retained as an ultimate mechanism for limiting numbers when impacts on the river became too high, visitor satisfaction fell, or camp sites became

307 For areas of Maori land along the Whanganui River, see Figure 4 Land Tenure in Hodge, 'Scenic Reserves', p viii 308 Carlin to Haami, 11 June 1992, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 309 Edmonds to Min Cons, 9 December 1994, p 3, MAO 0010, Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 310 Regional Conservator to Mansfield, 10 September 1993, MAO 0004-0lTamahaki, DOC Wanganui 311 'Presentation to Minister of Conservation and Lands', 20 December 1994, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui; Waitangi Tribunal, The Whanganui River Report Wai 167, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999, p 257 110

full. He suggested that government could underwrite the provision of facilities. However his preference appeared to be for retention of the fee. He argued that it ensured a contribution to and a level of care for the facilities that was not there before; that compliance was very high as a sign of support; and that the current level of fees could rise to $100,000 by about 2000. Iffees continued, he said, the department should continue to support an exemption from fees for Maori cultural trips as a Treaty-implementation initiative.312 The FUP remained.

7.2 Tieke Like John Coull hut, the first Tieke hut was built in the 1960s. By 1979 it was becoming derelict. Rangi Mete Kingi, who was then the representative for the Maori Race on the Wanganui River Scenic Board, inquired about it and agreed it should be demolished. 3i3 It was replaced in 1983. After the 1989 Tira Hoe Waka, when Ombler learned that there was Maori concern at the locations of both John Coull and Tieke huts, he suggested that it too should be inspected by DOC officials, Tamaupoko representatives on the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, Taiaroa, and any others who were interested. After the inspections in May 1989, Ombler considered that the issue for Tamaupoko about Tieke, which was on the site of an earlier kainga, was land tenure. 314 Therefore the department's efforts concentrated on John Coull hut.

7.2.1 Occupation of Tieke Hut, 1993 As chapter one outlined, Tamahaki Incorporation began in the autumn of 1993. On the 21 August 1993 a committee, representing descendants of the original owners ofWaimarlno No 5 block, met at Raetihi to decide what action should be taken in response to DOC's applying the FUP to Tieke hut. Tamahaki viewed the charge as provocative, given that the Crown and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi were in negotiation over land claims and that Tamahaki considered the Crown's taking of

Tieke illegal. 315 However the Waimarino claimants had recently been told that their claim was on hold pending government decisions on the use of the conservation estate

312 W F Carlin, 'Whanganui NP Management', [mid 1990s], MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 313 WSRB meeting, 22 February 1979, Box 5, WR 3B vol 2 Wanganui River Reserves Board, DOC Wanganui 314 Ombler to Taiaroa, 27 February 1989, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 315 Don Robinson, undated, MAO 010-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 111 in Treaty settlements.316 Tamahaki considered that no charge should be made without consultation with the owners. Tamahaki also felt that any action should not affect river users since the dispute was between DOC and the owners and that the problem had come to a head because users no longer had a choice about where to stay.317

On 15 September 1993 Te Whanau 0 Tieke of Tamahaki moved on to and occupied Tieke hut. The Justice Department believed the occupiers' purpose was to secure the return of Tieke to Maori ownership as well as to express their opposition to the FUP.

DOC Wanganui initially assessed Te Whanau 0 Tieke as fewer than 20 people who were a part of the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust, and who were in 1993 negotiating the Waimarino block claim. Carlin considered they wished to advance the claim, to establish learning centres on the river to gain revenue from visitors, and that they saw Tieke as an appropriate centre. He argued that they saw DOC as taking their revenue and wanted the publicity to be gained from the imminent introduction of the FUP. 'Any abandonment of the system now wi11look like giving into this group and could have other substantive spin-off repercussions' , he maintained.318 The Wanganui conservancy believed that the Waitangi Tribunal claim was separate to Tieke and other issues; and that, until the Tribunal recommendations were made and implemented, DOC should continue to manage the national park for the purposes for which it was held. 319

7.2.2 Tieke: Whare Wananga and Marae DOC in Wanganui wanted the occupation to end before any negotiation began on the Whare Wananga concept of a school of conservation within the national park. But, from the beginning of October 1993, officials devised various memoranda of understanding which they hoped to conclude with Te Whanau 0 Tieke. DOC proposed a number of conservation ideas which could be relevant. These included: • conservation of natural resources as a priority for both parties; • that education of New Zealanders and overseas visitors was necessary to facilitate support for conservation and to sustain important knowledge like Maori cultural

316 Thomas for Sec Justice to Min Justice, undated, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 317 Robinson, above 318 Regional Conservator to Mansfield, 10 September 1993, MAO 0004-01 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 319 Jane to DO, HO DOC, 17 September 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 112

knowledge; • the concept of Whare Wananga can advance conservation; • a Whare Wananga could be accommodated within national parks providing all

statutory and Departmental requirements were met. 320

Don Robinson, as chairman ofWWWT, believed that no discussion on the Whare Wananga concept could begin until the land return was completed, or unless Justice Department officials were also involved 'who would be able to give a categorical assurance that the land in question was in the process of being returned.' He assured the public that the areas would remain conserved. He believed that to have the Whare Wananga operating in the form of a marae would be a way around the FUP because users could offer a koha but would not be forced to pay a charge. Robinson added that the Maori owners, living at Tieke, had said they would not leave until the 267 acres were returned to them and compensation given in the form of a replacement marae. 321 The occupation gained considerable newspaper coverage which might have been inflated because it was in the run-up period to the 1993 general election. It was reported that DOC staff had been refused access and that occupiers might be evicted.

However Haitana, a spokesman for Te Whanau 0 Tieke, said that they extended an invitation to DOC's Kaupapa Atawhai division to talk with them at Tieke.322 On 22 October 1993, Bill Simmons and McDonnell were received at Tieke with a traditional marae welcome and were assured that other DOC staff would receive similar treatment. In his report of the visit, Simmons said that there were 11 adults and children at Tieke, including the chairman of Te Whanau 0 Tieke, Rangi Bristol. Simmons' report was very positive about the tidy condition of the hut and surrounds. Tarpaulins had been attached to one end of the hut to provide a storage area. Two tents had been erected as sleeping quarters for Te Whanau 0 Tieke who were using their own gas supplies and cookers. They had planted a small vegetable garden and erected a small marae entrance from materials on site. Simmons and McDonnell were told that any visitors wishing to use the hut would receive a

320 Carlin to Edmonds, 4 October 1993, and memoranda from 4 October 1993; MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 321 Robinson to Carlin and Thomas, 10 October 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 322 Wanganui Chronicle, 4,10,20 October 1993; Evening Standard, 27 October 1993; MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 113 traditional marae welcome, which would be abbreviated for tired, wet and hungry canoeists. But visitors would have to conform to marae protocols in not smoking or consuming alcohol within Tieke. Simmons concluded that, while some canoeists and visitors could be offended by the marae protocol and tikanga, others had reportedly seen it as a highlight of their journey. He suggested that mis-information and mis-reporting had lowered the group's image although this was partly because the group lacked a clear leader or spokesperson. He described the group he met as 'moderates' but 'there are less moderate members making contact with the media ... causing damage to the group and indirectly discouraging visitors from travelling the river.' He concluded his report by saying that, since his visit, he had received information that 'a number ofless moderate members of Te Whanau 0 Tieke are enraged by our being allowed on to the site to meet with the group. ,323

7.2.3 Discussions to Conclude the Occupation In November and December 1993, visits were made by DOC staff, including Wanganui's Kaupapa Atawhai manager Rangipo Mete Kingi, to Tieke, N gaporo and Kirikiriroa. DOC wished to develop camp sites at the latter two places but local hapu were reluctant.324 The Wanganui Conservancy also proposed creating another campsite down river from Tieke but decided against it after Te Tieke 0 Whanau criticised the plan.325 As the occupation continued, Joris de Bres, Manager Public Awareness at DOC's head office in Wellington, became involved in negotiations between Te

Whanau 0 Tieke, the Wanganui Conservancy, and the Departments and Ministers of

Justice and Conservation in Wellington. Te Whanau 0 Tieke was, de Bres considered,

'keen to extend their protest to other areas. ,326 The Minister of Conservation observed publicly that a forced eviction was not a solution.327 The WRMTB asked for a meeting with Carlin to discuss the occupation, the FUP, and campsite selections along

323 Simmons to Carlin, 26 October 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui. Te Whanau 0 Tieke also had a pig, dogs, and chickens there; Tieke; Notes from a meeting at Head Office, 29 April 1994, 8 June 1994, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 324 de Bres, email 19 November 1993, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 325 Evening Standard, l3 December 1993; Wanganlli Chronicle, 14 December 1993; MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 326 de Bres, email 8 December 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 327 The Dominion, 30 November 1993, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 114

the Whanganui River. 328 On 17 December 1993 at Wanganui, representatives of the Departments of Justice and Conservation, the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust, and Te Whanau 0 Tieke drew up an agreement. This was signed by Alan Edmonds, Deputy Director General of the Conservation Department, on behalf of the government departments and by

Don Robinson on behalf of the Wananga and Te Whanau 0 Tieke. The agreement made a number of recommendations for the Ministers of Justice and Conservation. These included: • Restoration of negotiations on the Waimarino claims and on claims to Tieke and Kirikiriroa, with an initial meeting to be held before 24 December 1993; • The establishment of a joint working group, comprising representatives of DOC, the WRMTB, the WWWT, and Te Whanau, which would involve iwi in conservation initiatives, management, and employment; the establishment of a kaitiaki role for hapu at Tieke; and discussions on alternatives to the FUP; • The ending of the Tieke occupation with an appropriate ceremony to mark the

new agreement; and a j oint media statement. 329

Te Whanau 0 Tieke, however, wanted to retain a small group on the Tieke block.33o According to de Bres, Robinson and Patrick O'Sullivan sought to obtain Te Whanau's endorsement of the agreement but there was a falling out between Robinson and O'Sullivan on the one hand, and members ofTe Whanau on the other;

'Te Whanau 0 Tieke has (for now) rejected Don Robinson and Patrick O'Sullivan as their representatives Gust as the latter rejected Archie Taiaroa). ,331 Taiaroa met Edmonds to try to refine the agreement to allow for some continued unobtrusive presence of the whanau. Meetings of officials, including Te Puni Kokiri, occurred. A Heads of Agreement between Te Whanau 0 Tieke and the Departments of Justice and Conservation was drawn up, possibly by de Bres, along the lines of the previous agreement but to allow for Te Whanau's continued presence somewhere near Tieke hut. Point 3 stated:

The Department of Conservation acknowledges the desire of Te Whanau 0 Tieke to have representatives present as tangata whenua who can formally welcome visitors

328 Haami to Carlin, 15 November 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 329 Agreement, 17 December 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 330 de Bres to Robinson, 22 December 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 331 de Bres, 24 December 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 115

to the site. The Department will facilitate this as long as current laws relating to conservation continue to be observed, public access is not restricted, and Departmental staff are not impeded in their normal work in relation to conservation and recreation.332

Bristol and Niko Tangaroa, whom de Bres thought had authority to reach an agreement, indicated their support for the revised agreement. However, the Heads of Agreement was not approved by the Minister of Justice on account of Point 3 as the

government required a clean break and therefore Te Whanau 0 Tieke's departure from Tieke.333

7.2.4 Establishment of Tieke Marae The occupation remained during January 1994. During the weeks of January to early March, Te Whanau 0 Tieke members kept a diary and register of manuhiri. The diary provides a glimpse of daily life for the Whanau; the provision of meals, welcome, and discussion for manuhiri; prayers and services; concerns about water when tanks were low; Whanau trips on the river and land; descriptions of the natural world of mists, rain, bird calls, and river conditions. The diary shows that hundreds of people visited and some were very complimentary. One German couple wrote, 'We wish you and us that many people will follow your way of life to live with nature and not against it.' Three Aucklanders wrote, 'We felt very welcome. ,334 Public perceptions of the Tieke Marae were varied. It was not mentioned by canoeists in a survey which was undertaken in January and February 1994, that is, in the first months of the occupation. 335 A DOC official from another conservancy considered that his visit to Tieke had transformed his canoe trip in 1995 from a wilderness trip to 'an enriching experience into a culture in its landscape. ,336 David

Young, in 1998, commented that Te Whanau 0 Tieke's occupation was 'conducted largely with discipline and dignity'. Under Larry Ponga, young Maori were taught their history and culture, but Young admitted that not all visitors felt the welcome that

332 Heads of Agreement with note dated 24 December 1993; de Bres, 'Developments Concerning Tieke', 24 December 1993, FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui

333 Graham to Robinson, 22 December 1993, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae 334 Diary and Register Te Whanau 0 Tieke, Wai 167, Document B24 335 Gordon Cessford, Canoeist Satisfactions, Impact, Perception, and Attitudes Toward Management Options on the Whanganui Journey, Wellington, Department of Conservation, 1998 336 Lauder to DOC Wanganui, 21 April 1995, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 116 he had received.337 The department explored several options to bring the occupation to an end. One was a confrontation with occupants. The District Commander, Wanganui Police, visited Tieke incognito with DOC staff but confirmed that an eviction would be difficult and expensive.338 Another option was to wait out the occupation but that was not acceptable to ministers.339 The third was negotiation. Through the latter process

Te Whanau 0 Tieke obtained some of its demands in relation to Tieke site, notably DOC's acceptance of it as a marae. However this round of negotiations was preceded by advice from the Minister of Justice that, if the occupation was not brought to an end, any discussions on the Waimarino claim would be put on hold.34o Through its chairman, Te Whanau advised the Departments of Conservation and Justice that the occupation of Tieke would cease from 14 February 1994. Bristol sought the following points from DOC: • That issues relating to Tieke marae would be resolved by agreement between kaitiaki of the marae, Baldy Haitana and Larry Ponga, and McDonnell, DOC's officer at Pipiriki; • That kaitiaki would receive the same consideration and assistance from DOC as was provided to hut wardens but that the different role ofkaitiaki would be aclmowledged; • That DOC meet with iwi to address concerns like the FUP, location of campsites, and facilities on urupa and wahi tapu; • That DOC be committed to an ongoing process of direct consultation with 341 Te Whanau 0 Tieke.

Bill Mansfield, DOC's Director General, confinned the department's acceptance of these points although he acknowledged discussions would be needed to apply them in practice. He asked that kaitiaki work cooperatively and constructively with DOC to ensure the department's conservation and recreation responsibilities were met; and that differences be discussed between

337 Young, pp 212, 213 338 de Bres, Report, 28 January 1994, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 339 Mansfield to Carlin, 30 March 1994, pI para 3, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 340 ibid, pp 3, 4 341 Mansfield to Bristol, 9 February 1994 citing Bristol to Cons Dept, 6 February 1994, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 117

themselves and not in the public domain. 342 Tieke kaitiaki would not check travellers' FUPs. 343

Te Whanau 0 Tieke diarist noted of the day before the occupation ended: 'Was a really sad and special day with our whanau poroporo ake felt so emotional. A day never to forget. ,344 A review of the occupation by Mansfield to Carlin makes it plain that some Wanganui Conservancy staff were unhappy with both the intervention of DOC head office staff in the negotiations and with the outcome of the continued presence of Tieke Marae. Mansfield believed that head office staff, like de Bres and Kaupapa Atawhai manager Eru Manuera, put a major effort into consulting Wanganui staff. 'If your staff do not believe the result was a good one then we will have to continue to discuss with them the other options and the consequences likely to have flowed from . ,345 th ose optlOns. Wanganui staff were concerned by issues like the definition of the kaitiaki role in relation to the department's statutory responsibilities, the numbers of people I remaining at Tieke, material support for the kaitiaki in winter when regular services were suspended, and the FUP. Mansfield counselled patience, the development of trust, and sensitivity. He placed much confidence in McDonnell, who is Maori, to deal effectively with the different situations.346 A review of the situation at Tieke was undertaken by Conservation officers from Wanganui and head office at the end of April 1994. Numbers at Tieke, the review said, fluctuated between 4 and 10. The large marquee, pig and dogs had gone but some chickens remained, as did exotic trees. The toilets had been removed to new holes. 'Communication with Dennis McDonnell has generally been very good.' On the FUP, the review noted that $50,000 had been achieved but improvements at some sites had stalled because of Treaty claims. The review stated that DOC could not accept an iwi veto of the pass but that DOC would need to consult iwi about user impacts and how to ameliorate them. Taiaroa had suggested a meeting. It was agreed that people refusing to pay the FUP should be taken to court but that invoices for Te

Whanau 0 Tieke on family, non-commercial trips should be withdrawn 'in the spirit

342 Mansfield to Bristol, 9 February 1994, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 343 Mansfield to Carlin, 30 March 1994, p 2, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 344 Diary and Register Te Whanau 0 Tieke, 13 February 1994, Wai 167, Document B24 345 Mansfield to Carlin, 30 March 1994, pp 1,4, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 118 of the new friendship. ,347

7.2.5 Tieke Marae, Late 1990s By 1999, the Wanganui conservancy was unhappy with the situation at Tieke, and with that at Mangapapa, a fonner pa site near John Coull hut but on the opposite side of the Whanganui River. Late in 1996, a group ofTamahaki, called Te Whanau 0 Mangapapa Pa, focused on the return of ancestral lands, and had moved onto the site in reaction to the Ruapehu district scheme review. Regarding Tieke, the department was unhappy in particular with what Carlin called breaches to the National Parks Act and the Building Act. He listed a number of permanent tarpaulin structures, one of which was used to manufacture fibre glass canoes; the incorporation of an open fire and chimney in the kitchen/dining facility; a concrete-floor structure and two soak holes/septic tanks erected without building consents; vegetation cut; dogs introduced; the gas line modified; and the installation of an oil-fed boiler. The department, he said, had held several hui on site, twice involving the Ruapehu District Council, to try to overcome the 'lack of legal compliance'. Regardless of any discussion and follow-ups, he continued, kaitiaki had decided to carry on with their independent ways simply saying that Tieke was a marae and the kaitiaki would make all decisions. The department was concerned about the risks of frre and the adequacy ofthe water supply and sanitation to the community living there. It was also concerned about the number of breaches to the National Parks Act, citing sections 60 (1 b-d, f, i, k and 4) which cover the list above. DOC was concerned that, under the Occupiers Liability Act 1962 it was obligated to ensure people present in areas it managed were safe from hann. Carlin listed three options for the department. The first was to do nothing which would leave the department exposed to accusations of not upholding the law. The second was to legalise the occupation and activities by negotiating more formal new arrangements and removing or upgrading illegal structures. The third was to remove illegal structures, but Carlin noted the difficulty of enforcement in a remote area like Tieke. Carlin recommended, frrstly, that the Minister agree that the department attempt to negotiate new arrangements with Tieke Marae to clarify its

346 Mansfield to Carlin, 30 March 1994, pp 2, 3,4, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 119 kaitiaki status, the removal or upgrading of structures and services, and full compliance with the National Parks Act 1980. Secondly, he recommended that if negotiations with Te Whanau 0 Tieke were unsuccessful, legal proceedings be commenced to have illegal structures and services removed, and to move in the direction of full compliance with the National Parks Act.348

7.2.6 Assessment The establishment of Tieke Marae as a permanent settlement within Whanganui National Park contravenes the conservationist strategies oflegislation and of the wilderness concept which underlies statutes and which, by the 1970s 'had become a key element of national park policy' .349 Te Whanau 0 Tieke has thus successfully breached this position which has been maintained for over a century. Perhaps the remoteness ofTieke and the imminent general election assisted them but nevertheless the Department of Conservation agreed to the permanent marae. This agreement is a step towards revising the nineteenth-century concept of wilderness, with its inherent ambiguity, to what might be called the 'new' reality.350

This chapter has examined the confrontations that developed between some iwi members and DOC over huts in Whanganui National Park. The first of these was John Coull hut from 1988. As knowledge of their history and culture grew through the annual Tira Hoe Waka, rangatahi were incensed that a new hut had been built in 1981 on or near urupa. They demanded its relocation. The department agreed to this, accepting that its placement had been insensitive to Maori beliefs. Despite financial stringencies, the hut was relocated and upgraded with rangatahi assistance. Further disputes about the location of toilets, when these were tipped into the river, were not supported by the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board.

Tieke hut was occupied by Te Whanau 0 Tieke, of Tamahaki, in September 1993. They established a marae and welcomed river travellers with traditional ceremonies and hospitality. After months of negotiation between DOC, including its head office staff, the occupation ended officially on 14 February 1994. The marae

347 Tieke: Notes from a Meeting at Head Office, 29 April 1994, 8 June 1994, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 348 Carlin to Min Conservation, 1 July 1999, pp 1 2,7-9,10,11 MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 349 Park, Effective Exclusion?, p 331 350 See opening paragraphs of Introduction above 120 with kaitiald was established fonnally. By the later 1990s, DOC in Wanganui, had become concerned that a number of sections of the National Parks Act 1980 had been breached by Te Whanau 0 Tieke. The Tieke occupation can be seen in light of Tarnahaki land claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and what they saw as delays in the resolution. The occupation must also be seen in the context of DOC's application of the FUP to river users. While it was part of the government's cost recovery policy, the FUP offended Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi. For many years they had requested that the Maori concept of a koha should apply. 121

8 Chapter 8 Additions to Whanganui National Park

The 1989 Management Plan for Whanganui National Park foreshadowed the possible inclusion of several neighbouring areas, with suitable scenic and natural values, within the parle Like the scenic reserves in the early twentieth century and the national park investigations from the 1970s, the park additions were initiated by conservationists. The additions included those known as the section 8 investigation and the Mangapurua Road area. This chapter investigates Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi attitudes to the additions and the outcome of iwi discussions with the Department of Conservation. The proposed additions have not proceeded because of iwi claims to the Waitangi Tribunal under the Treaty of Waitangi.

8.1 Proposed Additions

8.1.1 Statutory and Policy Requirements Additions to national parks come under section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980. Criteria for the selection and assessment of areas for suitability as national park comes under the General Policy For National Parks published in 1983. Criteria include unique or scientifically-important ecological systems; beautiful, unique or scientifically-important natural features; contiguity with a national park or other proposed additions; and areas of significant historic, cultural, archaeological or scientific features. The process of reservation includes a request for a proposed area, an official request by the New Zealand Conservation Authority (which replaced the National Parks and Reserves Authority), departmental consultation with tangata whenua, and public notification with the opportunity for the public to comment. The process continues with further investigations and consultations, recommendations on

the proposal by the NZCA to the Minister of Conservation, and gazettal. 351

351 National Parks Act 1980, s 8; Department of Conservation, investigation ofAdditions to Whanganui National Park. An invitation to Comment, no date; Department of Lands and Survey, General Policy for National Paries, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1983 cited in McLean and Smith, p 297 122

Map 3 Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park N.Harris, Waitangi Tribunal, Oct 03

~ ",'" ~f ) ; ~/ Source: Section 8 Investigation Investigations 0/ Additions to Whanganui National Park. Invitation to Comment Department o/Conservation, Wanganui 123

8.1.2 Recommendations in the 1989 Management Plan The Draft Management Plan stated the desirability of investigating certain areas for inclusion in Whanganui National Park. These were the Waitotara Conservation Area, Tangarakau Stewardship Area, the Whanganui River flowing through the park, the Manganui-o-te-ao River, Rotokahu, and land near Aotuhia. 352 These areas were again noted in the Management Plan of 1989.353 Both plans noted that private land would be subject to negotiation and agreement between all parties concerned and be on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. Both stated that any negotiations for Maori land would be carried out in consultation with the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. This chapter concerns the lands, and not the rivers, that were listed. Of the Whanganui River, both plans noted that its inclusion was desirable for 'ecological, recreational and especially management reasons' but that it was more important that river and park be managed compatibly. In the Management Plan, Bruce Clarkson expanded on reasons for the investigation of the land extensions. The Waitotara State Forest, he wrote, contained forest and scenery suited to national park status because it was centred on the tract which has been least affected by human activities. He considered the present boundaries of the park were unsatisfactory because they cut across the Omaru Stream catchment, and the western boundary at Mt Humphries was not based on natural features such as ridge lines or catchment boundaries. The latter omitted a significant riparian kahikatea forest and the westernmost portion of the Matemateonga Track. Clarkson suggested that the scientifically-important silver beech forest outlier near Lake Hawkes (Rotokahu Scenic Reserve) could be linked to the park by establishing a corridor a little to the south ofMt Dawson. Clarkson considered that the Tangarakau State Forest contained the very best example of riparian, kahikatea-dominated, podocarp-broadleaved forest in the district and should be added to the park, along with additional Crown land north of the Heao Stream. He added that the Maori land between this area and the Tangarakau Scenic Reserve had special significance with the presence of the interface between black beech and hard beech forest. He thought it might be possible with the agreement of

352 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Draft Management Plan, Wanganui, Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, 1987, policy 9.l.1 124

the owners to manage this land for nature conservation under a form of covenant. 354

8.1.3 Whanganui River Area Investigations In April 1988 Cabinet gave approval for two transferrals of land to DOC. The lands were about 6000 hectares in the Aotuhia and Poarangi areas just north of the Matemateonga Walkway and another 6000 hectares at Mangatiti, a valley near Mangapurua. The reasons were that both areas were adjacent to Whanganui National Park, and were unsuitable for farming. Landcorp, the Central Districts Catchment Board, and DOC agreed they were unusable, based on water, soil, and wildlife values. government officials envisaged that the areas would provide a buffer zone between the national park and farmland. 355 These seem to be areas 4 and 11 in the areas to be investigated which are listed shortly.

8.2 Formation of Friends of Whanganui River The Friends ofWhanganui River was formed at a public meeting in December 1988. Their objectives were to encourage interest in the many facets of the river and its watershed; to promote public use of the river and guard its natural values; and to work closely with advocates of Whanganui National Park. Their chairperson, Arthur Bates, replied to a question from the floor that he could guarantee Maori people would be consulted. In their preparations for formation, proponents had asked Wanganui kaumatua to attend the inaugural meeting and to consider nominating a representative to act in an advisory role. The inaugural committee included Taitoko Tawhiri, Sarah Tuka, and Lyn Teki but whether any of them took on the role is not stated.356 The secretary, Kathy ambler, had written a book on the Whanganui River with her husband John, the District Conservator. She also contributed to the 1980 'National

Park Assessment; Wanganui River Basin' .357

8.3 Section 8 Investigations In April 1988, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society wrote to the

353 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Management Plan, Wanganui, Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, 1989, policy 9.1.1 354 Bruce Clarkson, 'Possible Extensions to the Park Boundaries', 1987, Management Plan 1989, Appendix 3, P 4 355 Wanganui Chronicle, 21 April 1988, Box 3, WR 1/4/1 vol 2 Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 356 Wanganui Chronicle, 28 November and 7 December 1988, Box 3, WR 1/411 vol 4 All Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 357 Kathy and John Ombler, The Wanganui River. A Scenic, Historic and Wilderness Experience, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1982 125

National Parks and Reserves Authority asking that seven areas, which the society had

identified as having outstanding values, be included in Whanganui National Park. 358 In August, Darrell Grace, President of the Wanganui branch of Forest and Bird, and a member of the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, announced the request and that the Department of Conservation had supported it. He listed areas in the Draft Management Plan and noted sightings ofkokako on Mt Humphries, blue duck in the Waitotara area, and kaka, kiwi, and fernbird in regenerating scrubland of the Mangatiti -Murumuru-Piraruhe area. 359 The National Parks and Reserves Authority, in May 1989, advised the Minister of Conservation of its intention to fonnally request DOC to proceed with a section 8 investigation of lands identified for possible inclusion in the national park. 360 A steering committee was appointed to prepare infonnation for public distribution no later than 31 March 1990 and a working group established. The investigation included surveys of flora and fauna, landscape assessments, land status investigations, and investigations into recreation, tourism, and history. Objectives included consultation with tangata whenua.361

8.3.1 'Investigation ofAdditions to Whanganui National Park. An Invitation To Comment' The areas for investigation totalled approximately 81, 272 hectares, which would have more than doubled the size of the national parle They were lands currently administered by DOC as conservation areas or reserves. They did not include private land. They are shown in Figure No 3 as numbers 1 to 12. The list contained: 1. 1a Areas north ofWhakahoro (2 h approx.): hnportant historic sites; Maori cultural significance; Water and Soil Conservation Values; Protection ofWhanganui River margins. 1b Kakahi Stream area (305 h approx.): Regenerating forest adjacent to park; hnportant Scenic and Wildlife Values; Protection ofWhanganui River margins;

358 Department of Conservation, Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, 1993, p 4 359 Wanganui Chronicle, 8 August 1988, Box 3, WR 1/4/1 vol 4 All Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 360 Minutes Taranaki/Wanganui Conservation Board, 19 June 1989, Box 4, WR 2 vol 6 WRSB Board Membership and Meetings, DOC Wanganui 361 Park Extensions investigation, September 1989, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 126

2. Upper Heao Tangarakau Conservation area (5,837 h approx.): Kahikatea forest; Wildlife Values (Blue Duck); Water and Soil Conservation; Landscape Values; 3. Marangae Stream (7,570 h approx.): Regenerating forest; Rare Plants; Important Wildlife Habitat; 4. AotuhialMt Humphries (6,068 h approx.): Mature Forest on Foothills of Matemateonga Range; Regenerating Forest; High Wildlife Values (Brown Kiwi, N.Z. Falcon, North Island Robin); Recreational Potential (Tramping, Camping); Historic Settlement Sites; 5. Waitotara Conservation Area (25,000 h approx.): Large Area of Podocarp/Hardwood and Beech Forest; Very Important Wildlife Habitat (including Blue Duck); Recreational Area; Landscape Values; Geological Features; Access to National Park; 6. Kapara (12,089 h approx.): Water and Soil Conservation; Wildlife Values; Recreational Potential; 7. Tarere (6,941 h approx.): Podocarp Forest; Water and Soil Conservation Value; Wildlife Habitat (Brown Kiwi); 8. Riminui (1,846 h approx.): Water and Soil Conservation; Wildlife Values; Recreational Potential- close to Lake Rotorangi; 9. Ahu Ahu Valley (1,016 h approx.): Mature and Regenerating Forest; Important Wildlife Habitat (Brown Kiwi, Blue Duck, Kaka); Historic Settlement Sites; Recreational Potential; 10. Atene (906 h approx.): Adjacent to National Park and Atene Skyline Track; Scenic and Recreational Values; 11. Mangatiti Valley, Murumuru, Piraruhe (5,533 h approx.): Unmodified Forest; Significant Wildlife Habitat; Historic Sites; Recreational Potential; 12. MorinuilRotokahu (8,159 h approx.): Ecological Values; Unique Forest types; Wildlife Significance (North Island Robin, Blue Duck, Kaka); Recreational Potential; Area of High Scenic Values (Lake Hawkes).

Areas 1a and 1b had not been noted in either the Draft nor the Management Plan. The public was invited to comment on the areas' natural, historical, and cultural values. In relation to Maori, DOC suggested the following questions. 'Is the 127 history of Maori and European settlement in the area important enough to justify a higher level of protection? , 'Are there Maori conservation values present in the lands that warrant national recognition and protection?' Submissions were to close on 30 September 1992.362 Most of the submissions, like those from tramping clubs, Forest and Bird, and Friends of the Wanganui River, supported the proposed additions. The submissions pinpointed other possible areas which included the Tangarakau Scenic Reserve, the Jean D' Arcy Reserve, and two areas in the vicinity of the Retaruke Valley.363 Two submissions to the section 8 Investigation, out of a total of39, were given by Maori. One was from the N gati Maru Tribal Council and concerned land between the Heao Stream and the Waitara River. They opposed the additions because there were Treaty ofWaitangi claims over the area. The second submission was from Mark Cribb, ofTamahaki, relating to parts of Taumatamahoe, Whitianga, and Waimarino No 1 blocks. Cribb's reasons were what he called the illegal purchase of these lands by the Crown and Treaty ofWaitangi claims. He requested identification of the areas concerned.364

8.4 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Reaction and Further Crown Action DOC consulted the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board about the additions.365 But whether the department specifically mentioned in discussions with iwi area la, which included the urupa of the chief Topine Te Mamaku, is unknown. This is discussed below. In 1991, the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board asked DOC to cease the section 8 investigations because ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi claims under the Treaty ofWaitangi. The WRMTB, and the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust, had made application to the Waitangi Tribunal and entered into direct negotiations with the Crown for the return of lands. 366

362 DOC, investigation. invitation to Comment 363 Meeting Whanganui National Park s 8 Committee between WRMTB and DOC, 2 November 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 364 S 8 submissions, LIAN 0052-01 Additions to national parks, DOC Wanganui; meeting Whanganui National Park section 8 committee WRMTB and DOC, 2 November 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 365 Bygate to Min Cons, 17 June 1991, WR 211, vol 7 WRSB Membership and Meetings Box 4, DOC Wanganui 366 Taiaroa to Min Cons, 17 July 1991, 'Proposed Additions to National Park/Facility User Pass', Wai 167 Document B8(c); Meeting Whanganui National Park s 8 committee between WRMTB and DOC, 2 November 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 128

The regional conservator wrote to the Hinengakau Trust asking for its views. 367 The department said that it hoped there would be more submissions from Maori. The WRMTB said this was unlikely. The iwi would not agree to the additions as they were concentrating on Treaty issues. They were looking to the river and land for settlement of claims and did not want further submissions to go ahead as these would raise public expectations about additions to the national park and would therefore prejudice iwi claims. 368 However discussions between the WRMTB and DOC did proceed for a time. At a joint meeting to discuss preparation of a document for public discussion and to consider the submissions already made, they resolved to allow the section 8 investigation to proceed to the point where a report was to be sent to the New Zealand Conservation Authority in perhaps eighteen months' time. The resolution was passed because no letter from the Minister of Conservation had been received to stop work on the collection of information. 369 In 1992 and early 1993, the WRMTB and DOC drew up a Consultancy Agreement which outlined their positions and allowed for a means to bridge their differences. The agreement stated that the WRMTB would conduct certain research into Maori history and concerns over the lands to ensure that the parties were informed and to avoid further Treaty breaches. Each party would appoint a representative to monitor progress and make monthly reports until 30 May 1993. The WRMTB would begin the assignment on or before 4 January 1993. The agreement stated that any original written material produced by the WRMTB should belong to the board; that DOC could publicise details subject to reasonable requirements for culturally and commercially sensitive matters; and that the report and its contents could not be used for the purpose of promoting the inclusion into the national park of the land in question.37o The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board asked the law fIrm, Luckie Hain Kennard and Sclater, to advise on the consultancy agreement. This fIrm considered

367 Carlin to Hinengakau Trust, 17 July 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 368 Potaka and Haami WRMTB comments, meeting Whanganui National Park s 8 committee between WRMTB and DOC, 2 November 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 369 ibid 370 Consultancy Agreement 8 January 1993 but devised in 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui; 'Proposed Additions to National Park/Facility User Pass', Wai 167, Document B8(c). Similar requests for consultancy agreements were made to South Taranaki Iwi and to Ngati Maru; Proposed Additions, p 6 129 that DOC and/or the New Zealand Conservation Authority were intending to proceed with the investigation and the procedures leading to the areas' inclusion 'before or at the conclusion of the completion of your report'. Therefore the firm advised that iwi undertake the work on the basis that, once the report was completed, there would be discussions about the lands' inclusion with DOC, the NZCA, and the Crown. If no agreement was then reached, they advised that provision should be made for the matter to be considered by the Waitangi Tribunal. 371 The Consultancy Agreement was not signed and not progressed because the parties could not agree.372 This was, according to Archie Taiaroa, because DOC's head office would not agree to the iwi's request that the work not be used simply as the removal of an obstacle to the lands' inclusion and that the original material gathered by the iwi should belong to them. 373 On the latter point, the agreement stated that written material would belong to the WRMTB.

8.S Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park, 1993 Unti11993, the department believed it had the support of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board for the investigation. DOC considered support was withdrawn because of the board's perceived delays or complications with Treaty claims. The Minister of Conservation asked the board to separate the issues of the section 8 investigation and Treaty claims as he had given assurances concerning the possible impacts on claims. The minister considered that the board had withdrawn its 'longstanding' support for the s8 investigation because of perceived delays or complications with Treaty claims. 374 Therefore DOC went ahead with the publication of its paper, Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park, in 1993 and asked for submissions by the extended date of30 July 1993. In summary, the paper was an expanded version of the Invitation to Comment document but there were differences. One of the differences was the identification of Makokoti Pa site (s 28, Elk Xl, Retaruke SD), 0.986 h, on the true left bank of the Whanganui River just upstream from Whakahoro. This was part of area 1a in the Invitation to Comment but

371 Dawson to WRMTB, 10 February 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 372 Taiaroa to Bayfield T/WCB, 21 July 1992, file, 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 373 Evidence of Archie Te Atawhai Taiaroa, Wai 167, Document B8, p 63 374 Min Cons to Taiaroa, 30 August 1993, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui; Comment, Carlin at meeting Wanganui National Park s 8 Committee between WRMTB and DOC, 2 November 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 130 not specifically identified. The Proposed Additions paper commented that it was a very important historic area as it was the burial site of Topine Te Mamaku, an influential Whanganui River chief in the mid-to-Iate 1880s. 'Liaison with the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board will be important. It may be determined that it is inappropriate to include it in the park but it is important to assess its potential in the initial investigation. ,375 Another difference was that the Proposed Additions discussed Maori perspectives and Treaty ofWaitangi issues. It began with an admowledgement, partly in Maori, of iwi cultural and conservationist links to the river and land. 'With proper care and respect for the forests and waters, the iwi prospered. ,376 Under the section 'Iwi Perspective and Treaty ofWaitangi Issues', the department stated its obligation to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, that the Crown and iwi were partners, and that it was important that iwi and hapu were consulted on the aims of the investigation. 'A sharing of such information will assist the department and the community to understand and appreciate the tangata whenua concept ofkaitiakitanga.' From the department's viewpoint, it said, wahi tapu needed to be acknowledged to be protected, particularly when there was the potential to disturb them unwittingly. The department, in noting natural resources and cultural history in relation to them, also expressed an interest in Maori conservation and asked questions to stimulate comment. How did they protect the natural world? How did they see the resources of mother earth? What conservation practices did they observe? 'Iwi and hapu as well as individuals have the ability to bring to these investigations a unique, and distinctly Maori dimension. If that contribution is made then this special part of the New Zealand landscape could be enhanced and become a cultural heritage for all people. This will give the final report [a]n appropriate cultural depth.,377 The department's admowledgement of Maori conservation values and practices is a considerable change from the lack of recognition in earlier departmental publications. But the attitude change came too late as it was overtaken by wider Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi issues and land claims. The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board expressed to the Minister of Conservation its 'extreme disappointment' at

375 Proposed Additions, 1993, p 36 376 Proposed Additions, p 2 377 Proposed Additions, p 6 131

DOC's publication of the Proposed Additions and at Forest and Bird's application 'as it completely wipes out the mana and rangatiratanga of the Iwi over its valuable taonga. ,378 The publication of Proposed Additions drew an angry response from Hinewai Barrett of the Topine Te Mamaku Whanau who said that the whanau did not want DOC to have anything to do with the urupa. 379 Likewise, the paper's publication was considered by the whole Hinengakau Tupuna organisation as 'another outward sign' of DOC's disregard for the mana of the Whanganui iwi. 'The Trust Board asked you not to proceed but the Minister & Conservation Authority insisted on going ahead. ' The Hinengakau Tupuna organisation said it was giving notice that it would fight to disrupt any activities on the Whanganui River, and any actions by government or other interests, which would diminish the Tupuna's chance of the return of the land

'that was wrongfully acquired. ,380 At a presentation to the Minister of Conservation at Kaiwhaiki in 1994, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi told the minister they were opposed to additions of further lands 'currently known as Crown lands or Conservation Estate', as these were acquired by means which were in total breach of the Treaty ofWaitangi. Claims were before the Waitangi Tribunal but hearing dates had not yet been set. 381 In August 1997, the New Zealand Conservation Authority reported on its investigation into the section 8 additions to the Minister of Conservation. The minister decided to take no further action in the meantime as further consultation with the

Waitangi Tribunal would be required. 382

8.6 Mangapurua Road Proposed Addition to Whanganui National Park In the 1983 'Wanganui River National Park Assessment', the Mangapurua Valley was included within the boundaries of the proposed park. Between 1917 and 1942, the valley had been cleared for pasture and settled but subsequently it was abandoned by its rehabilitated soldier settlers. By 1983, the steeper land was covered

378 Taiaroa to Marshall, 13 July 1993, 'Proposed Additions to National ParkiFacility User Pass', Wai 167, Document B8(c) 379 Barrett to Regional Conservator, 13 July 1993, file 'Inwards Correspondence', WRMTB Taumarunui 380 Waa to Carlin, 27 July 1993, file 'Inwards Correspondence', WRMTB Taumarunui 381 'Presentation to Minister of Conservation and Lands', 20 December 1994, Box 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 382 Meeting NZCA 22-23 October 1997, LIAN 0052-01 Additions to National Parks, DOC Wanganui 132 in predominantly dense native forest. The department considered that only the flats of some of the easier hill country were suitable for fanning. These would require stock­ proof fencing to prevent cattle from continuing to push their way through regenerating forest. But the department considered that perhaps the best land use option would be to include all of the valley within the proposed park.383 The 1989 Management Plan for Whanganui National Park gave a brief history of the Crown-owned Mangapurua Valley. 'Today homestead ruins, abandoned fencelines, grassy flats, old roadlines, regenerating forest and the "Bridge to Nowhere" all bear testimony to their efforts at settlement of this area.' DOC planned to manage it in a way that protected and enhanced the valley's history, consistent with protection of natural values and natural regeneration.384 The Management Plan indicated that DOC's ultimate intention was to include the Mangapurua Valley Road within Whanganui National Park. It stated that the department was then currently pursuing the closure of the Mangapurua Road and that the Waimarino District Council had agreed in principle to its closure from the Kaiwhakaukajunction. 'Inclusion of this road within the park is desirable to ensure more effective management and control. ,385 This was to prevent the use of horses and off-road vehicles because they damaged the natural environment. 386 In 1991, Mangapurua Scenic Reserve, which included the road described above, was gazetted. It could not be transferred directly to the national park. The dpartment said the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board had been involved in the plan's preparation, which stated the desirability of the road's inclusion, and that the Minister of Maori Affairs had given approval.387 In June 1992, the TaranakilWhanganui Conservation Board, after listening to concerns of local pig hunters at the change of access, decided to recommend to the NZCA the addition ofMangapurua Scenic Reserve to Whanganui National Park.388

383 Department of Lands and Survey, Wanganui River National Park Assessment, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, June 1983, pp 59,60; See Figure 4 384 Management Plan 1989, pp 12,30 385 ibid, Policy 9.1.17 p 38 386 ibid, Policies 9.2.15 and 9.2.17 387 Deputy DO Cons to Min Cons, 29 September 1992 and Carlin to Cons HO, 12 November 1992, 0060, AX 0907, 7W/ll1, DOC HO Wellington. Mangapurua Rd files also in MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 388 Minutes T/WCB, 5 June 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 133

Map 4 Proposed Addition to Whanganui National Park Mangapurua (Road) Scenic Reserve N.Harris, WcJilang/ Tribunal, Oc12003

rJ"'<·~/·';~. J C WHANGAMOMONA ./ ~ \ ~\~ \ "iP. ~. % ~\ \ ~

~ .. - Mangapurua track .... ,..... Te Mala track C:=I VVhanganuiNatlonalPa~

Source: Whanganui National Park Management Plan Department o/Conservation, Wanganui, 1989, Map 6 134

The 'local pig hunters' may have included members of the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust because it protested that DOC was trying to manoeuvre traditional iwi assets away from iwi's use. The WWWT saw the road as a 'common wealth' which could be used by unemployed people on horses or motor bikes to gain access for shooting pigs or wild cattle. 'The common wealth of this valley was, and still is, of vital importance for the economic viability of the many hui and tangi. ,389 Behind the hunting access lay the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust's Waitangi Tribunal claim to the B Reserve of the Waimarino block. The WWWT intended to present evidence of 'extreme unfairness' in the 1915 purchase of this reserve. They said they would request that the total ofWaimarino B block remaining in Crown ownership be returned to iwi. As an interim measure, they required that access be maintained and requested that the department halt the addition of Mangapurua Road to Whanganui National Parle390 DOC argued that the vast majority of hunters did not use horses or motor bikes and that the department was trying to stop these uses so that its work on the 'old road' track would not be periodically destroyed.391 Although the Minister of Conservation told the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust that the scenic reserve status and its eventual addition to the national park would not affect the general function of providing appropriate access, Mangapurua Scenic Reserve has not achieved national park status.392 But it is managed in conjunction with the national park.

This chapter has examined the proposed additions of Crown-owned lands to Whanganui National Parle They eventually totalled 84,100 hectares, that is, more than double the size of the park. The additions were the Mangapurua Road and those known as the section 8 investigation, which were foreshadowed in the management plans, under section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980. The section 8 investigation began after a Forest and Bird request in 1988 with a NP&RA recommendation in 1989. The public was asked for comment by September 1992. Most of the submissions, from recreational and conservation groups, approved of the additions but the two Maori submissions, from Ngati Maru and from

389 Robinson to Treaty ofWaitangi Policy Unit, 2 November 1992, 0060, AX 0907, 7WIIII, DOC HO Wellington 390 Robinson to Min Cons, 20 October 1992, 0060, AX 0907, 7WIIII, DOC HO Wellington 391 Carlin to DOC HO, 12 November 1992, 0060, AX 0907, 7W/1II, DOC HO Wellington 392 Min Cons to Robinson, 9 December 1992,0060, AX 0907,7WIIII, DOC HO Wellington 135

Mark Cribb, were opposed because of Treaty ofWaitangi claims. DOC consulted the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board about the proposals and believed it had the board's approval to continue. However, it was aware from 1991 that the board had asked that the section 8 investigations cease because of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi claims under the Treaty ofWaitangi. The WRMTB, and the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust, had made application to the Waitangi Tribunal and entered into direct negotiations with the Crown for the return of lands. Nevertheless, DOC proceeded and produced a public discussion paper in 1993 on the proposed additions. The iwi's opposition was formally presented to the Minister of Conservation in 1994 who decided in 1997 that the section 8 investigation would not proceed in the meantime. In 1991, the Mangapurua Road area was gazetted as Mangapurua Scenic Reserve. The department seemingly believed that the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was not opposed to the addition. In June 1992 the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board recommended the scenic reserve's transferral to Whanganui National Park. However this was opposed by the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust because Treaty ofWaitangi claims and access issues. The Mangapurua Scenic Reserve has not been included in the national park but it is managed in conjunction with the park. Because of their claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, protests, and threats of disruption, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi have stalled conservation requests for additions that would have more than doubled the size of Whanganui National Park.

137

9 Chapter 9 Issues: Urupa; Employment and Concessions; Animal Pest Control

This chapter investigates a number of issues which are concerns for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, as expressed in their submissions about Whanganui National Park and other correspondence. They include the recognition and protection ofurupa; employment and park concessions; and the methods of pest control of the Department of Conservation.

9.1 Urupa

9.1.1 Maori Viewpoints, Early Twentieth Century and Crown Action The question of the recognition, protection, and control of land in which urupa were located has been an issue for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi from the early twentieth century as the Crown began to acquire and reserve more Maori land for scenic purposes. Iwi wanted urupa protected but they wanted to retain ownership of the lands. At the Wanganui River Reserves Commission in 1916-17, twelve witnesses gave evidence about urupa. Ten of these witnesses had had lands, which included urupa, taken under the Scenery Preservation Act 1903 and the Scenery Prservation Amendment Act 1910.393 Only one witness was satisfied with the Crown's acquisition. The others all wanted the lands returned despite rights to continue to use them. As Kaiwhare Kiriona said, 'Ifit was controlled by others than ourselves, then our custom would be abolished and set at naught, and ... we could be charged by some of our people with having sold the bones of our dead.' The commission recommended the return of urupa but most of the recommendations, if not all, were not carried out by the Crown.394 In the 1920s, the ranger for the Wanganui River Trust, T. W. Downes, carried out some fencing and protection ofurupa in scenic reserves.395 But, although the Crown promised protection of urupa under scenery preservation legislation, this rarely occurred. Over time, knowledge oflocations and any fencing done fell into disrepair, as chapter seven above showed. This may have suited some Te Atihaunui-a-

393 Scenery Preservation Act 1903, ss 2, 3, 4; Scenery Preservation Amendment Act 1910, ss 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 394 Hodge, 'Scenic Reserves', Chapters 7-9, quote p 101 138

Paparangi, who wanted locations to remain secret, but radicalised others to action in the 1990s. In the later part of the twentieth century, there was no Lands or Conservation Department policy on urupa reservation, nor provision for it within the National Parks Act 1980. 396 Urupa, as wahi tapu, may be protected through registration with the Historic Places Trust, under the Historic Places Trust Act 1993.397

9.1.2 Maori Viewpoints, 1980s During discussions in 1982 and 1983 on the proposal for Whanganui National Park, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi expressed concern for urupa which were located in scenic reserves designated for inclusion in the park. The sacred nature of urupa was cited at several meetings. Some spoke against the opening of tracks because it would advertise old pa sites and urupa which they did not want desecrated.398 These points were also brought up in two studies on the park proposal by the social scientist, Nicholas Rea, and by archaeologists Jenny Hellen and Kate Olsen. Rea considered that the change in status from scenic reserve to national park, 'may lead to the surfacing of concerns for the control of the area. This may be particularly so for the Wanganui Maori people because of their historical associations with the area particularly in relation to graves and burial sites. ,399 Hellen and Olsen wrote that kaumatua of the middle and lower reaches of the river were pleased that work was being done to give legal protection to their waahi tapu but were concerned by fossicking and the possibility that sites might be open to damage if the information became public.4oO The submission ofTe Iwi 0 Te Awa Whanganui on the national park proposals made reference to the protection of urupa. The iwi' s position, in wanting Maori control of urupa, echoed their ancestors' in the early twentieth century. They asked that a Whanganui National Park Board be established, which would include six Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi - two from each of the three tupuna. The six Maori

395 ibid, pp 166-167 396 Graham to Cribb, 18 August 1992; WWWT material supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan and MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae DOC Wanganui 397 McClean and Smith, pp 299-300 398 See above, Chapters 2 and 3 399 Nicholas J Rea, Study Outline/Brief and Revised Study Brief/Outline, Economic and Social Consequences ofa Wanganui River National Park, 24 June and 7 July 1983,0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 400 Jenny Hellen and Kate Olsen, 'Archaeological Survey Proposed Wanganui River National Park', Department of Lands and Survey, May 1984, section 4 139 representatives would be charged with the specific responsibility of advising and implementing a management plan on the location and protection of historical and archaeological Maori sites, tapu sites and urupa. The submission stated that it was important to Maori that the many wahi tapu sites were offered the highest possible protection. 40 I Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi made similar requests in submissions prior to publication of the Draft Management Plan in 1987. They requested that all burial and other sacred areas be located and registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, and that these areas be given priority in being enclosed to prevent any public desecration. They asked for the Maori Advisory Board to be set up under the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board in consultation with the Whanganui River people, and that the board be involved with any education and interpretation of historic sites. The Maori advisory board, they said, should be empowered and funded to set up a team to identify and map special sites, objects and tapu places in the park, with the documentation held by the Whanganui Rriver Maori Trust Board. While sites of historical significance should be represented on a map, they wished to employ local people in this work so that lmowledge of particular stones, logs, trees, earthworks, and . 402 urupa would remam secret. These issues were stressed again at a meeting between 11 members of the WRMTB and DOC representatives at Ohakune on 20 August 1988. The trust board saw the identification and management ofwahi tapu by Maori as necessary. The concept of wahi tapu, they said, was much wider than the Pakeha appreciation of it as a 'sacred place', as the Maori conception could embrace the whole river and national park. The concept was individual to each hapu as well as to the overall iwi. Maori control and management was necessary because of reluctance by some to divulge wahi tapu. 403

9.1.3 Response of Department of Conservation The Whanganui National Park Management Plan recognised the spiritual, historical, and cultural significance of the Whanganui River and its surrounds to Te

401 Te Iwi 0 Te Awa Whanganui, Part 9, 'Wanganui River National Park Submissions', 1983, Box 'Wanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 402 Submission, people ofPipiriki community and other descendants ofHinengakau and Tama-Upoko, received 5 June 1987, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 403 John Ombler, File Note of meeting 20 August 1988, approved by Taiaroa, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 140

Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The plan stated that DOC would protect archaeological and traditional sites, and historical features, and coordinate further investigations and interpretation in liaison with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and tangata whenua. The department would work closely with tangata whenua through the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board on all aspects of interpretation, protection and 'where applicable publication of sites of Maori importance.' It would publicise those sites only when permission was granted by the WRMTB. The department also said it would undertake a survey of historic sites and compile an inventory ofthem.404 The department appears to have complied with the policy of consultation and action in accordance with trust board wishes. For example, when a commercial firm asked for a list of wahi tapu so they would know which areas to avoid, the firm was told that iwi were unwilling to highlight areas in that way but that the iwi would advise DOC if an area became a problem to them.405 The department, with assistance from iwi, fenced off the urupa at Maraekowhai and asked to discuss management of the reserve with the trust board and representatives ofHinengakau.406

9.1.4 Puketapu and Mataiwhetu As chapter six above explained, the location of John Coull hut near Puketapu urupa was offensive to Tamaupoko and it was relocated during the summer of 1989- 90.407 In 1992, Puketapu urupa and the nearby urupa, Mataiwhetu, again became an issue as knowledge of their heritage radicalised sections ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust wanted both urupa investigated under a Treaty ofWaitangi claim to Taumatamahoe block.408 The Crown's investigations showed that, about the time of purchase, it had made an undertaking with which Maori 'seem to have agreed' to set apart the burial places. By 1910, the graves at Puketapu had been marked off and those at Mataiwhetu located to be pegged off. But the Minister

404 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Management Plan, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, March 1989, policy 9.l.l0, p 30 405 Whanganui National Park Concessions meeting, 28 June 1989; Lythgoe to WRMTB, 5 May 1989; file 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 406 Ombler to Taiaroa, 27 February 1989, file 'Whanganui Trust Board'; Bygate to Taiaroa, 18 January 1993, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 407 See above, Chapter 6 408 Cribb, Robinson and Taiaroa to Graham, 12 February 1992; O'Sullivan and Robinson Report, 28 January 1992; WWWTmaterial supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan 141 of Justice admitted that, either they might never have been 'properly reserved', or that their protected status had fallen into abeyance. In August 1992, the Conservation

Department understood both urupa were within the national parle 409 Tamnatamahoe block 2B2 descendants, believing the Conservation Department was trespassing on land they continued to own, threatened the Minister with prosecution unless the toilets were removed from Puketapu.410 The department in Wanganui then undertook to fence off both urupa although by then investigations had shown that, while Mataiwhetu was in the national park because it had never been surveyed, Puketapu was on Maori land.411 But the trust preferred that it not be fenced so that it would not attract attention from park users. They refused to identify other urupa because they believed DOC Wanganui had treated Puketapu and Mataiwhetu disrespectfully, and that the Conservation Department was trespassing on their lands. 412 In the 1990s, when the department wanted to develop a number of new campsites along the Whanganui River as facilities for the Great Jomney concept, Tamahaki refused to permit the developments because many of the sites, like ' . 413 KiriklIlrOa, were near urupa.

9.1.5 Topine Te Mamaku Urupa The department may have thought it was complying with the protection policy noted in the Management Plan when it proposed to include Makokoti Pa site in the additions to the national park. This contained the burial site of Topine Te Mamaku. The department noted that liaison with the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board would be important and tempered its proposal with the caution that, it 'may be determined that it is inappropriate to include it in the park but it is important to assess its potential in the initial investigation.' The Topine Te Mamaku Whanau was angered by the proposa1.414

409 Graham to Cribb, 18 August 1992; WWWT material supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan and MAO 0101-02 Tamahaki DOC Wanganui 410 Meeting Taumatamahoe 2B2 descendants, 12 September 1992; WWWT material supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan 411 Graham to Cribb, 20 November 1992 and 2 December 1992; WWWT material supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan 412 Cribb to Carlin, 18 May 1993, Cribb to Graham, November 1992; WWWT material supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan 413 McDonnell to Simmons, 29 November 1993, MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 414 See above, Chapter 8 142

9.1.6 Assessment Under the Scenery Preservation and National Park Acts, urupa within scenic reserves received the same generalised permanent protection as their surrounding lands. Such protective devices as fencing and maintenance, though desired, were limited by constraints of finance and manpower in the 1920s and 1930s. Some urupa fencing fell into disrepair. Other urupa, such as Mataiwhetu were never surveyed and cut out, while the locations ofurupa like Puketapu were forgotten. This situation allowed the erection of toilets on or nearby the urupa which was an act of desecration to iwi. These occurrences fall short of the protective intentions expressed in legislation. But for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi who required wahi tapu locations to remain the secret knowledge of the hapu, and where the sites were not desecrated, this may have been welcome even if the sites were no longer owned by them as they had required. However, Tamahaki expressed outrage at the desecration once they were re­ acquainted with their tribal knowledge. The Whanganui National Park Management Plan policy for historic sites, which include urupa, is to protect and compile an inventory of them in consultation with the Whanganui Rriver Maori Trust Board. It is also policy to identify and/or interpret sites only with the permission ofthe WRMTB. Once the department was made aware of past breaches of the Scenery Preservation protection provisions for urupa, the department rectified them and has complied with policy. Tamahaki may feel the need for a separate agreement with DOC. But, because urupa are sacred to individual hapu, agreements between DOC and representative bodies like the WRMTB and Tamahaki may not be acceptable to all hapu.

9.2 Employment and Concessions

9.2.1 Iwi Expectations From early in 1983, when the Lands Department began to consult Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi about the national park proposals, all sections of the iwi requested that their people have full access to employment and training programmes, and to licences for commercial opportunities. At the Taumarunui marae meeting there was a strong feeling that at least 30 percent of all those employed in the park should be Maori and that Maori commercial interests should be given every assistance. Their submission on the park proposal asked that, because of high unemployment levels 143

among local Maori, they be given the first opportunity for training and employment. They also asked that tourism and other commercial opportunities be offered first to locally resident Wanganui River Maori. They saw the park as 'Maoriness with Tourist potential'. The Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust repeated this theme in 1985 as did Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi submissions to the Draft Management Plan in 1987.415 Although Lands Department officials noted employment opportunities as a justification in preparatory discussions on the park's creation, Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi requests do not appear in publications by the Lands Department and Department of Conservation. There is nothing about a guaranteed Maori input into employment and commercial activities in the 1984 Proposed Wanganui River National Park - Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority, nor in the 1989 Management Plan for the park. On concessions, the Management Plan stated that DOC would consider applications 'on their merit'.416 By 1992, the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board considered its participation in employment and management as an 'unhappy experience' .417 DOC officials were aware of Maori desires. From time to time they proposed plans for greater iwi participation in national park employment and concessions. More Maori were employed by DOC as full time and seasonal workers than were engaged in concessions for commercial activities. The latter category did not match the expectations of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi but initiatives for commercial concessions were not the department's responsibility.

9.2.2 Employment The evidence for Maori employment is fragmentary. In his evaluation of the iwi's rejection of the 1987 Draft Management Plan, John Ombler, the District Conservator, suggested that partnership was happening at a staffing level because three out of six of the most recent appointments were Maori, and two of the seasonal appointments were Maori.418 In 1989, one worker out of3 appointed under the Restart Programme was to be recommended by the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board.419 In 1994, after the occupation of Tieke and the establishment of the marae, W F Carlin, the Regional Conservator, discussed iwi employment as one means to improve

415 See above, Chapters 3-5 416 Management Plan, policy 9.2.7 (e) 417 Taiaroa to Bayfield, 21 July 1992, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 418 See above, Chapter 5 144 relationships between DOC and iwi. He suggested accelerating employment of more staff to facilitate recreational objectives and environmental objectives. The latter would include weed and animal pest control, particularly since iwi had shown increasing interest in this work. 'This would remove the seasonal nature of the recreational work and allow for full time professional employment for Maori trained to the same level as other DOC staff.' He suggested that, if staff were not attached to DOC, they could be contracted through iwi trusts but his preference was for full time staff. He estimated the cost of two new full time staff would be approximately $100,000 covering salary, operating and overheads.420 By 1997, the field centre supervisors at Pipiriki and Taumarunui were iwi, as were 95 percent of their staff.421 Just how many people this percentage represented was not given. The report was written by Dennis McDonnell, the Pipiriki Field Centre Supervisor, who was praised by senior DOC officials for his handling of sensitive situations.422 McDonnell has also received support from Archie Taiaroa. In 1990, when there was a possibility of McDonnell applying for a DOC appointment in Taumarunui, Taiaroa wrote, 'I personally, and 1 know our whanau would give total support providing we work along the same kaupapa of protecting our River and not just using it to make money as DOC is intent on doing.' Taiaroa went on to imply that, should McDonnell move, another Maori should take up his post at Pipiriki.423 However, Taiaroa's earlier comment about working along the same kaupapa indicates that the situation for iwi members, who were employed by the Department, might be awkward if their loyalties became divided. In 1999, the Wanganui Conservancy's permanent hunting team was split with two permanent hunters based at the Taumarunui field centre. According to Carlin, iwi interpreted the reorganisation as an increase in the department's staffmg levels without any opportunity to apply for the positions or to be involved in any appointment process.424

419 Hunt to Taiaroa, 20 July 1989, file 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 420 Carlin, 'Whanganui NP Management', 1994, p 3, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 421 McDonnell to Min Cons, 10 August 2000, MAO 0021-01 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 422 Mansfield to Carlin, 30 March 1994, p 2, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae; Edmonds to Min Cons, 9 December 1994, p 2, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 423 Taiaroa to McDonnell, 12 February 1990, Box 4, WR 211 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 424 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 145

9.2.3 Government Initiatives towards Maori and DOC - Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy From 1988, DOC began to implement government policy discussed in the paper 'Te Urupare Rangapu, Partnership Perspectives'. This required a Maori input into corporate planning and policy fonnulation; the active seeking of opportunities to work with iwi authorities at the operational level; and affInnative employment programmes. DOC planned for a Maori Perspective Unit which would augment existing regional arrangements and provide a source of advice for policy staff and the Minister.425 In the Wanganui region Rangipo Mete Kingi was appointed as Kaupapa Atawhai Manager in Wanganui. The policy led to the Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy in 1997 as part of Atawhai Ruamano Conservation 2000. The strategy provided for the fostering of a Maori contribution to conservation management by supporting the development of a tikanga approach; integrating Maori initiatives; and adopting aspects oftikanga into management practices. The Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy was incorporated into the Whanganui Conservancy's Conservation Management Strategy, vall, 1997-2007 and aimed to give effect to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi.426

9.2.4 Concessions Concessions for commercial activities are carried out under Section 49 of the National Parks Act 1980 and the Concession Policy in New Zealand National Parks. In Whanganui National Park, concessionaires also operate under Wanganui River Control By-laws as the Department of Conservation is the administering authority for the by-laws. These allow for licences pennitting a trade, occupation or business like a tourist initiative in accordance with the Management Plan and for DOC to recover costs and appropriate resource rental and concession fees. 427 Infonnation regarding concessions operated by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi is also fragmentary. In 1989, there was one tourist venture operated by iwi, Te Awa Kaitangata Tours.428 By 1991, there were two, out of fifteen, licensed operators.429

425 Bygate to Directors and Regional Managers, 21 December 1988, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui

426 McLean and Smith, pp 369, 378 427 Management Plan, p 51 428 Whanganui National Park Concessions meeting 28 June 1989, file 'Whanganui National Park', WRMTB Taumarunui 146

In 1990, Maori operators were advised by the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board not to pay overdue annual licence fees. After DOC had taken legal advice, the department advised the operators of its legal authority to charge fees. After a meeting called by the trust board at Pipiriki in December 1990 with the department, the operators paid up. The advice not to pay was given after Taiaroa had requested that the WRMTB be given administrative authority to manage the Whanganui River. This was refused by the Minister of Conservation on the grounds that the Department of Conservation was 'best able to administer the river licensing system in an objective manner.' Ministerial advice had noted that the Maori operators were competing directly with other operators so that the trust board 'may not be viewed as an impartial administrator of the licensing system. ,430 In 1994, there was again one iwi operation out of' about 20 businesses'. This analysis by Carlin was part of proposals which included the employment initiatives outlined above. Carlin described the operation as providing a culturally-focused trip. The business was tenuously placed and struggling to achieve success, he said, but nevertheless was surviving and trade was increasing.431 Carlin went on to suggest that the government could offer help to iwi to achieve a more successful business foothold 'focused on the cultural aspects ofthe river.' It could be done as a Treaty-based initiative' as the cultural theme is reserved for Maori in reality', and therefore not compromise general principles of fairness to, or competition with, Pakeha operators. Resources could be provided to help with interpretative signs of the many sites of cultural importance on Maori land and within the park.

Visible support for the cultural experience via Maori business would show commitment on a broad scale for Crown/lwi Treaty recognition and social and economic goals of self sufficiency and a special place for Iwi in Government Planning. The iwi already claim this type of arrangement was promised when the National Park was established 1987 but never fulfilled.432

9.2.5 Assessment The goals for employment and cOlmnercial operations, which Te Atihaunui-a-

429 Fechney and Hormann to DOC HO, 2 May 1991, Box 4 WR 2/1 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 430 Marshall to Taiaroa, 2 May 1991; Fechney and Hormann citing Taiaroa to McDonnell, 12 February 1990; Bygate to Min Cons, 17 June 1991; Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 431 Carlin, 'Whanganui NP Management', 1994, p 2 432 ibid, P 2 147

Paparangi had requested in the planning stages for the national park, were clearly not met in the case of concessions although commercial initiatives were not DOC's responsibility. The department employed Maori staff so that, ten years after the park's establishment, the field centres at Pipiriki and Taumarunui were 95 percent Maori. This gives no indication of actual numbers; nor are percentages or numbers given for the Wanganui district office and field centres. The position of Kaupapa Atawhai Manager was created at managerial level. It appears that it took the major upheaval of Tieke occupation by Tamahaki, and the recognition of problems between DOC and iwi, for DOC to review its policies on iwi employment and concessions. The reasoning used in 1994 by Carlin to offer extra iwi employment and assistance with iwi culturally-focused concessions could have been applied from 1987. But Carlin's proposal fell down in practice in following years when the department failed to contract Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi in goat-culling and 1080 operations. These are discussed in the next section.

9.3 Animal Pest Control It is policy, as stated in the Management Plan for Whanganui National Park, to eradicate as far as possible introduced wild animals. This is done partly through DOC's active encouragement of commercial and recreational hunting.433 But eradication programmes are also organised by the department. This section looks at issues surrounding goat and possum eradication.

9.3.1 Goats Wild goats have been a problem for administering bodies since at least the 1960s.434 By the late 1980s goat numbers were static in most of the national park areas but were increasing in areas where they had been eliminated by live recovery for farming. When prices dropped and goat farming ceased to be popular, goat numbers again began to increase. The department employed two or three hunters to keep numbers under contro1.435 By the mid 1990s, Tamahaki and the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board had concerns about several facets of the goat eradication programme. One related to employment. Iwi were concerned that there was insufficient funding to employ people

433 Management Plan, policy 9.1.7 434 Drew to WRSB, 4 July 1967, Box 12, WR 9 vol 1 WRSB. Offences, DOC Wanganui 148 outside DOC. Another was the number of goat carcasses that were not retrieved. Tamahaki believed they polluted waterways. In this they were supported by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. A third was Tamahaki's allegation that pigs were killed during the goat kill. DOC's response was that, during goat kills in winter, it was not always practical to retrieve carcasses because of access difficulties but that they would examine the situation to see whether more retrievals were possible. On the pigs, DOC said that hunters did not go out of their way to shoot pigs and that they discouraged their dogs from attacking them. Department officials, McDonnell and Mete Kingi, suggested that, because the Pipiriki and Mangapapa people wanted to take live goats, they obstructed the hunting programme.436 Employment remained an issue for the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board in 1998 when it again expressed concern that the department continued to use people other than tangata whenua iwi to carry out goat and possum eradication.437 In a report issued in 1999, Carlin said that DOC had initiated iwi training programmes for goat control at Pipiriki in 1997 and Taumarunui in 1998. DOC was planning a similar training for lower Whanganui River iwi in 1999 because future goat control would require a major effort and a core of trained personnel. The report did not say how many people were involved, nor whether the trainees would be employed by DOC as full time or contract workers. 438

9.3.2 Possums and the Use of 1080 By 1991, possums were regarded by the TaranakilW anganui Conservation Board as the most serious wild animal threat to forests in its management area.439 DOC's Management Plan policy is to control them at a level that allows regeneration of selected indigenous plants but extermination is the long term goal if it becomes practical. 440 The department encourages efficient commercial operations because they contribute significantly to wild animal control.441 But DOC also uses 1080, or sodium fiuoroacetate, a pesticide that occurs in nature as a plant toxin called fiuoroacetate in a

435 Wanganui Chronicle, 8 July 1988, 26 October 1988; Box 3, WR 11411 vol 3 Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 436 DOC to Wallis, 4 November 1996; Dominion, 20 September 1997; McDonnell to Fawcett, 20 October 1997; MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 437 Taiaroa to DOC, 11 May 1998, MAO 0021-01 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 438 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 439 Spence, T/W Cons Bd to Min Health, 26 September 1991, Box unnamed, WRMTB Taumarunui 440 Management Plan, policy 9.1.7, p 26 441 Management Plan, p 52 149 number of plants in South Africa, South America, and Australia.442 Use of 1080 in New Zealand was begun by the New Zealand Forest Service in the 1950s.443 The Conservation Department argues that it is a cost effective tool for possum control because of its low cost and because it can be used as an aerial drop. Operators working areas on foot can also use 1080. Department information states that, although traces of 1080 may be found in water after contact, these soon dissolve to undetectable levels. In soil, micro-organisms degrade 1080 in about two weeks. Baits of 1080 are dyed green and flavoured with cinnamon to make them less attractive to birds. The department admits that individual birds may be poisoned but that research shows the numbers to be exceedingly low. It advises that dogs are readily killed by consuming 1080 baits and should be kept on a leash or muzzled if taken into a 1080- treated area until it is safe. The pesticide is also highly toxic to livestock so farm animals should be kept away from control areas. The department states that 1080 is eliminated from the tissue of animals that consume a non-lethal quantity and that there are no lasting effects.444 The use of 1080 is supported by Forest and Bird. Both DOC and Forest and Bird argue that its use is justified to reduce possum numbers, until longer-term methods of control are developed, as these animals destroy indigenous vegetation and harm indigenous birds by eating their eggs and competing for food. Forest and Bird argues that another benefit is that rats and stoats, both bird predators, die from eating poisoned possum carcasses. 445 Opponents of the use of 1080 believe it may cause miscarriages in females and 446 testicular cancer in males. They argue that it is a cruel, lingering death as 1080 works by being converted, when ingested, to fluorocitric acid which disrupts body mechanisms causing the collapse of the central nervous system and coronary

442 McClean and Smith, pp 409-412 for regulations, legislation, and studies on 1080 use. Studies include Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Possum Management in New Zealand, Critical Issues in 1998, Progress Report No 1, Wellington, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 1998 443 Jim Feldman, 'A Plague of Possums: Environmental History ofa Pest in New Zealand', Draft Report, [1997], Waitangi Tribunal, p 107 444 Department of Conservation, '1080', information sheet, July 2002 445 Geoff Keey, 'Support for Protecting Birds and Forest with 1080', Forest and Bird, 305, August 2002, P 4 446 T.A.N.N.Z. 1080 Action Network New Zealand Update, 6 July 1995, 'file DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 150 failure. 447 The New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association argues that it is too non­ specific and rejects the argument that a limited 'by kill' is an acceptable cost of the poisoning campaign. The association prefers possum control through improved traps, biological control, and genetic engineering techniques.448 In 1994 and 1995, DOC planned a major 1080 programme for a portion of Whanganui National Park where possum infestation was serious and required urgent attention. Officials discussed plans with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and gained the impression that, while iwi might prefer other methods, they would agree to aerial drops because of the nature of the terrain and the urgency of the problem. The officials believed they had accommodated iwi concerns. They arranged for iwi representatives to visit Mapara to see the effect of possum control and discussed at Raetihi and Taumarunui the potential for iwi doing control work by hand. They indicated that there would be some employment opportunities for contract work for ground contro1. 449 DOC's impression of iwi agreement is confirmed by Ngati Rangi, a constituent iwi ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The iwi held a hui-a-iwi on 17 August 1994 and accepted that 1080 in pellet form was the most effective way to reduce the possum population at that time. However, they decided not to convey that decision to DOC because they did not want the department to use their agreement as validation for the operation. They believed that Maori throughout New Zealand had been excluded from the decision-making process over 1080 by the department and the government. They asked the department to develop genuine consultation with their two representatives. 45o Several Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi hui were held from February 1995. Some iwi were concerned about the effects of aerial drops on bird, human, animal, insect, plant, and soil life. They suggested the alternative methods of hand distribution of 1080, and trapping in priority conservation areas, by using 12 hunters for six weeks

447 Graham Swan, Sodium Fluoroacetate (l080): An Environmental Poison - Or Valuable Ally?, June 2003, Environment Centre of Westem Australia, (http://www.enca.asn.au. 2 July 2003) 448 New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association, Poisons and Toxins, undated, (http://www.deerstalkers.org.nz. 2 July 2003) 449 de Bres to Min Cons, 20 March 1995, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui; Marshall to Taiaroa,l September 1995, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui; de Bres to Prime Minister, undated [1995], FAC 0101-01 Tieke DOC Wanganui 450 Summary Ngati Rangi Hui-a-Iwi, 17 August 1994, WRMTB Taumarunui 151 over 10,000 hectares.451 The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board also requested an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The trust board said it had been given insufficient time to discuss with iwi the Environmental Impact Assessment (a report required under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Procedures) and that the assessment did not examine available options. The commissioner declined the request because the EP&EP had no statutory base. The WRMTB believed that DOC had contravened section 4 of the Conservation Act because of Carlin's reluctance to debate its preferred option for control on 28 August 1995.452 Despite DOC's indications of employment for iwi, the department brought in two contractors from outside the Whanganui River area for the possum number monitoring survey because the two had already been involved in similar work. They were hired for 21 days pre-operation and 21 days post-operation. The department argued that it was important to have the same people for both surveys and that they needed specific experience of departmental requirements. The department suggested that iwi members might like to observe the two contractors in order to be prepared for future opportunities. Several took up the offer.453 Members ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi then staged a protest at DOC's Wanganui Conservancy office over the use of 1080 in late August or early September 1995. This drew a response from the minister. While the department could not agree to halting the current programme because it was more than half-completed, the minister said, a workable trial of the trust board's proposal could still be arranged. The minister and Mete Kingi both urged the WRMTB to have examined by an independent laboratory any evidence the board had of ill effects of 1080. The minister acknowledged that two dead birds were collected from the treatment area but that the bodies would need analysis to determine the reason.454

9.4 Summary With the urgency ofthe possum problem in the mid 1990s, Te Atihaunui-a-

451 Marshall to Taiaroa, 1 September 1995 citing Taiaroa to Marshall, 28 August 1995, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 452 Hughes to Henare, Ranginui, Haitana, Tamakehu, 3 September 1995 also citing an earlier, undated request. For EP&EP see, Christopher D. A. Milne (ed), Handbook ofEnvironmental Law, Wellington, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, 1992, p 270 453 de Bres to Prime Minister, undated [1995], FAC 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui 152

Paparangi did not absolutely oppose the use of 1080. However, they wanted a consultation with DOC over the way it was to be applied and the possible use of alternatives, like trapping, for control. Primarily, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi wanted work for their people, a desire expressed in their submissions to park proposals. Iwi employment was also a justification used by Lands Department officials in preparatory discussions on the park's creation. Employment was also a large factor in iwi concerns over goats. Given iwi's long-maintained expression of interest in employment, and DOC's agreement to training and work opportunities, it is difficult to understand why outsiders were brought in for the monitoring process and why iwi personnel were not trained before the drop began.

This chapter has examined a number of issues which are concerns for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, as expressed in their submissions. about Whanganui National Park and other correspondence. In the past, sites ofurupa were not always permanently protected as was the intention of scenery preservation legislation. This situation allowed the erection of toilets on or near to urupa which was an act of desecration to iwi. In submissions about the national park, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi requested the protection ofurupa as a principle duty of iwi members on the park board. Although this form of iwi input into management did not proceed, the Whanganui National Park Management Plan policy is for consultation with the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. Once it was made aware of past breaches of the scenery preservation provisions for urupa, the department rectified them and has complied with policy. But, because urupa are sacred to individual hapu, agreements between larger representative bodies may be unacceptable to hapu. The goals for employment and commercial operations, which Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi had requested in the planning stages for the national park, were not met in the case of concessions, although commercial initiatives were not DOC's responsibility. In 1994, there was one iwi operation out of approximately 20 businesses. The Department of Conservation employed Maori staff so that, ten years after the park's establishment, the field centres at Pipiriki and Taumarunui were 95 percent Maori. The Tieke occupation by Tamahaki seems to have been the catalyst for

454 Marshall to Taiaroa, 1 September 1995; Mete Kingi to WRMTB, 5 September 1995, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 153

DOC's review of its policies on iwi employment and concessions. The department suggested extra iwi employment and assistance with iwi culturally-focused concessions. However it failed to implement the employment proposition during 1080 operations in 1995 and goat-culling in 1998. Under govermnent policy, the position of Atawhai Kaupapa manager was established in Wanganui. Although Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had environmental concerns about goats and the use of 1080 to control possum numbers, consultation and employment were their most pressing considerations. They wanted consultation with DOC over the way 1080 was to be applied and the possible use of alternatives, like trapping, for control. Primarily, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi wanted work for their own people, a desire expressed in their submissions regarding Whanganui National Park and a justification used by Lands Department officials in preparatory discussions on the park's creation. Employment was also a large factor in iwi concerns over goats. Given this long­ maintained stance, and DOC's agreement to training and work opportunities, the department perhaps should have trained iwi personnel for the monitoring process in 1995 and contracted them for the 1998 goat cull.

155

10 Chapter 10 Relationships Between Crown Agencies and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi

This chapter examines the relationship between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the various Crown agencies involved with Whanganui National Park. These included, at different times, the Lands Department, the National Parks and Reserves Authority, the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, the Department of Conservation, and the TaranakiIWanganui Conservation Board. The chapter first discusses the issue of consultation from the beginnings of Whanganui National Park. It looks at the extent to which Whanganui River Maori conditions regarding park board representation have been met. Lastly it examines the quality of the relationship between the Department of Conservation in Wanganui and Whanganui Maori.

10.1 Consultation The commission for this enquiry asked me to investigate the adequacy of consultation with Whanganui Maori from the time of the first initiatives to establish the national park.455 The word 'adequacy' is difficult to defme as there are several possible interpretations. One standard of adequacy could be consensus or near­ consensus on issues; another could be the quantity of meetings and the quality of discussions; yet another, the efforts undertaken to consult all concerned parties. Given the problem of defmition, and with the agreement of the Whanganui research facilitator, James Mitchell, I have opted to describe and characterise the nature of consultation rather than to detennine its adequacy.

10.1.1 1970s and 1980s In the early preparatory stages of the national park proposal, consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi did not occur because officials within the Lands Department and the National Parks and Reserves Authority kept discussion and investigations to themselves. Even though approval in principle was given for the park in 1980, no consultations were held with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. As late as September 1981, the acting chainnan of the NP&RA did not consider any discussion

455 See above, Introduction 156 at that stage necessary or desirable.456 However at the same time, the Director General of Lands and Survey, P H C Lucas, suggested that the Commissioner of Crown Lands should explain the national park investigation to Rangi Mete Kingi, the iwi's representative on the Wanganui River Scenic Board, and discuss with him the steps that still had to be taken before a decision was made. 'In other words,' Lucas wrote, 'a public relations move aimed at possibly defusing Maori objection at a later date,.457 In 1982, some informal discussion occurred between Crown officials and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Formal meetings took place in the early months of 1983. These were held at Wanganui, and at marae at Hiruharama, Parikino, Taumarunui, and Raetihi. Meetings were well-attended so that there was adequate consultation at that stage. There was also considerable consultation during the next years leading up to the park's gazettal in 1986. In these discussions, Crown officials and Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi attempted to find a mechanism that would accommodate the Crown's recognition of iwi spirituality and mana, iwi aspirations in park management, and Crown control of the national park. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi were at first cautiously optimistic but eventually angered by the outcome. Nevertheless, at the time, there was considerable discussion between the parties. Some consultation also took place in the development of the Draft Management Plan for the park during 1987 when the Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board had representatives on the Wellington National Parks and Reserve Board's management planning subcommittee. Rei Bailey, as a member of the WNP&RB, also attended these meetings. Although iwi representatives achieved alterations to the original draft, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi ultimately rejected it. They again pressed for control of the park. On this occasion they argued that it was consistent with government aims of transferring mana and resources to iwi authorities. They implied that this signified a partnership as expressed in the Treaty ofWaitangi and as endorsed by the Court of Appeal in the State Owned Enterprises decision.458 After their failure to achieve control, consultation decreased because, according to DOC, Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board representatives cancelled or

456 Signed note on Lucas to CCL, 25 September 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 711 4 vol 1 Identification and Assessment ... , DOC HO Wellington 457 Lucas to CCL Wellington, 25 September 1981, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7114 vo11 Identification and Assessment..., DOC HO Wellington 458 See Chapter 5 above 157 postponed proposed meetings. In the Management Plan, DOC's policy was 'to consult and give full consideration to the advice of the local Maori people, through the Whanganui River

Maori Trust Board, on all matters of concern to the Maori people. ,459 Despite this, no formal consultation arrangements were made to provide for regular meetings. Therefore consultation was ad hoc. The department, for example, attended a scheduled meeting of the trust board on 20 August 1988 and discussed such issues as the incorporation of Treaty ofWaitangi principles, park board representation by iwi, Maori harvest and traditional uses, and wahi tapu.460 In 1989, discussions were held on draft licences for commercial operators.461 By this time, as was outlined in chapter 9, the department was beginning to discuss ways of implementing government partnership policy which was required under the Conservation Act 1987 section 4. The policy paper 'Te Urupare Rangapu, Partnership Perspectives' required a Maori input into corporate planning and policy formulation; the active seeking of opportunities to work with iwi authorities at the operational level; and affirmative employment programmes. With these goals established in government policy it is difficult to understand why they were not reflected in the Management Plan to the extent even of regular meetings between the department and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The consultation process began to be crisis-driven, for example as chapter seven revealed, over the relocation of John Coull hut in 1989-90 and the later demolition of the toilet block. In addition, the consultation process began to be affected by the fragmentation ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Although DOC, the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, and Tamaupoko representatives worked together to resolve the John Coull hut dispute, problems arose from the three-way relationship. The department recognised the trust board as its advisor. 462 Officials required a letter of agreement from the trust confirming the relocation of the hut. Seemingly Jackie Gray, as a Tamaupoko representative on the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, did not report to the trust

459 Department of Conservation, Whanganui National Park Management Plan, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, 1989, policy 9 .2.5(b), P 49 460 Ombler to Taiaroa, 22 July 1988 and File Note of meeting 20 August 1988, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 461 Lythgoe to WRMTB, 6 July 1989, Box 4, WR 211 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 462 eg, Min Cons to Amohia, 8 August 1988, Box 3, WR 117 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, DOC Wanganui 158

board after the October 1989 inspection, or the trust did not write to DOC officials. DOC was surprised by Bob Gray's November demands for a speedy relocation.

10.1.2 The Position of the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board as Sole Representative of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi The John Coull hut dispute raised the issue of whether the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board could continue to represent all hapu in national park issues. This partly relates back to the iwi's original requests for representation from all three tupuna on any park board. Although Crown officials had presented it as a possibility, in reality only one WRMTB representative had a position on the TaranakiIWanganui Conservation Board from 1990.463 The possibility of fragmentation had always been present with the 1988 assertions by Hikaia Amohia, a Hinengakau kaumatua, that Te Tikanga was the iwi authority.464 Although the WRMTB remained the legal representative ofTe Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi, in practice the department also began to consult with constituent iwi, Tamahaki, and Tamahaki's whanau-groupings. By 1993, meetings between DOC and the trust board had ceased. The department indicated that a resumption would be welcome so that the trust board could assist in resolving the Tieke occupation.465 By 1994, DOC considered that the trust board was 'struggling'. Several speakers at a meeting at Paraweka Marae, Pipiriki in December 1994 said that iwi wished to deal directly with the Crown and not with quangos. DOC interpreted this to mean that iwi did not want to deal with the trust board.466 Fragmentation ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi representation appears to have become embedded in DOC policy as it was allowed for in the Wanganui Conservancy Business Plan of 1990-91 as part of the Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy. The overview stated that several staff at field centre level had specific consultation roles with certain iwi although, to date, they had been focused on issues like wahi tapu management. The priority was to fonnalise consultative networks and ensure comprehensive iwi contacts were established and maintained. By the end of the 1991-92 year, the

463 DO Cons to Min Cons, 15 December 1987, Box 4, WR 2/1 vo11 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 464 Amohia to Min Cons, 22 July 1988, Box 3, WR 1/7 vol 1 Ministerial Correspondence, and similar correspondence in Box 4, WR 211 vo11 Interim Maori Trust Board, and Box 6, WR 4 WRSB.Control and Usage, DOC Wanganui 465 de Bres email, 7 December 1993, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 466 Edmonds to Min Cons, 9 December 1994, p 3, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 159 department aimed to have established a comprehensive network of iwi and runanga representatIves.. 467

10.1.3 1990s In the early 1990s, the relationship between DOC and the Whanganui Rriver Maori Trust Board was brittle with each side, on occasion, taking offence at perceived neglect. The department felt that the trust board should have consulted it when those taking part on the 1991 Tira Hoe Waka refused to pay hut fees, saying that they were finalising the opening ceremony. The department considered it 'a major breach of partnership and courtesy. ,468 The trust board, when members saw canoeists camping on Maori land with the department's knowledge, felt that the board should have been told. 'That's o.k. but at least we should be advised. ,469 The relationship could also be troubled by situations beyond the control of either party. The trust board, when members read of clearing and blasting at Haumoana and at the mouth of the Whanganui River, considered that, 'It's pretty tough to hear it via the news media and this Board and Iwi are fed up at hearing things second hand without any direct consultation before things happen. ,470 The department replied that it had been asked for comment by the two organisations with statutory authority to act in the matter but had advised they should consult iwi.471 But the ad hoc consultation process could function successfully, from the iwi standpoint, on occasion. In 1993, when iwi noticed DOC development of additional campsites along the Whanganui River, the WRMTB asked DOC to stop until the trust board could discuss them with the relevant hapu.472 An inspection was made of the sites by DOC officials and a hui was held at Paraweka Marae, Pipiriki to discuss issues. Work was then stopped on the contentious sites.473 Consultation between the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board and the TaranakiIWanganui Cconservation Board was also brittle. The conservation board's role was advisory to the Department of Conservation. Early in 1990, the regional

467 Conservation Te Papa Atawhai, Wanganui Conservancy Business Plan, 1990-1991, p 96, Box 'Conservation', WRMTB Taumarunui 468 Carlin to WRMTB, 30 January 1991, Box 12, WR 6/5, Huts - General; see Chapter 6 above 469 Taiaroa to McDonnell, 12 February 1990, Box 4, WR 2/1 vo12 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 470 Taiaroa to DOC, 22 February 1993, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 471 Carlin to Taiaroa, 19 March 1993, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 472 Taiaroa to Carlin, 11 October 1993, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 473 McDonnell to Simmons, 29 November 1993, MAO 0004-02 Tamahaki; Carlin to ERC, 1 August 1994, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 160

conservator suggested a meeting with the trust board to discuss iwi representation on

the conservation board and other matters of mutual interest. 474 Although the WRMTB had one representative on the conservation board, the WRMTB and iwi expressed concern in 1992 that decisions were being made and influenced without its participation. The trust board felt that, with the change in conservation administration, 'all the development of relationships and consideration to both the role and purpose of

this Board is being eroded. ,475 During the 1990s, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's consultation process with DOC was characterised by the development of agreements, which later collapsed, as a means to manage disputes. One example was an agreement, after discussions, to try to reconcile the opposing positions of DOC and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi over the proposals for additions to Whanganui National Parle In 1992, departmental officials drew up a Consultancy Agreement which outlined their differences and allowed for a means to bridge them. The Consultancy Agreement was not signed by the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board and not progressed because the parties could not agree on the ownership of work conducted by the iwi and how it should be used.476

10.1.4 Te Ranga Agreement, November 1995 Another example was Te Ranga Agreement. Following the resolution of Tieke, discussions took place between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and DOC in late 1994 and early 1995. These included a meeting at Paraweka Marae, Pipiriki, on 7 December 1994 preparatory to a meeting with the Minister of Conservation on 20 December 1994. As well as specific national park issues, the meetings concerned the underlying issue of the return to iwi of their ancestral lands. The department's deputy director-general assessed iwi's position as being prepared, until the ownership issue was resolved, for increased cooperation with DOC although, he considered, iwi would enter any dialogue with a 'profound sense of suspicion and mistrust' .477 At the Kaiwhaiki meeting the Minister of Conservation proposed a working party between DOC and iwi to address a number of contentious issues between them.

474 Carlin to Taiaroa, 11 January 1990, Box 4, WR 2/1 vo12 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 475 Taiaroa to Bayfield, 21 July 1992, MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 476 See Chapter 8 above; Taiaroa to Bayfield T/WCB, 21 July 1992, file, 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 477 Edmonds to Min Cons, 9 December 1994; 'Presentation to Minister of Conservation and Lands' by Archie Taiaroa, Kaiwhaiki 20 December 1994; MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 161

These included: • Location of park headquarters at Pipiriki; • Greater iwi input in visitor and park management; • Additions to the national park; • Water Conservation Order; • Facilities User Pass: earlier or alternative proposals; • Training and employment opportunities; • Wahi Tapu; • Timetable.478

A number ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi groupings became involved in discussions beginning with a meeting at Pipiriki on 6 April 1995. They included the Tamahaki Council, Pipiriki Incorporation, Tupoho, Tamaupoko, Hinengakau, the Tieke Whanau, the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust, Ngati Kura, Ngati Rangi and the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. The outcome of this meeting was the formation of the Whanganui Iwi Whanui Tonu and an agreement to again meet the Minister of Conservation on 8 May 1995 at Pipiriki.479 Tamahaki later withdrew because they considered they had been slighted by the government over submissions to the Conservation Management Strategy and outstanding land issues.48o They undertook separate negotiations with DOC in Wanganui, which will be discussed shortly. Whanganui Iwi Whanui Tonu held a meeting on 15 June 1995 at Ohakune to respond to the Minister's proposals. The conclusions they reached were: • An expectation of a Treaty relationship with DOC and the Minister of Conservation; • Discussion with the liaison group on the extent of its work; • Consideration of the structure of a forum for progressing negotiations; • The preparation of an agenda for presentation alongside that of DOC; • Resources for the forum. 481

478 de Bres, In Report of meeting 6 April 1995, undated, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 479 de Bres ibid 480 Min Co~s to Wallis, 4 April 1995,21 September 1995 and other correspondence; Press Release signed by Mark Koro Cribb, 6 October 1995; MAO 0004-01 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 481 'Whanganui Iwi Whanui Tonu', 15 June 1995, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 162

The Whanganui Iwi Whanui Tonu mandated the Whanganui Iwi Liaison Group to negotiate with officials from DOC in Wanganui and from head office in Wellington who had also become involved at the time of the Tieke occupation. Negotiations resulted in the establishment of the Te Ranga Forum Agreement in November 1995. The agreement formally recognised that both parties would maintain a working relationship. The department identified the following as issues for attention by Te Ranga forum: • The FUP [Facilities User Pass], training, and employment; • Management of Whanganui National Park and other conservation lands in the Whanganui rohe; enhancement of water quality and flow in the Whanganui River; • The status, role and functions ofPipiriki; extensions to Whanganui National Park.482

The Iwi Liaison Group's views were: • No FUP [Facilities User Pass]. Training and employment to be established with due consultation with the iwi and Ngati Rangi hapu; • A transition plan prepared for the transfer of assets and management of Whanganui National Park from DOC to Whanganui iwi, with implementation within 5 to 10 years; • The headquarters of the Whanganui National Park to be located at Pipiriki. This would become a Maori Conservation Office for Whanganui iwi to manage the national park. The transition to be completed within 5 to 10 years and to remain funded by the government; • No further additions to Whanganui National Park; • Non disclosure ofWahi Tapu which would remain under tribal protection.483

Graham Bell, who was Convenor of the Iwi Liaison Group in Taumarunui, further requested that:

482 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, MAO 0101-01 Tieke, DOC Wanganui; McLean and Smith, p 433 483 Te Ranga Forum, draft, 7 November 1995; Taiaroa to Whanganui Iwi Liaison Group, 5 November 1995, WRMTB Taumarunui 163

• The Papa Atawhai Manager be directed to monitor the agreement and report to the Iwi Liaison Group meetings; • The Regional Conservator to meet regularly with the IWG to plan interim joint management strategies; • The Whanganui Conservancy management team to be fully briefed about the agreement; • That all future management and project planning not preclude interim joint management and control strategies by Whanganui iwi; • That the Minister of Conservation monitor progress regularly with Whanganui iwi.484

Te Ranga Forum discussions continued until 1997 but were suspended during DOC's restructuring that year. Although discussions resumed, iwi put pressure on the Iwi Liaison Group to produce positive outcomes in line with their requests to the Minister of Conservation in 1995. In 2000, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi withdrew from Te Ranga Forum.485 On 6 April 1995, the Department of Conservation offered the Tamahaki Council the opportunity to negotiate their issues independently of other ancestral groupings. Tamahaki accepted this but believed, in 1995, that their wishes were ignored by Crown representatives and lower Whanganui tribal leaders under the Iwi Liaison Group. Tamahaki then requested Cabinet to instruct that all DOC's statutory obligations as regards Tamahaki ancestral rohe be delegated to the TaranakiIW anganui Conservation Board until issues of resource ownership were sorted out. Tamahaki believed that the TIWCB had demonstrated 'the required 486 integrity' in its dealings with Tamahaki and Te Whanau 0 Tieke. In September and October 1995, the department again asked Tamahaki to meetings to be part of the Iwi Liaison Group.487 In 1996, Tamahaki concluded a separate forum agreement with DOC in Wanganui.488 According to DOC, their

484 Bell to Min Cons, 8 February 1996, file 'DOC Negotiations', WRMTB Taumarunui 485 McDonnell to Min Cons, 10 August 2000, MAO 0021-01 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 486 Ponga to Bolger, 26 November 1995; Ponga to Graham, 6 July 1995, MAO 0010 Treaty of Waitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 487 Marshall to Wallis, 21 September 1995; de Bres to Williams, 11 October 1995; de Bres to Wallis, 20 October 1995, MAO 0004-01 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 488 Wallis to DOC, 31 August 1996, MAO 0004-01 Tamahaki, DOC Wanganui 164

discussions focused more on specific issues like Tieke and Mangapapa Pa than on 'generic' issues ofTe Ranga Forum.489 In October 1998, Tamahaki prepared a Memorandum of Understanding between Tamahaki and the Department of Conservation and presented it to the department for a signature by the Whanganui area manager. A letter of mandate from the Minister of Conservation was to be attached. However legal advice indicated that the Minister could not issue the mandate because it would have resulted in Tamahaki dictating how DOC ran its business. The department in Wanganui viewed the Memorandum as a parallel document to the Te Ranga Forum Agreement and believed it could become a simple operational agreement. But because the Memorandum was not signed, Tamahaki declared it no longer had a relationship with DOC; that DOC had been in deliberate breach of the Conservation Act since 1995; and that DOC's operations within Tamahaki tribal domain were unlawfu1. 490

10.1.5 Assessment After the initial planning stages for Whanganui National Park when consultation did not occur, the discussion process between DOC and Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi groupings was ad hoc and increasingly crisis-driven. In the 1990s, it had a 'start-stop' nature, characterised by the development of agreements, which later collapsed, to manage disputes. On occasion the consultation process worked well but was usually tense and, at times, ceased.

10.2 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi Representation From 1983, when they first held hui to discuss the proposed national park, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi requested a 50 percent representation on the park board and direct representation from each of the three tupuna. They asked that representatives have an input into general park matters as well as overseeing areas of particular concern to iwi. They achieved one representative from the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, which comprises representatives of the three tupuna, on the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board. They also achieved an advisory role for the WRMTB, in matters of Maori concern, within DOC's management. The details of this path have been traced in chapters three and four above but it must be noted that Whanganui has not had a park board of its own. In its beginning, Whanganui National

489 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, p 4, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 165

Park came under the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board which was replaced by the TfWCB in 1990. Conservation Boards have responsibility for advising DOC on management planning and national park administration but DOC is the administering authority for the National Parks Act 1980. In 1987, the Director General of the department advised that three WRMTB representatives on the national parks and reserves board could better reflect government's idea of a partnership with iwi. It could also, he said, more accurately reflect government's view than a single Maori voice. But he considered it could have implications for other similar situations throughout the country.491 This option would have met Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi wishes for a representative from each tupuna. Perhaps swayed by the second part of the advice, the government did not accept the first part. Therefore Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi conditions on the extent of their representation on the park board have not been met.

10.3 Quality of the Relationship between DOC in Wanganui and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi As the Te Ranga Forum Agreement of 1995 expressed it:

The stated Iwi goal is to achieve ownership, management and control of the Whanganui National Park and other conservation areas within their tribal boundaries. The Department's goal on the other hand is to continue to meet its obligations as the management agency for Whanganui National Park under the Conservation Act, National Parks Act and other Acts and Government policy.492

In my opinion, the polarity ofthese two positions is the root cause of the difficult relationship, which has been made manifest in this and previous chapters, between the DOC in Wanganui and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. At the time of the

490 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, pp 4-5, MAO 0101-01 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 491 DO Cons to Min Cons, 15 December 1987, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui; See Chapter 5 above 492 quoted McClean, p 433; 'Te Ranga Agreement' in Whanganui Conservancy, Draft Conservation Management Strategy, Wellington, Department of Conservation, 1996. These views were expressed previously, eg, Report of meeting with WRMTB, 30 June 1992 and Carlin to Haami, 3 July 1992; MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum, DOC Wanganui 166

Crown's acquisition of the scenic reserves, the iwi forcibly expressed its wish to continue to own and therefore manage its own lands. Although their protest simmered down for much of the twentieth century, it boiled up again as conservationists promoted the national park concept. As the social scientist, Nicholas Rea, presciently observed in 1983, the change in status from scenic reserve to national park, 'may lead to the surfacing of concerns for the control of the area. ,493 Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi wishes for an equal role in management were not compatible with the National Parks Act. Neither Labour nor National governments were prepared to change legislation to accommodate iwi proposals. Therefore DOC in Wanganui was the agency charged with the park's administration and with consulting the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board and other groups on the restricted matters permitted iwi. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi continued to press for a Maori national park and extended their argument to have the controlling role. DOC believed this would be 'total surrender,.494 Portends for a good relationship were poor.

10.3.1 Land Claims Apart from the underlying polarity, other factors have contributed to the difficult relationship. One of these relates to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Delay in settlement of the claims was one of the reasons for the Tieke hut occupation by Tamahaki. The land claims were frequently cited by the iwi as reasons to cease investigations into additions to Whanganui National Park. 495

10.3.2 Government Financial Constraints and Restructuring Another factor in the relationship between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the Crown was government policy as fmancial constraints and departmental restructuring were applied to Whanganui National Park administrations. Preparations for the national park were underway when the Fourth Labour government was elected to power in 1984. Under its 'New Right' ideological policies of 'user pays' and' corporatisation', the Ministers of Finance and of State Services and their departments insisted on compensatory savings and restriction on resources

493 Nicholas J Rea, Study Outline/Brief and Revised Study Brief/Outline, Economic and Social Consequences ofa Wanganui River National Park, 24 June and 7 July 1983, 0060, Box 1179 L&S 7/14 vol 1 Identification and Assessment. .. , DOC HO Wellington 494 W F Carlin, 'Whanganui National Park Management', 1994, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 495 See Chapters 6 and 7 above 167 and staffing.496 In December 1988, the Minister of Conservation released a report by Coopers and Lybrand Associates into the department. One of the stated objectives, the report said, was to attain greater cost-effectiveness across the board. The previous year, it reported, the department had overspent its budget by an amount which had to be accommodated in the current year's vote allocation. Therefore there was significantly less money. The department, it continued, had made limited progress with revenue-raising opportunities although hut and concession charges were beginning to emerge.497 The Minister of Conservation, in releasing the report, announced that total staff numbers were likely to be lower for years to come and that charges should 'free up resources for reallocation towards operational expenditure. ,498 Throughout Whanganui National Park's first years in 1988 and 1989, the Whanganui Chronicle printed a number of reports about budget cuts, increased charges, and staff lay-offs in the Wanganui Conservancy region, and the closure of New Plymouth's DOC office.499 In December 1988, the District Conservator, John Ombler, admitted to DOC's being 'under severe financial constraints,.500 The financial pressures reduced the possibility for DOC in Wanganui to employ more iwi members. This was one ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's main requirements. Frustration and anger may have been the reason for the conservator's 1999 statement that staff in Taumarunui had been threatened and that such threats had been continuous for years.501 Financial pressure also contributed to irritations that developed when the department could not fund Interim Whanganui River Maori Trust Board members for discussions on the Draft Management Plan. 502 The National government, after it was elected in 1990, continued fmancial constraints and restructuring. Cost recovery policies led to increased concession charges and to the introduction of the Facility User Pass, although this was also a means to control numbers using the Whanganui River facilities. In Whanganui National Park, these fmancial and restructuring policies also

496 James Belich, Paradise Reforged. A History of the New Zealanders, Auckland, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 2001, pp 408-413; McClean, pp 368-370; See Chapter 4 above 497 Executive Summary, Report Coopers and Lybrand Associates Ltd, December 1988, Box 21, WR 15/14 Restructuring, DOC Wanganui 498 Statement, Min Cons, 15 December 1988, Box 21, WR 15/14 Restructuring, ibid 499 eg, Wanganui Chronicle, 15 April, 9 May, 31 May, 18 June, 4 October, 19 October, 21 December 1988,8 April and 26 May 1989, Box 3, WR 1/4/1 vols 2-6 Newspaper Clippings, DOC Wanganui 500 Ombler to Mareikura, 6 December 1988, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 1 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 501 Carlin to Min Cons, 1 July 1999, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 168

impacted on the departmental centre at Pipiriki, which became another point of conflict for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. The park's opening ceremonies had been held at Pipiriki in February 1987. Iwi maintained that the government had agreed to the park's headquarters being established there. They admitted that successive governments seemed to have no memory of this agreement and that 1984 Maori Affairs records had disappeared.503 The national park's 1989 Management Plan stated that the existing office and information centre at Colonial House, Pipiriki, would be maintained and improved with the expectation that an enlarged visitors' centre would be required in the future. 504 It had a senior staff position and three permanent staff. 505 In 1990, iwi were concerned that, as a result of DOC's restructuring, Pipiriki would be downgraded or even closed. They were assured that the base and its staff would not be downgraded; that interpretation facilities would be upgraded; and that Dennis McDonnell would remain their point of contact. 506 But Pipiriki was downgraded to a field base and lost one pennanent position to the newly-established Wanganui Field Centre.507

After their occupation and the establishment of Tieke marae, the Whanau 0 Tieke requested that they deal direct! y through Pipiriki to DOC's head office. 508 This is an indication that the whanau, and perhaps its larger body, Tamahaki Incorporation, were unwilling to work with DOC officials in Wanganui. In 1994, the Wanganui Conservator, W F Carlin, produced plans for a visitors' centre at Pipiriki, conditional on the department's receiving additional funding for staff and for an interpretive display ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi culture. Carlin, although he admitted that iwi were, 'on the side line to date though they are generally aware of the plan', believed the proposal would meet a number of DOC and Maori goals. These included, he said, greater iwi involvement, going a considerable way, 'short of total surrender of the Park to iwi management and/or ownership', to satisfying iwi ambitions and grievances, an enhanced iwiIDOC relationship, and

502 See Chapter 5 above 503 John Tahuparae, hui at Paraweka Marae, Pipiriki, 6 April 1995, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 504 Management Plan, 1989, policy 9.2.3, p 46 505 McDonnell to Min Cons, 10 August 2000, pI, MAO 0021-01 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 506 Carlin to Taiaroa, 11 January 1990, Box 4, WR 2/1 vol 2 Interim Maori Trust Board, DOC Wanganui 507 McDonnell to Min Cons, 10 August 2000, P 2, ibid 508 ibid 169 enhanced job opportunities for iwi. He proposed that the Justice Department could underwrite most of the proposals as part of a Treaty resolution, while DOC could manage the implementation, accountability, and ongoing partnership aspects.509 This project was supported by the Incorporation of the Proprietors ofPipiriki Township No 1 and Other Blocks who considered that it offered training opportunities for their people, a hapu ofNgati Kura. They asked for the park headquarters to be relocated to Pipiriki.510 In May 1995, the proposal was to be considered 'in the near future,.511 After the signing of the Te Ranga Forum Agreement in November that year, Pipiriki was upgraded in status to a field centre but without the financial and staff resources to adequately match the increased responsibilities. McDonnell, who had been manager there since 1985, reported that iwi saw the upgrade without the necessary financial resources as futile and tokenism. He said that iwi regularly asked, through the Te Ranga Forum, for Pipiriki's status to be changed. Iwi wanted it to become the headquarters for the Whanganui Maori Conservation Office, with the transition to be completed within five to ten years. 512 This did not occur. From 1997, the area office was established in the Wanganui Conservancy office in Wanganui. The Pipiriki field centre manager position was downgraded to field centre supervisor with the result that McDonnell considered the position had lost esteem and mana with iwi. By 2000, when the Te Ranga Forum Agreement had collapsed, McDonnell wrote:

The gap between Iwi and DOC is complete. All control now meets only DOC requirements. Iwi totally alienated from the river and land they anciently believed was their tribal base and heritage. Their vision for the future and trust in Government as espoused in the Te Ranga Agreement totally destroyed.

The department's activities within this region present risks to Crown-Iwi relationships. Whanganui Iwi cannot see how these changes support their interests in a Treaty relationship. The future of the conservation estate within the boundaries ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi need re-structured, full, fair and equitable consultation which leads to achievable outcomes for both Crown and Iwi. 513

10.3.3 Assessment The quality of the relationship between DOC in Wanganui and Te Atihaunui-a-

509 W F Carlin, 'Whanganui National Park Management', 1994, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 510 Proprietors ofPipiriki Township No 1 and Other Blocks Inc. to Min Cons, 29 March 1995, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 511 Report, Joris de Bres, 10 May 1995; Carlin to Gray, 25 July 1995, MAO 0101-02 Tieke Marae, DOC Wanganui 512 McDonnell to Min Cons, 10 August 2000, P 3, ibid 513 ibid, pp 4-5 170

Paparangi was difficult. However all parties made efforts at times to improve their relationships, for example, through DOC's acceptance of Tieke Marae, and the negotiations by all groups of agreements like that ofTe Ranga Forum. Both DOC and iwi were constrained by their respective positions, which are irreconcilable under present law and circumstances, and which were articulated above by McDonnell who had associations with both the department and iwi. Friction in the relationship was exacerbated by external factors such as the delay in settlement of Waitangi Tribunal land claims and especially in the fmancial constraints and restructuring imposed on the department by successive governments.

This chapter has examined the relationship between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the various Crown agencies involved with Whanganui National Parle The first issue discussed was the consultation process. There was no consultation in the early planning stages for the park but there was considerable discussion in the later planning stages and during the development of the Draft Management Plan. However the 1989 Management Plan did not allow for regular meetings between DOC and the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board so that the consultation process was ad hoc and increasingly crisis-driven. The process was also affected by the fragmentation of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. From the 1990s, the discussion process between DOC and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi groupings was of a 'start-stop' nature. At times, such as the John Coull hut relocation and negotiation for Te Ranga Agreement, the consultation process achieved conclusions. At other times, consultation ceased. The chapter also looked at Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi conditions regarding park board representation. Iwi conditions were not met. Lastly the chapter examined the quality of the relationship between the DOC in Wanganui and Whanganui Maori. Given the polarity of their individual positions­ iwi's demand for ownership, management, and control of the park and DOC's obligations under legislation - their relationship was never going to be easy. All parties made efforts at times to improve it. Delays in the settlement of land claims and, especially, the financial constraints and restructuring imposed on the department by successive governments contributed to the difficulties. Governmental constraints impacted particularly on DOC's inability to employ more iwi members and on what Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi believed to be the downgrading ofPipiriki field centre. Pipiriki was important to them because they wanted it to become Whanganui National 171

Park headquarters and the Maori Conservation Office.

173

11 Conclusion

Following on from my report, 'The Scenic Reserves of the Whanganui River 1891-1986, this report has examined the origins and establishment ofWhanganui National Park. It has also investigated some issues of particular concern to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Like the scenic reserves, pressure for the national park and later proposed additions was driven by conservationists to which Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi had to respond. The conservationist vision included a cluster of ideals: an intrinsic valuation of flora and fauna; and the preservation of scenic beauty; and of New Zealand's natural heritage. The vision also included the concept of wilderness as a space empty of people but, in reality, a space created so because its indigenous inhabitants and others were excluded from permanent residency. Initially, the iwi cautiously welcomed the idea of a national parle They were motivated by the potential of the area - Whanganui River and its surrounding lands - to be the first national park to adopt an ethic and to project an image of Maoriness. It is not possible to define exactly what Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi meant by this term but, from their submissions, they appear to have envisaged a park in which iwi, holding spiritual as well as material values, would have an equal part in management, employment, and park concessional activities. By 2000 they wanted ownership of the national park. The report establishes that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's vision for Whanganui National Park did not eventuate. The iwi's model conflicted with legislative provisions that required the park to be controlled and managed under another model by the Department of Lands and Survey, with an advisory role for the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board within the framework of the National Parks and Reserves Authority. National and Labour governments of the 1980s were not prepared to change legislation to permit an expanded conservation perception and an individual management structure for Whanganui National Park that would accommodate iwi wishes. The Whanganui River was not included in the park because Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi claims to the Waitangi Tribunal remained unsettled. Government, however, wanted to publicly recognise Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi spirituality and mana. The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was created and, under legislation in 1990, provides one representative on what is now the local 174 advisory board, the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board. Under the park's Management Plan, the Conservation Department is required only to consult and give full consideration to the advice of the trust bard on issues of concern to iwi. The report concludes that the relationship between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the Department of Conservation in Wanganui over Whanganui National Park was soured by the irreconcilable nature of their differing visions under present legislation. This had occurred despite goals for partnership expressed in the policy paper 'Te Urupare Rangapu, Partnership Perspectives' and Atawhai Ruamano 200, and agreements developed in the 1990s. The development of partnership policies originated in section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987. As iwi continued to argue their case for a Maori national park, which the Wanganui conservator considered would be 'total surrender', the relationship became more discordant.514 Financial constraints and restructuring imposed by successive governments, and perceived delays in settling land claims, exacerbated the already difficult relationship.

Chapter one outlined legislation under which Whanganui National Park is controlled and managed. The specific statute is the National Parks Act 1980 which provided for the National Parks and Reserves Authority to have a general policy oversight and for regional National Parks and Reserves Boards to have an advisory role. National parks were to be administered by the Lands and Survey Department but the Minister of Lands could not make any recommendation except on the recommendation of the authority which was made after consultation with the appropriate board. The Department of Conservation replaced the Department of Lands and Survey under the Conservation Act 1987. The New Zealand Conservation Authority and the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board replaced the NP&RA and the NP&RBs, respectively, under the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990. The National Parks Act 1980 sets out the process for the establishment of national parks and for additions to existing parks. It does not mention the Treaty of Waitangi but the Conservation Act 1987, section 4, requires DOC to interpret and administer the Conservation Act 1987 as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi.

514 W F Carlin, 'Whanganui National Park Management', 1994, MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy, DOC Wanganui 175

The Whanganui River Maori Trust Board Act 1988 established the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. Under the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990, the trust board has statutory authority to recommend one representative to the Taranaki/Wanganui Conservation Board. The Conservation Board is required to seek advice of the WRMTB on any matter that involves the spiritual, historical, and cultural significance of the park to the Whanganui iwi. Chapter one also examined groups ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi who participate in management, activities, and discussion relating to the national park. These include the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board which, under its Act, is mandated to represent the descendants of the tupuna Hinengakau, Tamaupoko, and Tupoho. The origins of the WRMTB derive from the Wanganui River Reserve Trust, also known as Te Tikanga Commission for Evangelisation Justice and Development, which was fonned in 1981 but not registered as an incorporated society. Its kaumatua was Titi Tihu and its chairman was Hikaia Amohia. Each of the three tupuna had three representatives on the Wanganui River Reserve Trust. As discussions proceeded and submissions were required for the proposed national park, the WRRT, through a research committee, organised them. The other body discussed was Tamahaki Incorporation, including its constituent groupings of the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust and Te Whanau 0 Tieke. The Tamahaki Incorporation formed in 1993. Because they claim descent from the upper Whanganui River tupuna, Tamahaki, they believe the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board has no mandate to represent them. They have encountered antagonism from some in the WRMTB.

Chapter two discussed initial ideas, proposals, and work towards the formation ofWhanganui National Park between the 1940s and 1982. Serious investigations began in the later 1970s when National Parks and Reserves Authority officials wanted to ensure that the conservation option would be considered in land-use decisions. Inspections were carried out by Lands Department officials who then prepared the 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin' in 1980. The authors recommended approval in principle of the national park. After consideration by the Planning and Classification Committee of the NP&RA, the authority agreed in November 1982 that further investigations into the national park proposal should proceed. 176

During this period, Lands Department officials regarded the proposal as inhouse and did not hold fonnal meetings with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Also at this time, administrative changes within the department led to control of the Whanganui River scenic reserves complex moving to Wellington. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi expressed concern at this through its representative on the scenic reserves board, Rangi Mete Kingi, and through the Wanganui River Reserve Trust. Officials in the National Parks and Reserve Authority did not take these concerns seriously. Nor did they consider necessary discussion to infonn iwi officially about the national park proposal. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi concerns, which dealt with issues of authority and control of the river and reserves, were underestimated by officials. From 1982, the iwi began to link river issues to the proposed national park. When the National Parks and Reserves Authority made the decision, in November 1982, to proceed with investigations, it recommended consultation with Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and other interested groups. Lands and Survey made two concessions to Maori concerns. These were the extension of time allowed for responses to the national park proposals, and an investigation of the Crown's title to lands that were to go into the park.

Events in the national park's fonnation in 1983 and 1984 were discussed in Chapter three. It looked at continuing Lands and Survey work to advance the national park project. These included research into land ownership presented in 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916', and the publication of the Wanganui River National Park Assessment in 1983 and the Proposed Wanganui River National Park. Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority in 1984. From March 1983, the lack of real Maori input in previous parks, and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's desire to prevent this in the Whanganui River region, became their major theme. Their submission in November 1983 requested the protection of river waters, trees, soil, sacredness, landscape, uniqueness, and the Maori values of the Whanganui River region. Their main area of concern, they reported, was in management and administration of the national park in which they wanted to have full Maori involvement, input, and participation. The Maoriness theme was acknowledged to a limited extent by the government. After its rejection of the tribal claim to ownership of the bed of the Whanganui River, it sought to aclmowledge in legislation its recognition of the 177

spiritual significance and mana ofthe river region to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. Discussions on ways to achieve this, which were acceptable to both the government and iwi, continued during 1984. But Lands and Survey public reports show that the department ignored the intent ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's submissions, that is, the acceptance of a Maori world-view and a substantial iwi input into all aspects of management and activity. There is little to suggest that Lands and Survey considered Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to be anything than just another interested group, like canoeing or conservation associations.

Chapter four discussed Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and Crown negotiations, thought, and actions during 1985 and 1986. Although the National Parks and Reserves Authority had recommended in June 1984 that the proposal proceed, it was not . approved in principle by the Minister of Lands until November 1985. Another year passed before the Whanganui National Park was gazetted to come into being on 6 December 1986. Conservationists, local bodies, and recreational users lobbied for the creation of the park. K T Wetere, as Minister of Maori Affairs and of Lands and Survey, was under considerable pressure from these groups to declare the national park, and from Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi to meet iwi expectations. Delays in the park's establishment were largely the result of new financial policies introduced by the Labour government after its election in July 1984. Whanganui National Park was opened on 7 February 1987. During this time, discussions continued between government and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi on how to accommodate Maori wishes within procedures that were acceptable to government and iwi. The national park was declared with few iwi requests agreed to. Their wish that the river be excluded from the national park was met. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi advanced its own conservation ideas during this period. The Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust was formed in October 1984 to organise and maintain a school of conservation in the area of the proposed national park and adjoining Maori-owned lands. Crown officials welcomed it as an appropriate use of a national park but the school did not eventuate. This was, apparently, because the WWWT did not get use of the decommissioned Waikune prison.

Chapter five examined Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's claim that they were 178 promised a Maori national parle The i wi's belief appears to have originated from discussions between a representative group ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the Commissioner of Crown Lands at the hearing on 24 November 1983 on the iwi's submissions for the national park. Four versions of the hearing are extant. From what appears to be a verbatim transcript of the hearing, it can be seen that Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi was partly justified in this claim. Although the CCL did not make a promise that Whanganui would be a Maori national park, he considered that there would be 'a very large influence of maoriness in the management'.515 He suggested that three Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi representatives on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board and a Maori advisory committee with a statutory role, would allow a full say in policies and management. Although he qualified the advisory committee's role to one of advice on Maori matters, he did this only once. He also suggested that, if the Maori advisory committee was not satisfied with WNP&RB decisions, the advisory committee could go directly to the Minister. His emphasis was on iwi participation, employment, and finance for costs associated with producing management plans. Archie Taiaroa's summary of the hearing discussions, though tempered with caution, shows that he believed Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi would gain an equal part, with the WNP&RB, in management of the park and river. In contrast, the Lands Department summary and the Director General's memo reveal their understanding that the proposals were tentative and made without prejudice. Eventually the Crown allotted Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi only one place, not three, on the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, later the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board. This was an advisory role. The Department of Conservation was required to consult and give consideration to Whanganui River Moari Trust Board advice on all matters of concern to iwi. On the iwi' s claim that Wetere, as Minister of Lands, promised a Maori national park in a tape recording, I have not been able to either confirm or refute this as no recording has been found. The only indication that he may have done so is a comment in Wanganui River Reserves Trust minutes that his spoken word did not always agree with his written word. 179

Chapter six analysed the Whanganui National Park's Draft Management Plan 1987 and the Management Plan 1989. In their submissions and correspondence, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi emphasised the dimension of spirituality and its manifestation through exceptional people and places of the Whanganui River. They requested an equal role in the administration of the national park and financial assistance to do so. They asked that Maori values and customs, like koha, be paramount; that sites sacred to iwi be surveyed and preserved as a priority activity; and that employment and commercial opportunities be given to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. They submitted that the iwi's access to traditional fishing and hunting areas, and to the collection of plants for cultural purposes, remain. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi submissions were largely rejected by the Conservation Department because current statutory requirements require it to manage the conservation estate for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The Management Plan provided for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi's participation through giving advice. Their requests for unrestricted access to plant material and traditional fishing in waters, other than the Whanganui River, were not accepted. Both plans were in sympathy with their submissions on the location and protection of sacred and historic sites. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi recommendations for a Maori koha were not accepted so that fees became a cause of major protest the following decade. Neither was their wish accepted for an emphasis on the recognition of the Maori spiritual dimension. Even though the creation legend of the Whanganui River was given, and there were several references to the recognition of Maori spirituality, these fell short of acknowledging the Maori world-view and holistic understanding of the Whanganui River and surrounding lands. Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi rejected the Draft Management Plan partly because it failed to admowledge the idea of partnership as expressed in the Treaty ofWaitangi. Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 required the department to give effect to the Treaty's principles.

Chapter seven examined the confrontations that developed between some iwi members and DOC over huts in Whanganui National Park. The first of these was John Coull hut from 1988. As lmowledge of their history and culture grew through the annual Tira Hoe Waka, rangatahi were incensed that a new hut had been built in 1981

515 'Wanganui River National Park Proposal. Submission', Document B8(a), Whanganui River Report 180 on or near urupa. They demanded its relocation. The department agreed to this, accepting that the location had been insensitive to Maori beliefs. Despite financial stringencies, the hut was relocated and upgraded with rangatahi assistance. Further disputes about the location of toilets, when these were tipped into the river, were not supported by the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board.

Tieke hut was occupied by Te Whanau 0 Tieke, of Tamahaki, in September 1993. They established a marae and welcomed river travellers with traditional ceremonies and hospitality. After months of negotiation between DOC, including its Head Office staff, the occupation ended officially on 14 February 1994. The marae, with kaitiaki, was established formally. By the later 1990s, DOC in Wanganui, became concerned that a number of sections in the National Parks Act 1980 had been breached by Te Whanau 0 Tieke. The Tieke occupation can be seen in light of Tamahaki land claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and what they saw as delays in the resolution. The occupation must also be seen in the context of DOC's imposition of the Facilities User Pass. While it was part of the government's cost recovery policy, the FUP offended Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi because they had long requested that the Maori concept of a koha should apply. The establishment of Tieke Marae as a permanent settlement within Whanganui National Park contravenes the conservationist strategies oflegislation and the wilderness concept which underlies statutes. Te Whanau 0 Tieke has thus successfully breached this position which has been maintained for over a century. The department's agreement to the permanent marae is, perhaps, a step towards revising the wilderness concept with its inherent ambiguity that wilderness spaces were without permanent human inhabitants when, in reality, they were created so by the exclusion of those people.

Chapter eight discussed the proposed additions to Whanganui National Park. The Crown-owned lands totalled 84,100 hectares which would have more than doubled the size of the park. The additions were the Mangapurua Road and those known as the section 8 investigation. These included areas north ofWhakahoro, one of which contained the urupa of Topine Te Mamaku; the upper Heao Tangarakau

Wai 167, P 94 181

Conservation area; Marangae Stream; AotuhiaiMt Humphries; Waitotara Conservation area; Kapara; Tarere; Riminui; Ahu Ahu Valley; Atene; Mangatiti Valley, Murumuru and Piraruhe; and MorinuilRotokahu. The section 8 Investigation began after a Forest and Bird request in 1988 and a recommendation by the National Parks and Reserves Authority in 1989. The public was asked for comment by September 1992. Most of the submissions, from recreational and conservation groups, approved of the additions but the two Maori submissions, from Ngati Maru and from Mark Cribb, were opposed because of Treaty ofWaitangi claims. DOC consulted the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board about the proposals and believed it had the board's approval to continue. However, it was aware from 1991 that the board had asked that the section 8 investigations cease because ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi claims under the Treaty ofWaitangi. Nevertheless, DOC proceeded and produced a public discussion paper in 1993 on the proposed additions. This provoked an angry response from Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi who formally informed the Minister of Conservation of their opposition in 1994. In 1997, the Minister decided that the section 8 investigation would not proceed in the meantime. Mangapurua Rd was gazetted as Mangapurua Scenic Reserve in 1991. The department seemingly believed that the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board was not opposed to its inclusion in the national park. But the Whanganui Whare Wananga Trust was against the move because of claims under the Treaty of Waitangi. The WWWT considered the Mangapurua Road a 'common wealth' which allowed horse and motor bike access for hunters. The Mangapurua Scenic Reserve has not been included formally in the national park but it is managed in conjunction with the park.

Chapter nine investigated a number of issues which are concerns for Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, as expressed in their submissions about Whanganui National Park and other correspondence. The issues included the recognition and protection of urupa; employment and park concessions; and the Conservation Department's methods of pest control. Over the years, some sites ofurupa were not protected, as was the intention of the scenery preservation acts. Fencing fell into disrepair. Other urupa, such as Mataiwhetu, were never surveyed and excluded from scenic reserves, while the locations of urupa like Puketapu were forgotten. In submissions about the national 182 park, Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi requested the protection ofurupa. Under the management plan policy, DOC is to protect and compile an inventory of them in consultation with the Whanganui River Maori Trust Board. It is also policy to identify and/or interpret sites only with the permission of the WRMTB. Once it was made aware of past inadequacies like Puketapu, the department rectified them and has complied with policy. But, because urupa are sacred to individual hapu, agreements between DOC and larger representative bodies like the WRMTB may be unacceptable to hapu. The goals for employment and commercial operations, which Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi had requested in the planning stages for the national park, were not met in the case of concessions, although initiatives for commercial operations were not DOC's responsibility. In 1994, there was one iwi operation out of approximately 20 businesses. Under the employment category, by 1997 DOC staff at the Pipiriki and Taumarunui field centres were 95 percent Maori. However iwi were not employed during 1080 operations in 1995 and goat-culling in 1998. Under government policy, the position of Atawhai Kaupapa manager was established in Wanganui. Although Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi had several concerns about goats and the use of 1080 to control possum numbers, employment was the most pressing issue. They wanted consultation with DOC over the way 1080 was to be applied and the use of alternatives, like trapping, as the latter provided more employment opportunities. Although DOC said it was willing to train and employ iwi for monitoring 1080 drops, and to provide employment for goat culling, the department failed to do this on occasion.

Chapter ten examined several issues relating to the relationship between Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and differing Crown agencies involved with Whanganui National Park. These were, at different times, the Lands Department, the National Parks and Reserves Authority, the Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, DOC, and the TaranakilWanganui Conservation Board. The first issue was consultation with iwi. Consultation did not occur in the early planning stages for Whanganui National Parle Officials in the NP&RA were dismissive of iwi concerns. There was considerable discussion in the later planning stages and during the development of the Draft Management Plan. However the 1989 Management Plan did not allow for regular meetings between DOC and the 183

Whanganui River Maori Trust Board despite the goals for partnership expressed in section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 and the paper 'Te Urupare Rangapu, Partnership Perspectives' which were under discussion at the time. The consultation process was thus ad hoc and increasingly crisis-driven. The process was also affected by the fragmentation ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi. From the 1990s, the discussion process between DOC and Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi groupings was of a 'start-stop' nature. At times, such as the John Coull hut relocation and negotiation for Te Ranga Agreement, the consultation process achieved conclusions. At other times, consultation ceased. The second issue was Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi conditions regarding park board representation. Iwi conditions, which included representation from each ofthe three tupuna on the management board, have not been met. Possibly this has been partly responsible for the fragmentation ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, although this may have occurred as Tamahaki sought to realise land claim ownership aspirations. The third issue was the quality of the relationship between DOC in Wanganui and Whanganui Maori. Their relationship was difficult. All parties have made efforts at times to improve it through, for example, Te Ranga Forum Agreement in 1995. Friction in the relationship has been exacerbated by external factors such as the delay in settlement ofWaitangi Tribunal land claims and especially in the financial constraints and restructuring imposed on the department by successive governments. These impacted particularly on DOC's inability to employ more iwi members and on what iwi saw as the downgrading in status of the Pipiriki field centre. Pipiriki was important to Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi because they wanted it to become Whanganui National Park headquarters and the Maori Conservation Office. In my opinion, the root cause of the difficult relationship, which has been made manifest in many chapters of this report, was the polarity between the positions ofTe Atihaunui-a-Paparangi and the Department of Conservation. Te Atihaunui-a­ Paparangi, in arguing for a Maori national park, extended their claim from an equal role in management to control. Eventually they, on the one hand, wanted to achieve ownership, management and control ofWhanganui National Park and, on the other, DOC was required to meet its obligations to conservation goals in the interest of all New Zealanders, as the management agency for the park. DOC, however, is also obliged to give effect to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi. During the period of this research, late 1970s to 2000, these positions were not reconciled. Te Atihaunui-a- 184

Paparangi argued their case in the same determined manner that they had demonstrated since the Crown first acquired their lands as scenic reserves. 185

Bibliography

Primary Sources

U npublisbed Department o/Conservation Head Office, Wellington 0060 Box 1179 L&S 7114 Series NP 1 Sub series 4 Identification and Assessment of Possible National Park Areas Wanganui River, 4 volumes vol 1 2 September 1975 - 24 August 1983 vol 2 25 August 1983 - 4 September 1984 vol3 11 September 1984 - 14 October 1985 vol4 14 October 1985 - February 1986 0060 Box AX 0907 3NP7W, BP7W/411, 7W/1Il Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board Department O/Conservation, Wanganui Box 3 WR 11411 Newspaper Clippings vols 2-6 Box 3 WR 117 Ministerial Correspondence vols 1,2 Box 4 WR 2 Wanganui River Scenic Board. Board Membership and Meetings vols 1-7 Box 4 WR 211 Interim Maori Trust Board vols 1, 2 Box 5 WR 3B Wanganui River Reserves Board: Minutes of Meetings vol 2 Box 6 WR 4 Wanganui River Scenic Board River Control & Use vol 5 Box 10 WR 5/5 Management Plan Submissions vols 1-6 Box 10 WR 5/511 Management Plan Correspondence Box 12 WR 6/5 Huts - General Box 13 WR 1011 Trust Account Box 34 WR 35 Wanganui River Reserves. National Park Proposals vols 1-5 WR 35 Whanganui National Park vols 6, 7 Box 144 131177 S.R. John Coull Memorial Reserve, secs 113, 4/6, Blk XII, Heao S.D. vol 1 186

Box 149 13/223 S.R.Wanganui River vol 14 FAC 0101-01 Tieke FAC 0102-01 John Coull Hut LIAN 0052-01 Additions to National Parks MAO 0002 Te Ranga Forum MAO 0004-01, -02 Tamahaki MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy MAO 0101-01, -02 Tieke Marae MAO 0010 Treaty ofWaitangi Claims Wanganui Conservancy MAO 0021-01 Whanganui River Maori Trust Board

Whanganui River Maori Trust Board, Taumarunui Box Wanganui River Box Whanganui National Park File DOC Negotiations File Wanganui River File Wanganui River Proposed National Park File Whanganui National Park Minutes Wanganui River Reserve Trust Vol: 11 5/3/87-11

Material supplied by Patrick O'Sullivan in relation to Tamahaki Incorporation

Whanganui River Waitangi Tribunal Claim Wai 167, Documents B8, B8a, B8c, B15, B24

Official Publications New Zealand Gazette, 1958, 1986 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 1952, 1980 New Zealand Statutes, 1910, 1952, 1980, 1987, 1988, 1990

Newspapers Waimarino Bulletin, 10 February 1987 187

Web sites Environment Centre of Westem Australia, Graham Swan, Sodium Fluoroacetate (l080): An Environmental Poison - Or Valuable Ally?, June 2003, (http://www.ecwa.asn.au. 2 July 2003) New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association, Poisons and Toxins, undated, (http://www.deerstalkers.org.nz. 2 July 2003)

SECONDARY SOURCES

Unpublished Department of Lands and Survey, 'Crown Land Acquisitions (Wanganui River Region) 1881-1916. A Schedule of Acquisitions by the Crown from Original Maori Owners of Lands Within the Proposed Wanganui River National Park', Wellington, June 1983 ---, 'National Park Assessment. Wanganui River Basin', Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, November 1980 Feldman, Jim, 'A Plague of Possums: Environmental History of a Pest in New Zealand', Draft Report, [1997], Waitangi Tribunal Galbreath, Ross, 'Colonisation, Science and Conservation: the Development of Colonial Attitudes Toward the Native Life of New Zealand With Particular Reference to the Career ofthe Colonial Scientist Walter Lawry Buller (1838- 1906)' , PhD thesis, University of Waikato, 1989 Gould, Ashley, 'Investigation of the Circumstances of the Crown's Acquisition of an Area of Land Located on the Whanganui River and Associated with Tieke Hut', Report prepared for the Crown Law Office, 2 March 1994, (Wai 167 record of document, doc C14) Hamer, Paul, 'Commentary on Ashley Gould's Report Dated 2 March 1994 Regarding the Crown's Acquisition of Tieke', 12 July 1994, (Wai 167 record of document, doc E3) ---, 'The Crown's Purchase of the Waimarino Block and Related Issues', Report commissioned by the Treaty ofWaitangi Policy Unit, August 1992 Together with a Supplementary Report, October 1992, (Wai 167 record of document, doc B3) Harris, W. W., 'Three Parks: An Analysis of the Origins and Evolution of the New 188

Zealand National Parks Movement', MA thesis, University of Canterbury, 1970 Hellen, Jenny and Olsen, Kate, 'Archaeological Survey Proposed Wanganui River National Park', unpublished internal report, Department of Lands and Survey, 1984 Hodge, Robin, 'The Scenic Reserves of the Whanganui River 1891-1986', report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2002 (Wai 903 record of documents, doc A9) Hodge, Robin, 'Scoping Report on the Creation and Management of the Whanganui River Scenic Reserves and the Whanganui National Park 1890s - 1990s, report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal, 2002 (Wai 903 record of documents, doc A4) Marr, Cathy, 'Whanganui Land Claims: Historical Overview', Office of Treaty Settlements, 1995, (Wai 48 record of documents, doc El) Star, Paul, 'T. H. Potts and the Origins of Conservation in New Zealand', MA thesis, University of Otago, 1992 Stopdijk, M, 'Between Two Acts. An Investigation Into Attitudes and Lobbying in New Zealand's National Parks Movement 1928-1952', MA thesis, University of Canterbury, 1988

Published Belich, James, Paradise Reforged A History of the New Zealanders From the 1880s to the Year 2000, Auckland, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 2001 Bowler, Peter J., The Norton History of the Environmental Sciences, New York, London, W. W. Norton and Co, 1992 Cessford, Gordon, Canoeist Satisfactions, Impact, Perceptions, and Attitudes toward Management Options on the Whanganui Journey, Wellington, Department of Conservation, 1998 Cleland, R. W., McCaskill, L. W., Lucas, P. H. C., World Centennial National Parks 1872-1972. A New Zealand View, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1971 Cobb, John, The Walking Tracks ofNew Zealand's National Parks, Auckland, Viking Pacific, Penguin, 1990 189

Dawson, Richard, The Treaty ofWaitangi and the Control ofLanguage, Wellington, Institute of Policy Studies, 2001 Department of Conservation, Investigation ofAdditions to Whanganui National Park. An Invitation to Comment, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, no date ---" Proposed Additions to Whanganui National Park, Public Discussion Paper, Wanganui, Department of Conservation, 1993 ---, Whanganui National Park. Draft Management Plan, Wanganui, Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, 1987 ---" Whanganui National Park Management Plan, Wanganui, Wellington National Parks and Reserves Board, 1989 Department of Lands and Survey, Proposed Wanganui River National Park. Report to National Parks and Reserves Authority, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, March 1984 ---, Wanganui River National Park Assessment, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1983 Galbreath, Ross, 'Displacement, Conservation and Customary Use of Native Plants and Animals in New Zealand', New Zealand Journal ofHistory, vol 36, no 1, 2002 Keey, Geoff, 'Support for Protecting Birds and Forest with 1080', Forest and Bird, 305, August 2002, P 4 Lucas, P. H. C., The Origins and Structure ofNational Parks in New Zealand, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1971 McClean, Robert and Smith, Trecia, The Crown and Flora and Fauna: Legislation, Policies, and Practices, 1983-98, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2001 Marr, Cathy, Hodge, Robin, White, Ben, Crown Laws, Policies, and Practices in Relation to Flora and Fauna, 1840 -1912, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2001 Milne, Christopher D. A., Handbook ofEnvironmental Law, Wellington, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, 1992 Nash, Roderick, Wilderness and the American Mind, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1973, revised edition Oliver, W. H., 'The Future Behind Us. The Waitangi Tribunal's Retrospective Utopia', in Histories, Power and Loss. Uses of the Past - A New Zealand Commentary, Andrew Sharp and Paul McHugh (eds), Wellington, Bridget 190

William Books, 2001, pp 9-29 ambler, Kathy, National Parks and Other Wild Places o/New Zealand, New Holland Publishers, London, 2001 ambler, Kathy and John, The Wanganui River. A Scenic, Historic and Wilderness Experience, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1982, Second Edition Park, Geoff, Effective Exclusion? An Exploratory Overview o/Crown Actions and Maori Responses Concerning the Indigenous Flora and Fauna, 1912-1983, Wellington, Waitangi Tribunal, 2001 Roche, M. M., A Guide to the New Zealand Parliamentary Debates for National Parks, Scenic and Allied Reserves, [no place], Department of Lands and Survey, [1980] Thorn, David, Heritage. The Parks o/the People, Auckland, Landsdowne Press, 1987 Thomson, Jane, Origins o/the National Parks Act, Wellington, Department of Lands and Survey, 1976 Waitangi Tribunal, The Whanganui River Report, Wai 167, Wellington, GP Publications, 1999 Wheen, Nicola, 'A History of Environmental Law', in Environmental Histories 0/ New Zealand, Eric Pawson and Tom Brooking (eds), South Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp 261-274 Young, David, Woven By Water. Histories/rom the Whanganui River, Wellington, Huia Publishers, 1998

* * * * * * * * * * * * *