BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

TOPIC 009 – RPS Chapter B5 – Addressing issues of significance to Mana Whenua

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of RPS Chapter B5 Mana Whenua – Addressing issues of significance to Mana Whenua

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report

STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF GRAEME JOHN MURDOCH ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT – B5 – ADDRESSING ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO MANA WHENUA

21 OCTOBER 2014

Index

1 Summary

2 Introduction

3 Code of Conduct

4 Scope

5 Expert Evaluation/Assessment

5(a) The meaning, significance and recognition of Māori cultural landscapes.

5(b) The threat to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region from the past, present and potential effects of subdivision, use and development.

5(c) The status of Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region, including its recognition and protection in resource management provisions and processes.

5(d) The need for a comprehensive PAUP policy framework to support the recognition and protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage in the Auckland region, other submitters concerns – Conclusions and Recommendations.

1. SUMMARY

1.1 My statement of evidence addresses:

(a) The meaning, significance and recognition of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, including ‘tangible and ‘intangible’ values, and the inclusion of references to them in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement (PAUP RPS) (Issue 1);

(b) The past and ongoing threat to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region from development, urbanisation, under-recording and inappropriate recognition in resource management processes (Issue 2);

(c) The evolving status of Māori cultural heritage, in particular in resource management provisions and processes (Issue 3); and

(d) The need for a comprehensive PAUP RPS policy framework to support an appropriate level of recognition and protection of Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region (Issue 4).

1.2 In regard to these matters I reach the following conclusions:

Issue 1 - The meaning, significance and recognition of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, including ‘tangible and ‘intangible’ values, and the inclusion of references to them in the PAUP RPS

1.3 Māori undeniably hold a holistic view of the natural and physical world. This is the case for all the iwi and hapū of the Auckland region. From the named ‘cultural landscape’ that lies over the land and sea comes their very identity and cultural wellbeing. It provides meaning, order and stability to their lives. Without question Māori cultural landscapes include ‘tangible and intangible values’.

1.4 ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ have been recognised in the Auckland’s regional and district plans for several decades. They have been increasingly recognised by Government departments and national heritage agencies. Most importantly they have been recognised by iwi representatives, Māori professionals, and central and local government agencies through an increasing number of protocols and non-statutory documents. The recognition of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ is strongly supported by the region’s iwi agencies and by the Auckland Council’s advisory partnership agency the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB). I note that this latter agency was established under the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, with the express purpose of assisting the Auckland Council (Council) in making decisions, performing functions and exercising powers.

1.5 Recognition of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ in the PAUP RPS is fundamental to the achievement of the Council’s policy intentions relating to the identification, protection and

BF\51802818\2 | Page 1

enhancement of Mana Whenua culture and heritage, and to the protection of the ancestral relationship that Mana Whenua hold with this heritage.

Issue 2 - The past and ongoing threat to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region from development, urbanisation, under-recording, and inappropriate and inadequate recognition in resource management processes

1.6 It has long been recognised that Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region has been threatened by development and growth, in particular within urban Auckland, on the coastal fringes of the region, and in association with major regional infrastructural development. In my view this heritage continues to be threatened by incomplete recognition, as well as by inappropriate and largely ineffectual resource management mechanisms and processes. The inclusion of the proposed broad Māori cultural policy provisions, schedules and overlays in the PAUP RPS is essential if the issue of ongoing threat to Māori cultural heritage is to be appropriately addressed.

Issue 3 - The evolving status of Māori cultural heritage, in particular in resource management provisions and processes

1.7 At section 5(c) of my evidence I provide a brief commentary, both as a historian and as a participant, on the evolving status of Māori cultural heritage in the region’s resource management provisions. This summary includes reference to the seminal importance of legislative change during the period 1975 - 1991, and the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal on Wai 8 (the Manukau Claim) in 1985. These imperatives significantly changed the context within which Māori cultural matters were evaluated and provided for in local government policy mechanisms and processes. For the first time Auckland’s local government agencies began to consult with Māori tribal groups over Māori environmental and cultural values and resource management issues.

1.8 The operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement 1999 (ARPS 1999) included Chapter 3 ‘Matters of Significance to Iwi’. The provisions of this chapter recognised the past and ongoing threat to Māori ancestral taonga from both urban development and ‘inappropriate processes and activities’. They also gave explicit recognition to the Māori holistic world view and the existence of an interconnected cultural landscape. Most importantly they provided the policy directive of ‘affording appropriate priority’ to the relationship of Tāngata Whenua with their ancestral taonga ‘when this conflicts with other values’.

1.9 In my opinion the district councils of the region were slow to respond to the comprehensive Māori cultural policy provisions of the ARPS 1999. As a result these policy directives were carried through to the district plans of the region in a highly inconsistent, intermittent and incomplete manner. This was in regard to both the mechanisms used for the identification of sites and areas of significance to Māori, and for their protection. In summary, twenty three

BF\51802818\2 | Page 2

years after the enactment of the RMA 1991, it can be said that Māori cultural heritage and ancestral relationships remain significantly under recognised and effectively unprotected in the Auckland region.

1.10 It has been my experience that after a period of hope in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the region’s Māori leaders and iwi agencies have become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned with resource management mechanisms and processes at all levels in the Auckland region. They have, however, begun to articulate their vision for the future recognition and protection of their taonga through their own policy and planning documents, through the Treaty settlement process and through the establishment of the IMSB. I note that at this watershed time for Māori in the Auckland region, iwi agencies and the ISMB have played an important role in the development of the Māori cultural provisions of the PAUP RPS and have lodged submissions in support of them.

Issue 4: The need for a comprehensive PAUP policy framework to support an appropriate level of recognition and protection of Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region

1.11 It has long been recognised that Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region has been threatened by ongoing development and urban growth, and most importantly through a lack of recognition and consideration in resource management mechanisms and processes. The inclusion of the proposed broad policy provisions, schedules and overlays in the PAUP RPS is essential if these ongoing threats are to be appropriately and effectively addressed. It is recognised that the schedules and overlays included in the PAUP are far from complete for many areas, and that they will have to be developed and refined through ongoing plan changes and references, for example, to iwi planning documents.

1.12 The inclusion of the PAUP RPS Chapter B5 policy mechanisms provides a critically important base point for the adoption of a ‘precautionary approach’ which is essential at this time in working toward the sustainable management of Mana Whenua cultural heritage. They also provide recognition of the new political dynamic resulting from the creation of one Council for Auckland, the establishment of the IMSB, the establishment of the Tāmaki Collective and the comprehensive settlement of the historical Treaty claims of Auckland’s thirteen iwi.

1.13 The inclusion of the PAUP RPS Chapter B5 Mana Whenua culture and heritage policy mechanisms, including schedules and overlays of Māori cultural heritage, will ultimately provide greater certainty for land owners and land managers and resource consent applicants. Most importantly the inclusion of these policy provisions will finally bring a degree of certainty for Mana Whenua that their ancestral relationships with their taonga in the Auckland region will be protected for present and future generations.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 3

1.14 In my opinion the comprehensive policy framework set out in PAUP RPS Chapter B5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage, broadly addresses the issues and concerns set out in my evidence. The retention of these policy mechanisms and processes would support an appropriate level of recognition and protection of Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My full name is Graeme John Murdoch. I hold the degree of M.A. (Hons) in History (1972) from Auckland University. I am a self-employed heritage consultant and writer and have operated in that capacity since 2006. Over the last six years my work has been focused on the production Treaty of Waitangi claim overview reports and the publication of local and regional histories relating to the Auckland region.

2.2 I was previously employed by the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) 1988 – 1996 as Council Historian. From 1996-2006 I held the position of Director Heritage at the ARC. My particular responsibilities in this role were the management of the Regional Council’s strategic outcomes relating to cultural heritage, natural heritage (including landscape), bio-security and Māori Relationships, including on the 40,000 ha. regional parks network. In this role I was directly involved in the development of the historic heritage and Māori policy provisions contained within the ARPS 1999, the Auckland Regional Plan Coastal 2004 (ARPC) and district plans throughout the Auckland region.

2.3 I served on the Crown appointed Auckland Conservation Board for two terms between1993- 1998. I have been a member of the Auckland Council Heritage Advisory Panel since 2011, and a member of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Research Advisory Panel since 2013.

2.4 I have been proficient in the Māori language since my youth and have been associated with tikanga Māori (traditional Māori customs and practices) throughout my life. Most importantly I have enjoyed a lifelong association with many of the Māori communities of the Auckland region, and have been privileged to learn of their complex and enduring relationships with their ancestral lands, waters and other taonga. I have written and lectured widely on the history of the Auckland region, particularly its Māori history, for over thirty years.

2.5 I have been engaged by the Council to provide evidence in relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) Chapter B - RPS Mana Whenua policy provisions.

2.6 I have attached a more detailed description of my qualifications and relevant experience as Attachment A.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 4

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note 2014 and have prepared my evidence in accordance with that code. I confirm that my evidence is within my areas of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of others. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express below. I am authorised to present this Statement of Evidence on behalf of the Council.

4. SCOPE

4.1 I have been asked by the Council to prepare evidence in relation to the PAUP RPS Chapter B5 – Addressing Issues of Significance to Mana Whenua – Ngā Take Mātua ā ngā Ahikā-roa mai i tāwhiti.

4.2 I have not been involved in the production of the PAUP – RPS Chapter B5 policy provisions, and have only provided the Council with advice in relation to them since mid-September 2014.

4.3 I have not relied on any other Council witnesses while preparing my brief of evidence.

4.4 The issues raised in submissions that I am responding to in my evidence concern:

(a) The retention or deletion of Chapter B5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage;

(b) The retention or deletion of references to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, and ‘tangible and intangible’ values; and

(c) The provision for ‘sites and places of value or significance to Mana Whenua’, including schedules and overlays.

4.5 My statement of evidence addresses the following matters:

(a) The meaning and significance of Māori cultural landscapes;

(b) The threat to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region from the past, present and potential effects of subdivision, use and development;

(c) The evolving status of Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region, including its recognition and protection in resource management provisions and processes; and

(d) The need for a comprehensive PAUP policy framework to support the protection of sites of Māori cultural heritage value in the Auckland region.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 5

Relevant documentation reviewed

4.6 As part of my preparation for this hearing I have read and had regard to the relevant provisions of the PAUP. I have also read and had regard to submissions from all parties to the PAUP RPS Chapter B5.4. Other particularly relevant material that I have considered includes:

 Tapuwae – The Māori Heritage Council Statement on Māori Heritage – a Vision For Places of Maori Heritage, http://www.heritage.org.nz/resources/tapuwae

 Te Aranga Māori Cultural Landscape Strategy, http://www.tearanga.Maori.nz

 Auckland Design Manual – Te Puka Whakatairanga i a Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland Council, 2013

 Kaitiakitanga o nga ngahere pohatu : Kaitiakitanga of urban settlements, Landcare Research NZ Ltd., 2011

 ‘Onehunga Heritage Survey – A preliminary summary of Māori ancestral relationships’, G. Murdoch, Auckland Council, 2013

 Te Maori – Maori Art from New Zealand Collections, S.M. Mead (ed.), Heinemann, 1984

 Volcanoes of Auckland, The Essential Guide, B.W. Hayward, G. Murdoch, G. Maitland, Auckland University Press, 2011

 Bannockburn Heritage Landscape Study – Science for Conservation, J. Stephenson, H. Bauchop, P. Petchey, Department of Conservation, 2004

 The decision of the Environment Court on an appeal by the Waiareka Valley Preservation Society v Waitaki District Council, C058/2009, [2009] EnvC 191, 14 August 2009

 The decision of the Environment Court, 2010 NZEnvC 211, regarding the Wairoa River Maritime Village Appeals, 22 June 2010

 The decision of the Environment Court on appeals to Proposed Plan Changes 14 (Māngere Gateway Heritage Area), ENV-2010-AKL-000034, ENV- 2010-AKL-000027, ENV-2010-AKL-000029, ENV-2010-AKL-000036, 28 March 2011

BF\51802818\2 | Page 6

5. EXPERT EVALUATION / ASSESSMENT

5(a) The meaning, significance and recognition of Māori cultural landscapes

5.1 Eighteen submitters request the deletion of Chapter B5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage. Several submitters including Kiwi Rail, Trustpower, Ports of Auckland, Westfield and Auckland International Airport Ltd., seek the removal of references to Māori ‘cultural landscapes’. Eleven submitters, including iwi representatives and the IMSB, request the retention of the chapter. This latter group of submitters also generally support references in the RPS to Māori ‘cultural landscapes’.

5.2 The policy provisions of PAUP RPS Chapter B Section 5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua Culture and Heritage, are intended to achieve the identification, protection and enhancement of Mana Whenua cultural heritage, and the relationship that Mana Whenua hold with this cultural heritage. In my opinion, acknowledgement of the fact that the Māori iwi (tribes) and hapū (sub tribes) of the Auckland region view their rohe (ancestral domains) as integrated ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, is fundamental to the achievement of these central policy outcomes. I emphasise here that the Chapter B 5.4 policy provisions are not only intended to identify and protect Māori cultural heritage places and areas, but also to protect and enhance the ancestral relationship that Māori hold with these taonga.

5.3 It has been my experience since childhood that, without exception, the iwi and hapū of the Auckland region, view their ancestral rohe in a holistic manner as integrated ‘cultural landscapes’. This of course applies to not only to ‘landscapes’, but also to the seaways that surround the mainland and its offshore islands. The resources of the land and the sea are seen as being inextricably linked as exemplified by the following traditional whakataukī (proverbial saying).

“He whā tāwhara ki uta; he kiko tāmure ki tai” “The edible bracts of the kiekie on the land; the flesh of the snapper in the sea”

5.4 From the ‘cultural landscapes’ of the region come the very identity of the region’s tribal groups who have occupied it for over eight centuries. These ‘cultural landscapes’ are also seen as providing physical and cultural wellbeing to those iwi and hapu associated with them.

“Te toto o te tangata, he kai; te oranga o te tangata, he whenua” Food supplies humans with their physical wellbeing; while their spiritual wellbeing comes from the land”. 1

5.5 It has been my experience that the existence of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, and their fundamental importance to Māori identity and wellbeing, has long been recognised by Māori

1 Traditional Māori whakataukī or proverbial saying.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 7

who hold special knowledge of the Māori world. The eminent Māori scholar Professor Sir Hirini Moko Mead explains the importance of the physical and cultural landscape to Māori identity thus –

“A mountain is part of the landscape, it is a reference point, a known landmark to which is attached some cultural meaning…(mountains) have special significance to members of tribes for whom these names are immediately recognisable as symbols of their people. Together with other named features of the land – rivers, lakes, blocks of land, promontories, holes in the ground, fishing grounds, trees, burial places, and islands – they form a cultural grid over the land which provides meaning, order, and stability to human existence. Without the fixed grid of named features we would be total strangers on the land – lost souls with nowhere to attach ourselves.2

5.6 From childhood I have come to understand the importance of the ‘cultural landscape’ that provides ‘meaning, order, and stability’, to the iwi and hapū of the Auckland region. This is illustrated by pepeha (proverbial sayings) that are constantly heard on marae. These sayings are focused on the treasured landmarks, in particular mountains, rivers and seaways, that identify individual tribal groups and their ancestral rohe. By way of example only, I refer here to pepeha relating to Te Kawerau ā Maki in the north and Ngāi Tai in the south.

Kō Puketōtara te maunga – Puketōtara is the mountain Kō Waitākere te awa – Waitākere is the river Kō Te Au o Te Whenua te tangata – Te Au o Te Whenua is the ancestor Kō Te Kawerau ā Maki te iwi – Te Kawerau ā Maki are the people.

Kō Kohukohunui te maunga – Kohukohunui is the mountain Kō Wairoa te awa – Wairoa is the river Kō Maraetai te moana – Maraetai is the seaway Kō Tainui te waka – Tainui is the ancestral canoe Kō Ngāi Tai te iwi – Ngāi Tai are the people.

5.7 In whaikōrero (oratory) on the marae, the tohu (landmarks) that define the ancestral rohe of a tribal group are on special occasions referred to in much more detail. Such oratory traverses the ‘cultural landscape’ of the iwi or hapū concerned. It may be part of an introductory speech, or may take the form of a tauparapara (introductory incantation or chant), or a waiata (song or chant). I include here an excerpt as an example of such oratory used by Ngāti Manuhiri. It was used to introduce their Treaty of Waitangi historical claim report, and to address Crown representatives when settling their historical claims at Ōmaha Marae, Leigh, in 2012. I append a full version and a translation as Attachment B.

Ka piki whakarunga au ki Tamahunga, Titiro matatau āku mata ki te matarae tapu, kō Panetiki, Ka tū tonu Te Whai nui, ara kō Te Hauturu ō Toi, ki waho rā.

2 Te Maori – Maori Art From New Zealand Collections, S.M. Mead, 1984, p. 20. The underlined section is my emphasis.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 8

Kei te puaha ō Waiwerawera e tū tonu ana te motu tapu, kō Mahurangi,

Ka huri ki Matakanakana, ki ngā tohu maha ō ngā tūpuna, ara kō Matatūahu, kō Te Tokatū, kō Pukenihinihi, ā, kō Tītīrangi, kō Pukematekeo ki uta, Kei te takutaimoana, kō Koekoeā, kō Piupiu, kō Kohuroa, kō Ōmaha tūturu, ā, ka tae mai ki Te Wakatūwhenua, ā, ki Te Hāwere ā Maki, ī, ē.

5.8 This excerpt from a much longer tauparapara may be translated as follows:

I ascend the ancestral mountain, Tamahunga (Mount Tamahunga near Matakana),

My eyes are drawn to the sacred headland of Panetiki (at the mouth of Ōmaha (Leigh Harbour)),

The great stingray, Te Hauturu ō Toi (Little Barrier Island), stands forever in the distance.

At the mouth of Waiwerawera (the Waiwera River) stands the sacred island Mahurangi.

I turn and look to Matakanakana (a fortified pā opposite the Sandspit, Matakana), and to the many surrounding landmarks of our ancestors, including: Matatūahu, Te Tokatū, Pukenihinihi, Tītīrangi, and look inland to Pukematekeo. On the coastline I look to north to Koekoeā, to Piupiu, to Kohuroa (Matheson’s Bay), and on to Ōmaha tūturu (Leigh Harbour), and ultimately arrive at Te Wakatūwhenua and Te Hāwere ā Maki (Goat Island).”3

5.9 I have included this oratorical excerpt to illustrate the geographical breadth and all- encompassing nature of the knowledge held by iwi in relation to their ancestral rohe in the Auckland region.

5.10 Most importantly I have also included it to illustrate the fact that after nearly 175 years of European settlement, these evocative ‘cultural landscapes’ remain largely unrecognised by the wider community. Many of the significant places within them have been renamed or misnamed, or are not seen on modern maps. Only a very small percentage of them are identified in PAUP RPS overlay maps. In the absence of provisions such as those contained in the PAUP RPS Chapter B5.4, they have effectively disappeared from view and have been overlain by a more modern European focused ‘cultural landscape’.

5.11 In addition, after several generations of district and regional planning, and 23 years after the enactment of the RMA 1991, these iconic and defining Māori cultural features of our regional landscape remain largely unrecognised and unprotected in the region’s planning instruments. I expand on this matter at 5(b) and 5(c) in my evidence below.

5.12 The PAUP defines ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ as:

“Areas encompassing natural or built elements, physical and metaphysical markers and sacred places. These are embedded in the whenua and give meaning and content to Mana Whenua lives and identity, relationships and dependence with tūrangawaewae on a daily basis. These include the iconic mountains, rivers, lakes and harbours. Māori cultural landscapes provide the context,

3 Translated by Graeme Murdoch in consultation with the late Laly Paraone Haddon.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 9

narratives and cultural memory of the sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua indicating an existing or historical Mana Whenua presence.”

5.13 I consider that this definition correctly describes ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ as I know them, both in terms of their breadth, and their application to both physical and metaphysical elements of the landscape.4

5.14 I would emphasise, here, that it has been my experience that Māori ancestral and cultural relationships are not only held with the visible landscape and its associated archaeological features, but also with what I refer to as a ‘landscape of memories’. From childhood I have learned of many important tohu (landmarks) that exemplify this, in particular within the ancestral domain of Te Kawerau ā Maki in the Waitākere Ranges area. The quote below, and Figure 1 which is associated with it, provide an example of such a landscape at Waikarekare (Karekare).

Figure 1

From Waikarekare – the Bay of the Boisterous Seas, G. Murdoch, in West Auckland Remembers, Vol.2, J. Northcote Bade (ed.), WAHS, 1992

“According to Kawerau tradition Karekare has been occupied by humans since Maui first hauled up ‘Te Ika roa ā Maui’ or his long fish (the North Island). This lengthy occupation is reflected in the

4 I note here that the word “content” in the second sentence should more correctly be “context”. This should be revised in the PAUP text.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 10

numerous pre-European archaeological sites that are found in the Karekare area. These archaeological sites are, however, merely one element in the area’s Māori history. It is the place names and the historical associations with them that bring the landscape to life. The mosaic of Māori place names that overlays the Karekare area reflects the ancient history of human occupation that extends back over a millennium. These beautiful names describe the topography of the land, its natural resources and their usage. They also commemorate specific ancestors and traditions. To the Kawerau people they are tohu or landmarks that provide a tangible and ongoing link with the past. They are symbols of their mana whenua just as they were to their ancestors before them.”5

5.15 I note here that only two of the thirty sites identified in Figure 1, namely Te Āhua ō Hinerangi (a headland pā) and Wharengarahi (a rock shelter and wāhi tapu), are included as ‘sites and places of value to Mana Whenua’ in the PAUP RPS overlay maps.

5.16 I would add that the cultural landscape, with which Māori hold an ancestral relationship, is of fundamental importance to Māori identity whether the land remains in Māori ownership or not. In my experience this importance remains even when ‘tohu’, or landmarks of significance, have been modified, or even destroyed by development. This is particularly the case for tribal groups associated with urban Auckland, where so many of area’s landscape features have been modified or destroyed, or covered by urban development. It has been my experience that orators from the Māori papakāinga of Ihumātao, Māngere, continue to acknowledge the volcanic cones, Maungataketake (Elletts Mount), Ōtuataua and Moerangi (Mount Gabriel), even though they have been quarried away almost in their entirety (see Figure 2). Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei orators at Ōrākei Marae also regularly acknowledge the numerous places of traditional importance that are overlain by urban development in the central city. I explore this matter further below at 5(b).

Figure 2

‘Manukau’s Lost Heritage’, B. Hayward, Wednesday magazine, NZ Herald, 27 September 1995

5 ‘Waikarekare – the Bay of the Boisterous Seas’, G. Murdoch, in West Auckland Remembers, Vol.2, J. Northcote Bade (ed.), WAHS, 1992, p. 10

BF\51802818\2 | Page 11

5.17 Here I provide brief commentary on my experience of the wider recognition of Māori cultural landscapes in Auckland and New Zealand. I observe that the ancestral relationship held by Māori with their ancestral lands and other taonga is recognised as a matter of national importance in Part II of the RMA, and that Māori cultural values have been given increasing recognition in legislation and New Zealand case law. I will not, however, comment further on these matters which can be discussed by those more expert in this field.

5.18 In my former roles as ARA/ARC historian and ARC Director Heritage I was directly associated with the development of the region’s Māori local government policy provisions 1988-2006. From the late 1980s I witnessed the increasing recognition given to Māori cultural matters and values, including to rudimentary ‘cultural landscapes’, within the planning instruments of the Auckland region, albeit inconsistently, intermittently and in an incomplete manner. I examine this matter further at 5(c) below.

5.19 It was also my experience, both in my professional capacity and as a member of the Auckland Conservation Board, that from this time Crown agencies gave increasing recognition to these matters. This was well illustrated, for example, by the Māori policy provisions of the Department of Conservation (DoC) Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) for the Auckland region. This recognition was largely the result of a greater commitment by the Crown and the regions’ local government agencies to ‘Māori Culture’ stemming from the hearings and subsequent recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Wai 8 Manukau Claim, July 1985. Again I examine these matters further at 5(c) below.

5.20 Over the last decade I have observed the leading role played by the Ministry For The Environment - Manatū Mō Te Taiao (MFE) in the explicit recognition and promotion of broad ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ following their inclusion in a report by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner For The Environment in 1996.6

5.21 The term ‘cultural landscape’ was initially adopted by Maru Whenua, the Māori arm of MFE as a more appropriate term than ‘urban design’ when describing the traditional Māori view of the land around them and their cultural relationship with it. This term was included in the MFE New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (UDP) launched in March 2005. The ARC and five of Auckland’s former district councils were among 183 local and central government signatories to the UDP. The Council became a signatory to this protocol on 10 March 2011.

5.22 Following the 2005 UDP launch, MFE, in conjunction with Te Puni Kōkiri, called a national hui to discuss the protocol with Māori at Te Aranga Marae, Hastings. This hui included Māori professionals from design disciplines and the resource management sector, and iwi representatives from throughout New Zealand. An important outcome of the Te Aranga hui was the development of the Te Aranga Cultural Landscapes Strategy. This non statutory

6 Historical and Cultural Heritage Management in New Zealand- Background Report: Case Studies, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner For The Environment, June 1996

BF\51802818\2 | Page 12

document has continued to be refined and promoted by Māori design and resource management professionals, and has been increasingly recognised by local government agencies in New Zealand. It sets out outcome-based design principles founded in intrinsic Māori values, “to support Territorial Authorities in developing successful and sustainable relationships with iwi, hapū and whanau in defining and developing cultural landscapes.”7 In relation to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ the strategy states,

“As Māori we have a unique sense of our cultural landscape. It includes past, present and future. It includes both physical and spiritual dimensions. It is how we express ourselves in our environments, it connects whenua, moana and awa through whakapapa, it includes both urban and rural, it is not just where we live, it is who we are.”8

5.23 The Council, has adopted the Te Aranga Cultural Landscapes Strategy and its concept of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ in its development and promotion of the Auckland Design Manual – Te Whakatairanga i a Tāmaki Makaurau.9 This non statutory document provides a best practice resource for design and the built environment in Auckland. It also “provides supplementary guidance to the PAUP on design matters.”10

5.24 Finally I note that through my involvement in the negotiation of the settlement of several of the Auckland region’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims I have witnessed the increasing acknowledgement by Government departments of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, in particular in the development of cultural redress settlement provisions. It is clear that as the settlement of Auckland’s historical Treaty claims nears completion, it is more important than ever that the region’s local government policy provisions reflect this new political reality and dynamic.

5(b) The threat to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region from the past, present and potential effects of subdivision, use and development

5.25 The modification and destruction of, and ongoing threat to, Māori cultural heritage in the post 1840 period has been well documented. As a result of land use, resource extraction, the development of regional infrastructure, and urban development, the ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ of the Auckland region have been dramatically altered over the last 175 years. This has particularly been the case within urban Auckland, on the coastal fringes of the region, and in association with major regional infrastructural development.

5.26 The scale of this modification and destruction was first quantified and described in part in the Operative ARPS, August 1999, and identified in that document, at 2.4.9 and 6.2.1, as a key strategic resource management issue in the Auckland region. The past and ongoing threat to Māori cultural heritage was also subsequently recognised as a key resource management issue in the region’s district plans, for example in the Manukau City Operative District Plan

7 Te Aranga Māori Cultural Landscapes Strategy, 2006, www.tearanga.maori.nz 8 Ibid. 9 www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz 10 Ibid.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 13

(2002) at 6.2.2. The Māori cultural heritage provisions in the PAUP RPS continue to respond to this long recognised resource management issue.

5.27 Within urban Auckland, the region’s volcanic field has been massively altered since 1840. As a co-author of the publication Volcanoes of Auckland – The Essential Guide, 2011, I described the long Māori occupation of, and enduring ancestral relationship with, Auckland’s volcanic field.11 The publication also described the ongoing modification and destruction of the volcanic field (see Figure 3) from 1840 until the present day, for the large scale extraction of rock and aggregate, the development of water sources and reservoirs, the development of water-powered mills, the construction of military fortifications, agricultural development, urbanisation, and for public recreational use.

Figure 3

From Volcanoes of Auckland – The Essential Guide, B. Hayward, G. Murdoch, G. Maitland, 2011

5.28 The Auckland region’s coastlines, in particular its eastern coastline, have also been extensively impacted by reclamation, discharges, foreshore stabilisation, resource extraction, marine farming, road construction and urban development. As with the volcanic field this has again impacted on numerous places of cultural significance to Māori, and in some cases on highly significant ‘Māori cultural landscapes’.

11The volcanic field not only includes the iconic volcanic cones, but also explosion craters, lava flows and reefs, lava caves, fossil forests, and tuff deposits and volcanic loam soils.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 14

5.29 A particularly illustrative example of this is provided by the modification of the Devonport foreshore which has considerable significance to many of the iwi of the region, and in particular to the Tainui tribes. This now highly developed foreshore area is associated in tradition with the earliest phases of Māori settlement in Tāmaki Makaurau, with the arrival of the ancestral voyaging canoe, Tainui, with many subsequent important historical events, and with Māori occupation until the early 1840s. Devonport contains a remarkably well documented ‘Māori cultural landscape’ (see Figure 4 and Attachment C) that has only very recently begun to be recognised by local government and the wider community. It is still not, however, adequately identified or protected.

5.30 I note here that only eight individual ‘sites and places of value or significance’ to Mana Whenua’ at Devonport are included in the PAUP map overlays. In my opinion this does not adequately recognise what is now a well-documented ‘cultural landscape’. Nevertheless, this provision does provide a positive starting point from which to begin the appropriate recognition and sustainable management of this highly significant ‘Māori cultural landscape’, and of the enduring ancestral relationship that iwi hold with it.

Figure 4

From G. Graham, ‘Tainui – Her Visit to Waitemata and Tamaki (as narrated by Maihi Te Kapua Te Hinaki in 1894), J.P.S. Vol. 60, 1951

5.31 In addition to the volcanic field and the coastal environment, a large part of rural Auckland has also been modified since the 1840s by timber milling, resource extraction, residential development and roading, and in particular by pastoral farming. A significant portion of the rural area has been preserved in Crown and local government reserves, however, most is still privately owned. It has been my experience that iwi and hapū still retain a large body of

BF\51802818\2 | Page 15

knowledge pertaining to the ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ of rural Auckland, even though it has been largely inaccessible to them for well over a century.

5.32 Archaeological survey has been completed over much of rural Auckland, although there are still large gaps in this work, in particular in rural Rodney, the Āwhitu peninsula, and on the outer islands of the Hauraki Gulf. Until relatively recently archaeological survey was often undertaken by both professional and amateur archaeologists, with little meaningful Māori consultation or direct involvement. As a result these archaeological sites and areas have been recorded and evaluated primarily from a scientific perspective.

5.33 Nevertheless, a significant proportion of these formally recorded archaeological sites and areas are associated with over eight centuries of Māori occupation. They make up the majority of ‘sites and places of value and significance to Mana Whenua’ included in the PAUP map overlays. It is clear, however, that a very large number of sites and places of significance to Māori, in both rural and urban Auckland, have not been captured by the archaeological survey process.12 That said, the PAUP map overlays do form a solid foundation for the ultimate recognition and sustainable management of these ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ and the enduring ancestral relationship that the iwi and hapū of the region hold with them.

5.34 Within many parts of urban Auckland the threat to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ has not arisen primarily from the physical modification of the landscape, but rather as a result of modification by urban development. Here the Māori cultural landscape has become overlain by a more recent landscape layer dominated by European built heritage and place names. In the process the earlier cultural landscape and the Māori ancestral relationship with it, has largely disappeared from view. As a result this cultural heritage has often been ignored in local government planning mechanisms and resource management processes, and only considered when raised by iwi in response to development proposals.

5.35 In 2013 I was engaged by the Council to work with iwi agencies to identify ‘places and areas of significance to iwi’ in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Area, and in the Balmoral and Onehunga ‘growth areas’. What emerged from this study was a rich history of enduring Māori relationships with these places, and an absolute confirmation of the fact that iwi continue to view these areas as integrated ‘Māori cultural landscapes’. This is the case even where these landscapes have been overlain by urban development.

5.36 An excellent example of this was provided by a study13 of the Onehunga area which is highly urbanised, and features a valued European built heritage landscape. It was confirmed by iwi that all of Onehunga was covered by a mosaic of traditional Māori placenames (see Figure

12 An example of a large area where iwi and professional archaeologists have worked together to record both and ‘archaeological landscape’ and a holistic ‘Māori cultural landscape’ is provided in the PAUP overlays for the Māori owned Ōtakānini Tōpu block in the vicinity of Haranui and Tarawera Roads, South Head Kaipara 13‘ ‘Onehunga Heritage Survey – A preliminary summary of Māori ancestral relationships’, G. Murdoch, 2013

BF\51802818\2 | Page 16

5). Within this ‘cultural landscape’ some sites are part of the ‘landscape of memories’ while several physical sites of significance also remain. They include: Koheraunui and Whataroa (Monte Cecilia Park), the Onehunga Springs (Waihīhī and Te Puna ā Taihaua), the Waikaraka Springs, Te Hōpua ā Rangi (Gloucester Park explosion crater) and the Onehunga foreshore. This latter area has particular significance because of its documented association with many generations of Māori settlement, and because of its association with the Tainui rangatira and first Māori King, Potatau Te Wherowhero. Recognition and protection is sought for these sites by iwi, with a level of protection having been achieved for the Onehunga foreshore as part of a restoration programme undertaken by iwi and community agencies in partnership with the Council and the NZ Transport Agency.

Figure 5

From ‘Onehunga Heritage Survey – A preliminary summary of Māori ancestral relationships’, G. Murdoch, 2013

5.37 I was surprised to see that only two of the places and areas of significance identified by iwi within the Onehunga ‘Māori cultural landscape’ during the 2013 study, have been included in the PAUP map overlays. Nevertheless, it is my firm opinion that this and other recent

BF\51802818\2 | Page 17

Auckland Council initiated cultural and historic survey studies deserve particular commendation. They mark a turning point in the recognition and sustainable management of ‘Māori cultural landscapes in Auckland’. In addition the policy provisions that they inform, at both PAUP and local board level, provide an important beginning point in this process.

5(c) The status of Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region, including its recognition and protection in resource management provisions and processes

5.38 Here I provide an observation on the evolving status accorded to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region, including its recognition and protection in resource management provisions and processes. This perspective is a personal one made as a historian and gained over nearly 30 years direct involvement in the process. While I comment on the changing status afforded Māori culture in the region’s resource management provisions and processes, I make no attempt to evaluate or interpret them from a planning perspective.

5.39 It is my recollection that the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the revision of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 significantly changed the context within which Māori cultural matters were evaluated and provided for in local government policy mechanisms and processes. This was clearly reflected in the review of the Auckland Regional Planning Scheme (ARPS) which took place 1976 – 1982. For the first time Auckland’s local government agencies, led by the Auckland Regional Authority (ARA), began to consult with Māori tribal groups over Māori environmental and cultural values and resource management issues. A positive outcome of this consultation was the inclusion of a ‘Māori Culture’ chapter in the proposed ARPS released in May 1982.

5.40 It was my experience that this remarkable new policy provision and the commitment of local government to it signalled hope for the Māori communities that I was associated with. They had worked successfully with the ARA to gain the inclusion of the following proposed ‘key principle’ and policy directive,

“7.4 It is a key principle for the continued existence of Māori culture that a commitment should be made not only by the Māori people themselves, but through the support of established institutions and acknowledgement of their unique position both nationally and internationally.

7.5 Public Authorities will acknowledge the unique and special position of Māori culture and encourage and support its continued existence.”14

5.41 Most importantly this document produced over 40 years ago recognised, “the unique and pronounced relationship that Māori people have with the physical environment.”15 The proposed ARPS 1982 also included detailed policy provisions relating to: the recognition and provision for the relationship of Māori with their ancestral land, the protection of wāhi tapu

14 Proposed Auckland Regional Planning Scheme, Section One, Auckland Regional Authority, May 1982, 7.4-7.5 15 Ibid., 7.6

BF\51802818\2 | Page 18

(including urupā or cemeteries), the retention of traditional Māori place names and their reinstatement where possible, the protection of the context and functions of existing marae communities, and promotion of the establishment of new marae. In addition the document included an associated chapter setting out detailed policy provisions for the recognition and protection of ‘historic heritage’, including ‘archaeological and traditional sites, and ‘objects of cultural worth to Māori’.

5.42 When the ARPS became operative in July 1988, the historic heritage chapter had been removed in its entirety and the provisions of the ‘Māori Culture’ chapter had been considerably diminished as a result of appeals to the Planning Tribunal. Through a narrow legal interpretation of the meaning of ‘Māori ancestral land’, these innovative policy provisions had been restricted in their application to the very small remaining areas of ‘Māori owned’ land in the region. In my experience this provided a major setback in the recognition and protection of both historic and cultural heritage in the Auckland region that was to last for a generation. I also recall that this legal interpretation and its consequences sat uneasily with the ARA, and that they were criticised by the Waitangi Tribunal chaired by Chief Judge E.T.J. Durie and including P.B. Temm QC.

5.43 In this regard, and in regard to the PAUP RPS matters that are presently being considered, it is instructive to note the following statement made by the Waitangi Tribunal in its landmark finding on the Manukau Claim in July 1985.16 In relation to the need for ‘attitudinal change’ from government and local bodies the Tribunal noted -

“Often specific legislative authority to acknowledge Māori interests is narrowly construed to mean that acknowledgement must not exceed the strict terms of that authority. Section 3(1)(g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 for example requires Māori values with regard to ‘ancestral land’ to be brought into account in the preparation of District and Regional Schemes. The Auckland Regional Authority has sought to go as far as it can to identify Māori concerns and provide for them, but it is bound by legal opinion based on decisions of the Planning Tribunal, that ‘ancestral land’ refers only land that is technically Māori land but does not include ancestral land owned by Māoris that is not technically Māori land. Furthermore the Tribunal has said that it refers to land and not seas. On that basis section 3(1)(g) has a limited application, especially in this district [Auckland] where most of the Māori land has gone.”17

5.44 Albeit that the ‘Māori Culture’ policy provisions in the notified ARPS 1982 had been significantly diminished, central and local government agencies in the Auckland region had begun to work much more closely with Māori in the Auckland region. This was a result of the extensive consultation that had taken place, but most importantly in my experience as a result of significant local government involvement in Waitangi Tribunal hearings on Wai 8, the Manukau Claim, July-November 1984. It was also the direct result of the short-lived addition

16 I assisted some of the Māori witnesses at this hearing in 1984 and attended associated wananga (traditional hui). 17 Finding of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim, Waitangi Tribunal, July 1985, p. 114

BF\51802818\2 | Page 19

of Māori members to the ARA 1986-1989, under the provisions of the Local Government Amendment (No.2) Act 1986.

5.45 The enactment of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 raised the status of the relationship of Māori with their ancestral taonga to a matter of national importance in resource management mechanisms and processes. This was reflected in the provisions of the ARPS 1999 which contained Chapter 3 ‘Matters of Significance to Iwi’. I was directly involved in the extensive consultation and drafting process undertaken for the production of this document. As an underlying resource management issue the ARPS 1999 identified the past and ongoing threat to Māori ancestral taonga from both urban development and ‘inappropriate processes and activities’. In the explanatory text, at 3.2.1, it also gave explicit recognition to the Māori holistic world view and the existence of an interconnected cultural landscape. At 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 the ARPS 1999 also set out strong resource management directives aimed at ensuring the ‘cultural wellbeing of Māori’. Most importantly these policy directives included the important principle of ‘affording appropriate priority’ to the relationship of Tāngata Whenua with their ancestral taonga ‘when this conflicts with other values’.

5.46 In my former roles as ARA/ARC historian and ARC Director Heritage I was also directly associated with the development of the wider region’s Māori local government policy provisions 1988-2006. In my opinion the district councils of the region were slow to respond to the comprehensive Māori cultural policy provisions of the ARPS 1999. As a result these policy directives were carried through to the district plans of the region in a highly inconsistent, intermittent and incomplete manner. This was both in relation to mechanisms associated with the identification of sites and areas of significance to Māori, and in regard to their protection. The summary that follows below describes my experience of this process.

5.47 In my opinion the operative Waitākere City Council District Plan 2003 set an example for the region. It recognised the ancestral relationship of two iwi groups with the district and the holistic nature of this relationship. The plan included detailed text setting out this relationship, and most importantly included strong Māori cultural policy provisions. It also included maps of ‘iwi heritage areas’ which effectively identified expansive ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ covering much of the City.

5.48 The operative Auckland City District Plan, Isthmus Section 1999 and Central Area Section 2005, did not include a separate chapter for Māori resource management matters but rather integrated Māori policy provisions with various parts of the district plan. Many sites of significance to Māori were contained within schedules of significant geological or archaeological sites. Eight ‘Māori heritage sites’ were scheduled in the Isthmus Section and 13 in the Central Area section. No ‘Māori heritage sites’ have been scheduled in the Hauraki Gulf Islands Section of the district plan which became operative in 2013. In my opinion this remains a matter of considerable concern given the rate of development in these areas.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 20

5.49 The operative Manukau City District Plan 2002 set out comprehensive provisions relating to Māori and their cultural heritage. The plan explicitly recognised, at 6.2.2, the past and present adverse effects of development on ‘Tāngata Whenua and their relationship with taonga’. It also identified, for example at 2.2.1 and 6.2.2, the holistic and enduring nature of Tāngata Whenua relationships with their ancestral land in the wider Manukau district. In addition the plan introduced the Māngere-Puhinui Rural Zone, heritage and wāhi tapu zoning relating to the Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve and Puketūtū Island, and the Māngere Gateway Heritage Area. The Manukau City Council also assisted in the recent acquisition of Pūkaki Crater, and worked with Watercare Services Ltd. on ‘Project Manukau’ to undertake restoration projects in the vicinity of the former Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plant oxidation ponds. In spite of the Manukau City District Plan’s worthy Māori policy provisions, it has, however, been my direct experience that the Māori papakāinga communities of Māngere, Ihumātao and Pūkaki have continued to be negatively and significantly impacted by ongoing infrastructural and urban development, and the shift in Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) within what was a ‘rural zone’. I note that three groups associated with these marae communities have submitted in general support of the provisions of PAUP RPS Chapter B Section 5.4.

5.50 The operative North Shore City District Plan 2002 recognised the protection of ‘Māori traditional sites’ as a significant resource management issue. It also included policy provisions to protect archaeological sites, ‘to seek to identify’ Māori ‘significant places and sites’, and to develop controls to protect the ‘general locality’ of places of significance to Māori.

5.51 The operative Papakura District Plan 1999 included a chapter entitled ‘Māori Perspective’. It recognised the existence of ‘specific areas of significance to Māori’, including the general areas of ‘Hunua’ and the ‘Hingaia Stream catchment’. The plan did not, however, include any scheduling or mapping provisions for Māori cultural sites. Instead it sought that the protection of Māori cultural sites be achieved through the input of ‘iwi authorities’ to ‘resource consent and statutory planning processes’.

5.52 Neither of the two large rural district councils in the Auckland region, namely Rodney District Council and Franklin District Council, developed Māori cultural provisions in their district plans as envisaged in the ARPS 1999. The operative Franklin District Plan 2000 identified the difficulty of working with a number of iwi located in two regions, as well as the ‘sensitivity’ of Māori cultural information. The plan scheduled a number of historic and cultural heritage sites but included only nine Māori sites. The operative Rodney District Plan 2011 recognised the value of culture heritage to Māori and acknowledged the significant level of under recording for cultural heritage sites in the district. The plan stated as a resource management issue, at 17.2.6, that Māori regard all ancestral sites as being significant and therefore that

BF\51802818\2 | Page 21

‘ranking’ them was not a ‘valid technique’. The plan included a schedule of archaeological sites, including several former kāinga (village sites) and wāhi tapu. In relation to the identification and protection of Māori cultural heritage, however, the plan effectively placed the issue on hold. Instead it relied on a policy, 17.4.8, to develop ‘a process of identification and protection’ at a future date.

5.53 In summary, twenty three years after the enactment of the RMA, it can be said that Māori cultural heritage and ancestral relationships remain significantly under recognised and effectively unprotected in the Auckland region. It has been my experience that after a period of hope in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the region’s Māori leaders and iwi agencies have become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned with resource management mechanisms and processes at all levels in the Auckland region. They have, however, begun to articulate their vision for the future recognition and protection of their taonga through mechanisms like the ‘Te Aranga Māori Cultural Landscapes Strategy’, and through their own policy and planning documents.

5.54 Most importantly the iwi of the region have been able to describe their cultural heritage and landscapes, and to set out a future vision for them, through the historical Treaty claim settlement process. It is in my opinion of considerable relevance to a consideration of the Māori cultural provisions of the PAUP RPS to note the new political dynamic and reality associated with this complex process. Treaty settlements have been completed with Waikato–Tainui (the Raupatu Claim) (1995), Te Uri Ō Hau (2002), Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei (2012), Ngāti Manuhiri (2012), Ngāti Whātua ō Kaipara (2013) and the Tāmaki Collective (2014). Negotiations are also well advanced in the settlement of claims with Te Kawerau ā Maki, Marutūahu/Hauraki, Ngāti Rehua/Ngāti Wai ki Aotea, Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki, Te Ākitai, Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata.

5.55 In addition, the 13 iwi with historical Treaty claims in the Auckland region have developed a new and more unified political voice through the settlement of the Tāmaki Collective claim and the establishment of the IMSB. This latter agency was established under the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, with the express purpose of assisting the Council in making decisions, performing functions and exercising powers. I note that at this watershed time for Māori in the Auckland region, the ISMB has submitted in support of the Māori cultural provisions of the PAUP.

5(d) The need for a comprehensive PAUP RPS policy framework to support the recognition and protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage in the Auckland region, issues raised by submitters – Conclusions and Recommendations

5.56 Here I discuss the policy provisions of PAUP RPS Section B5.4 in response to higher level issues raised by submitters. I leave discussion of wider editorial matters and other more

BF\51802818\2 | Page 22

detailed provisions to other submitters and expert witnesses. In response to each issue I set out a conclusion and recommendation.

5(d).1 Issue 1: The retention or deletion of Chapter B5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage

5.57 The retention of this chapter has been sought by 11 submitters including iwi agencies and the IMSB. The deletion of the chapter has been sought by 18 submitters.

Conclusion

5.58 In my opinion, the policy framework of PAUP RPS Section B5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage meets Council’s legislative requirements under Part II of the RMA and a raft of other associated legislative imperatives. The inclusion of this section of the PAUP also takes into account iwi planning documents, and addresses a resource management issue that has been repeatedly articulated by the iwi of the region for several generations.

5.59 I consider that the objectives and policies also address the ongoing resource management issue of the threat to Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region resulting from past and ongoing development, urban growth, incomplete recognition and inappropriate and ineffectual resource management mechanisms and processes. Most importantly the inclusion of the PAUP RPS Section B5.4 provisions recognises the new political reality and dynamic associated with the settlement of the region’s historical Treaty claims. It is also fundamentally important that the Council’s advisory partnership agency, the IMSB, and many iwi agencies have submitted in support of these policy provisions.

Recommendation

5.60 I recommended that, subject to amendments for clarity and consistency proposed by other witnesses, that Chapter B5.4 Protection of Mana Whenua culture and heritage be retained for the reasons stated above.

5(d).2 Issue 2: The inclusion of references to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, and ‘tangible and intangible’ values

5.61 Five submitters seek the removal of all references to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ on the basis that they are described too broadly, insufficiently identified, not supported by appropriate planning mechanisms, and that they generate uncertainty for landowners, land managers and resource consent applicants. The inclusion of references to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ is supported by iwi agencies, the ISMB and the New Zealand Archaeological Association. Several submissions also question the inclusion of references to ‘tangible and intangible values’.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 23

Conclusion

5.62 As illustrated by numerous Māori cultural experts and authorities, by my statement of evidence, and by submissions from iwi over several decades, Māori undeniably hold a holistic view of the natural and physical world. This is the case for all the iwi and hapū of the Auckland region, without exception. From the named ‘cultural grid’ that lies over the land and sea comes their very identity and cultural wellbeing. This ‘cultural landscape’ provides meaning, order and stability to their lives. Without question Māori cultural landscapes include ‘tangible and intangible values’.

5.63 ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ were alluded to in ARPS 1999 and explicitly recognised in several of the region’s district plans. They have been increasingly recognised by Government departments, led by MFE, as well as by national heritage agencies like Heritage New Zealand and the NZ Archaeological Association. Most importantly they have been recognised by iwi representatives, Māori professionals, and central and local government agencies at a national level through the non-statutory ‘New Zealand Urban Design Protocol’, and through the ‘Te Aranga Māori Cultural Landscapes Strategy’. The Council is a signatory to the former document and has adopted the latter document in its own urban design manual.

5.64 Recognition of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ in PAUP RPS Section B5.4 is fundamental to the achievement of the Council’s policy intentions relating to the identification, protection and enhancement of Mana Whenua culture and heritage, and to the protection of the ancestral relationship that Mana Whenua hold with this heritage. The recognition of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’ is strongly supported by iwi agencies and the IMSB.

Recommendation

5.65 I recommend that references to ‘Māori cultural landscapes’, including ‘intangible and intangible values’ be retained for the reasons stated above.

5(d).3 Issue 3: The provision for ‘sites and places of value or significance to Mana Whenua’, including schedules and overlays

5.66 Submissions from 37 individuals and organisations relate to the provisions in Chapter 5B.4 for ‘sites and places of value or significance to Mana Whenua’, the inclusion of schedules and overlays, the robustness of the identification and assessment process, and potential impacts on landowner rights and resource consent processes. Four submissions request that these mechanisms be removed from the PAUP RPS. Submissions in support of the mechanisms have been received from iwi agencies, the NZ Archaeological Association and the IMSB.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 24

Conclusion

5.67 There is clearly a need for the inclusion of broad policy mechanisms in the PAUP RPS in order to support the recognition and protection of sites and places of significance to iwi. Here I make no distinction between places of ‘value’ and of ‘significance’, as they are all equally part of ‘Māori cultural landscapes’. These sites, places and areas may require differing levels of protection, but all at the very least require recognition. Without the inclusion of schedules and overlays in the PAUP RPS this outcome cannot be achieved.

5.68 It is recognised that the schedules and overlays included in the PAUP are far from complete for many areas, and that they will have to be developed and refined through ongoing plan changes and references, for example, to iwi planning documents.

5.69 It has long been recognised that Māori cultural heritage in the Auckland region has been threatened by ongoing modification and destruction through development and urban growth, and most importantly through a lack of recognition and appropriate consideration in resource management mechanisms and processes. The inclusion of the proposed broad policy provisions, schedules and overlays in the PAUP RPS is essential if this process is to be addressed adequately and appropriately. The inclusion of these policy mechanisms provides a critically important basis for the adoption of the ‘precautionary approach’ which is essential at this time in working toward the sustainable management of Mana Whenua cultural heritage. It also provides recognition of the new political dynamic resulting from the creation of one Council for Auckland, the establishment of the IMSB, the establishment of the Tāmaki Collective and the comprehensive settlement of Treaty claims of the thirteen iwi of Auckland.

5.70 The inclusion of these policy mechanisms, including schedules and overlays of Māori cultural heritage, will ultimately provide greater certainty for land owners and land managers and resource consent applicants. Here it should be pointed out that many of the sites and places identified in the schedules and overlays require recognition rather than absolute protection. Most importantly the inclusion of these policy provisions will finally bring a degree of certainty for Mana Whenua that their ancestral relationships with their taonga in the Auckland region will be protected for present and future generations.

Recommendation

5.71 It is recommended that both ‘sites of value and sites of significance to Mana Whenua’, be afforded protection in the PAUP RPS. It is also recommended that the provision for schedules and overlays be retained, with the proviso that they are refined through consideration of submissions on details relating to their implementation, and through future plan changes.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 25

“Toitū he whenua; whatungarongaro he tangata”

“The land remains when generations of people have disappeared”

Graeme John Murdoch

21 October 2014

BF\51802818\2 | Page 26

Attachment A

1.1 My full name is Graeme John Murdoch. I hold the degree of M.A. (Hons) in History (1972) History (1972) from Auckland University. I am a self-employed heritage consultant and writer and have operated in that capacity since 2006. I was employed by the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) 1988 – 1996 as Council Historian. From 1996-2006 I held the position of Director Heritage at the ARC. My particular responsibilities in this role were the management of the Council’s strategic outcomes relating to cultural heritage, natural heritage (including landscape), bio-security and Māori Relationships, including on the Council’s 40,000 ha. regional parks network.

1.2 I served on the Crown appointed Auckland Conservation Board for two terms 1993-1998. I have been a member of the Auckland Council Heritage Advisory Panel 2011- 2014, and a member of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Research Advisory Panel since 2013.

1.3 I have written and lectured widely on the history of the Auckland region, particularly its Māori history, for over thirty years. I was a co-author of A Field Guide to Auckland – Exploring the Region’s Natural and Historic Heritage, revised 2008. This publication includes site descriptions for publically accessible natural and historic heritage sites throughout the Auckland region, including the islands of the Hauraki Gulf. I was also the author of Dreamers of the Day – A history of Auckland’s regional parks, 2010, and co-author of Volcanoes of Auckland – The Essential Guide, September 2011. This latter publication provides detailed coverage of the geological and human history of the Auckland volcanic field.

1.4 I have written text for numerous site-based local histories and management plans, including accounts of Māori associations with many of Auckland’s regional parks and wider cultural landscapes in all parts of the Auckland region. Of particular relevance to this hearing, I have recently completed a detailed coverage of the Māori cultural heritage of the Balmoral area, the Onehunga area and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area. This work was undertaken for the Council in consultation with Tāngata Whenua representatives from Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Paoa, Te Ākitai, Ngāti Te Ahiwaru and Te Kawerau ā Maki.

1.5 I was employed by Auckland Regional Council (ARC) 1988-1996 as Council Historian. Between 1991 and 1996 I played a direct role in the development of the historic resource component of the ARC Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI) which is an electronic computer database of historic heritage sites, bibliographic sources and agencies for the Auckland region. This database was developed in co-operation with the district councils of the region, the Department of Conservation, the former New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA), landowners and iwi agencies. The CHI has continued to be developed by the Council with these parties until the present time.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 27

1.6 From 1996-2006 I held the position of Director Heritage at the ARC. My particular responsibilities in this role were the management of the Council’s strategic outcomes relating to cultural heritage, natural heritage (including landscape), bio-security and Māori Relationships, including on the Council’s 40,000 ha. regional parks network.

1.7 In this role I was directly involved in the development of the historic heritage and Tangata Whenua policy provisions contained within the ARPS, and within the Auckland Regional Plan Coastal 2004. I and my staff also provided significant input to the development of the broader heritage and Māori cultural heritage provisions of the district plans of the Auckland region. During this process I worked closely with iwi and hapū leaders and individuals across the Auckland region.

1.8 I left the employ of the ARC on 7 April 2006 and have been self-employed since then as an independent historic and cultural heritage consultant. Over the last six years my work has been focused on the completion of Treaty of Waitangi claim overview reports for Ngāti Manuhiri and Te Kawerau ā Maki, in association with the Office of Treaty Settlements. I have also provided advice to Ngāti Rehua, Te Ākitai and NgātiTamaoho in relation to their Treaty settlement processes, and am presently providing advice to the Ngātiwai Trust Board in regard to the settlement of their historical Treaty claims.

1.9 I have been proficient in the Māori language since my youth and have been associated with tikanga Māori (traditional Māori customs and practices) throughout my life. Most importantly I have enjoyed a lifelong association with most of the Maori communities of the Auckland region, and have been privileged to learn of their ancestral relationships with their various ancestral lands, waters and other taonga.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 28

Attachment B

Ka piki whakarunga au ki Tamahunga,

Titiro matatau āku mata ki te matarae tapu, ko Panetiki,

Ka tū tonu Te Whai nui, ara ko Te Hauturu ō Toi, ki waho rā.

Kei te puaha ō Waiwerawera e tū tonu ana te motu tapu, ko Mahurangi,

Ka huri ki Matakanakana, ki ngā tohu maha o ngā tūpuna, ara ko Matatūahu, ko Te Tokatū, ko Pukenihinihi, a, ko Tītīrangi, ko Pukematekeo ki uta,

Kei te takutaimoana, ko Koekoeā, ko Piupiu, ko Kohuroa, ko Ōmaha tūturu, a ka tae mai ki Te Wakatūwhenua, a ki Te Hāwere ā Maki, i, ē.

Kei ngā one haea, ko Te Taumata tapu, ko Pākiri tūturu, ko Taurere ō Reipae. Ā, ka titiro ki uta, ka tū tonu ngā maunga hī, ko Haukawa, ko Tahunui, ko Puketūtū, ko Tohitohi o Reipae, ā ka tae mai koe ki te puke tapu, ko Pukekauri.

Titiro ki te hauauru, kei reira ngā tohu maha ō Manuhiri, mai i Kōritotī, haere tonu ki Ōtakamaitū, ki Ōmaumau, ā tae noa ki te Awa Hōteo. Kei reira ngā tūpuna i whakakōhatutia, ara ko Iriwata, ko Taihamau, aue ē.

Tiro noa ki te whakarua, ka tū tonu ko Pukewhānake, Pakauhanga, ā ka tae mai ki Kikitangiao. Ka huri ki Hauhanganui, Patumakariri, Ngāmotu, a ki Tūrakirae, aue, ē. Kei raro rā, kei te takutaimoana, ko Pukeariki, ko Te Waikeri ā Wera, ko Whetū Makurukuru, ko Te Toma rata tapu, ko Te Ārai ō Tāhuhu, ko Manga whai nui, ā ka tae mai ki Te Paepae ō Tū.

Ko tenei te whare ō Ngāti Manuhiri, ō Uri ō Kātea, ē.

This tauparapara may be translated as follows:

I ascend the ancestral mountain, Tamahunga (Mount Tamahunga near Matakana),

My eyes are drawn to the sacred headland of Panetiki (at the mouth of Omaha (Leigh Harbour),

The great stingray, Te Hauturu o Toi (Little Barrier Island) stands forever in the distance.

At the mouth of Waiwerawera (the Waiwera River) stands the sacred island Mahurangi.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 29

I turn and look to Matakanakana (a fortified pā opposite the Sandspit, Matakana), and to the many surrounding landmarks of our ancestors, including: Matatūahu, Te Tokatū, ko Pukenihinihi, Tītīrangi, and inland to Pukematekeo.

On the coastline I look to north to Koekoeā, to Piupiu, to Kohuroa (Matheson’s Bay), and on to Ōmaha tūturu (Leigh Harbour), and ultimately arrive at Te Wakatūwhenua and Te Hāwere ā Maki (Goat Island).

At Ngā One Haea (the gleaming sands of Pākiri Beach) are the sacred landmarks, of Te Taumata and Pākiri from which the district is named, and Taurere ō Reipae. I then look inland where stand the proud hill peaks of Haukawa, Tahunui, Puketūtū, and Tohitohi o Reipae (the Dome), and eventually arrive at the sacred hill, Pukekauri.

My eyes are drawn to the west. There are the many landmarks associated with our ancestor, Manuhiri. They begin at Kōritotī (near Arapārera), and continue directly on to ki Ōtakamaitū, to Ōmaumau, until arriving at the Hōteo River. Located here are our ancestors turned to stone, namely Iriwata, and Taihamau, who are lamented,

I turn to the valleys to the north. There still stand the hills, Pukewhānake, Pakauhanga, and on to Kikitangiao. I turn to the landmarks (near Wellsford) of Hauhanganui, Patumakariri, Ngāmotu, and lament at Tūrakirae. Below me near the coastline are Pukeariki, Te Waikeri ā Wera, Whetū Makurukuru, Te Tomarata tapu, Te Ārai ō Tāhuhu (Te Ārai Point) and Manga whai nui (Mangawhai Harbour), reaching on to Te Paepae ō Tū (Bream Head).

This is the ancestral home of Ngāti Manuhiri and Uri ō Kātea.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 30

Attachment C

Māori Ancestral Associations with Devonport – Graeme Murdoch, June 2013

This account was produced for inclusion in a guided walk pamphlet for Devonport. It was written by historian, Graeme Murdoch, in consultation with Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Paoa.

Devonport’s volcanic cones, fertile soils, marine resources and strategic location, offered Māori a great place to live. Tradition indicates that the area was occupied from the earliest period of human settlement in Aotearoa/New Zealand. This was confirmed by recent archaeological investigation at Te Haukapua/Torpedo Bay. Here an archaeological assemblage, typical of the earliest period of Māori settlement, was found. It included ‘archaic’ artefacts and a range of faunal remains, including those of the long extinct flightless bird, the moa.

Tradition and the archaeological record suggest that the area was intensively settled in pre-European times. Each of the cones was occupied and fortified. Below them were cultivations and open settlements. On the foreshore were canoe landings, food-processing areas and stone working areas. The present day foreshore retains few visible remains of this, however, it is clearly reflected in the area’s traditional history.

Māori tradition goes back to the earliest period of human settlement, and to the creation of the land. One tradition, ‘Te Riri ā Mataaho’, ‘the anger of Mataaho’, links the creation of Devonport’s volcanoes with a quarrel between the ancestor Matakamokamo and his wife Matakerepo which aroused the anger of Mataaho, the deity associated with volcanic activity.

Devonport is associated with the earliest Pacific migrations to the region. Maungāuika/North Head takes its name from Uika, nephew of the renowned navigator Toi Te Huatahi. The area is also associated with the famed ancestral canoes Arawa and Tainui which landed over 500 years ago. An ancestor associated with the Arawa canoe was Peretu. His occupation is remembered in the place names, Te Rā hōpara ō Peretū/Rahōpara Pō, Milford, Ōperetū/Fort Takapuna, Te Awanui ō Peretū/Rangitoto Channel and Ngā Pona e toru ō Peretū/ the three peaks of Rangitoto Island.

The most detailed traditions associated with Takapuna/Devonport concern the Tainui canoe which voyaged to Aotearoa from eastern Polynesia. The canoe anchored at Te Haukapua/Torpedo Bay. Here the crew were welcomed by the people of Maungāuika. They drank from a spring which they named Takapuna after a spring in their Pacific homeland. This was the name that Māori applied to the wider Devonport area.

The canoe later stranded on a sandbank near Devonport Wharf. This shoal was named Te Ranga ō Taikehu, the sandbank of Taikehu. From here the young chief Taikehu swam ashore, hence the surrounding waters became known as Te Kauanga ō Taikehu, the swim of Taikehu. The crew of the

BF\51802818\2 | Page 31

Tainui were then welcomed at Te Kūrae ō Tura, the fortified headland pā that once stood near the Masonic Hotel. From Takapuna/Devonport the Tainui journeyed on to the Manukau Harbour. Some of the crew, however, remained in the area, where they became known as Ngāti Tai.

Over the centuries many other tribes developed associations with the area. In the seventeenth century the Te Kawerau ancestor Maki was hosted at Maungāuika by the local chief Taihua. Some of his descendants, Ngāti Kahu, remained in the area and gave the North Shore its traditional name, Te Whenua roa ō Kahu, ‘the extensive land-holding of Kahu’. Over subsequent generations the Hauraki tribes, in particular Ngāti Paoa, came to occupy the area. Then after the conquest of the Tāmaki isthmus in the mid eighteenth century, Ngāti Whtua forged relationships with this special place.

In 1841 Devonport was sold to the Crown as part of the disputed Mahurangi Purchase. From this time Māori occupied the area informally, especially Ngāti Paoa. The Ngāpuhi warrior chief Patuone married a Ngāti Paoa woman, Riria Takarangi, and lived with her at Devonport. Because of his mana and loyalty to the Crown, Patuone was granted land at Takapuna. He became a notable figure in the community until his death in 1872 at the age of well over 100. He is buried in the Holy Trinity Churchyard, Devonport.

Devonport epitomises the Māori proverbial saying -

Kō Tāmaki herenga waka – Tāmaki the mooring place of many canoes.

Chris Gaskin painting of Tainui’s arrival and the surrounding occupational and agricultural landscape, shows the Tainui canoe stranded on the sandbank, ‘Te Ranga ō Taikehu’, Taikehu swimming ashore, Takarunga/Mt Victoria, Takamaiwaho/Duders Hill, the headland pā, Te Kūrae ō Tura, Te Haukapua/Torpedo Bay, Maungāuika/North Head, and beyond, a recently erupted and still barren Rangitoto Island. The cones were occupied at this time but not fortified.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 32

C. Gaskin painting commissioned by the ARC 2001

Places of interest for Devonport self-guided walks (from south to north)

 Te Tāhuna ō Taikehu – ‘the sandbank of Taikehu’, named after a young chief on the Tainui canoe which landed at Devonport over 500 years ago. The site of Devonport Wharf.

 Te Ranga ō Taikehu – ‘the shoal of Taikehu’, named after a sand bank on which the Tainui canoe stranded. This shoal is off Victoria Reserve.

 Te Kauanga ō Taikehu – ‘the swim of Taikehu’. This young chieftain swam ashore after the Tainui canoe was stranded.

 Te Kūrae ō Tura – ‘the headland of Tura’. This fortified headland pā formed the outer part of Takamaiwaho/Duders Hill. It was quarried away and is now the site surrounding the Masonic Hotel.

 The Tainui Memorial – on King Edward Parade. Commemorates the arrival of the Tainui canoe at Devonport over 500 years ago. It was erected by the Devonport Borough Council in 1959. The orb and bird on the top of the memorial were donated by the then Māori King Koroki. The bird is a replica of the stone bird Korotangi that was said to have come to Aotearoa/New Zealand on the Tainui canoe. It is of interest that the text on the memorial

BF\51802818\2 | Page 33

reflects the view prevailing in 1959 that the Tainui was part of a ‘Great Fleet’ of canoes that arrived from Polynesia in 1350 AD.

 Takarunga – ‘the hill that stands above’, or ‘dominates the landscape’. Mt Victoria.

 Takamaiwaho – ‘the hill that stands to the side’ – Duder’s Hill. Quarried away and now the site of the Devonport Museum.

 Takararo – ‘the hill that stands below’ – Mount Cambria – now quarried.

 Te Haukapua – Torpedo Bay, so named as it provided an anchorage that was ‘sheltered from prevailing winds’.

 Takapuna – located inland of the northern shoreline of Te Haukapua/Torpedo Bay. It was the name of a spring which formerly flowed profusely from the base of Maungāuika/North Head. The spring was named by Hoturoa the commander of the Tainui canoe after a spring of that name in the Society islands. Takapuna became the Māori name for the wider Devonport area. The spring was piped when the Naval facility was built at Torpedo Bay in the late nineteenth century.

 Maungāuika – ‘ the mountain of Uika’, North Head. This ancestor was the nephew of the renowned Māori ancestor and voyager Toi Te Huatahi who visited the area in the earliest period of human settlement in Aotearoa/New Zealand. When Toi Te Hutahi moved on Uika and his sister Pareira remained in the Auckland region.

 Te Ana ā Kāhumauroa- ‘the cave of Kāhumauroa’. This was a rock overhang which was once located on the northern end of Maungāuika/North Head. Kāhumauroa was a canoe built by a Ngāti Paoa/Ngai Tai ancestor Tokawhero. It was part of a plan to avenge the death of his father Ngatara who had been killed during an extended family dispute. The canoe was built at the suggestion of his Te Kawerau relative Te Maeaea from Tāwharanui. The canoe was formed at Drury, south of Auckland, and then taken to Mahurangi to be finished. It was used in an episode of fighting between Te Kawerau and Ngāti Paoa. During this time it was stored temporarily at Te Ana ō Kāhumauroa.

 Kukūwaka – the canoe portage at Narrow Neck. The name comes from ‘the grating sound of canoes’ being dragged across the narrow sand bank and portage between the northern end of Cheltenham Beach and Ngātaringa Bay

 Kiritai – literally ‘the skin of the ocean’, a place where sea foam gathers after storms. This name applies to Cheltenham Beach and particularly its western end.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 34

 Ōperetu – ‘the dwelling place of Peretu’. Takapuna Head. This placed was occupied many centuries ago by the ancestor Peretu who lived in the area during the first phase of human settlement in the district. He was renowned as an explorer, and for having only three fingers on his hands which associated him with the super natural

 Te Awanui ō Peretū – the great seaway of Peretu, Rangitoto Channel. One of a number of names in the area named after the ancestor Peretu.

BF\51802818\2 | Page 35