DOCSLIB.ORG

Selwyn Katene Powerpoint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selwyn Katene Powerpoint Treaty Negotiations in Te Whanganui a Tara: The KhKahawai and the Shark Selwyn Katene Ngati Toa, Ngati Tama, Ngaruahine BACKGROUND Te Upoko o te Ika a Maui or ‘head of Maui's fish’ Kupe 1000 years ago Tara son of Whatonga - Te Whanganui a Tara From 1820s Taranaki & Kawhia tribes through rights of conquest, continuous occupation, ohaki (gifting) tangata whenua KEY ISSUES Effectiveness of small iwi ggpgroup, Ngati Tama (NT) struggling to assert its identity, mana, and tino rangatiratanga Role of the Crown, and others, in attempts to re-establish autonomous iwi-specific voice & focus for advancement of NT interests CLAIMS Tw o N gati Tama claims: Wai 735 claim Ngati Tama ki teUpokooteIka Wai 377 claim Ngati TamaTe Kaeaea Main claim number Wai 145 Wellington Tenths Trust & Palmerston North Maori Reserves ◦ The 8 gene ra l cla ims merge into large r natura l grouping of iwi, hapu, whanau, and marae interests – Port Nicholson Block Claim (PNBC) – to negotiate and settle on behalf of all TkiTaranaki clilaimants CLAIM AREA Some 209, 000 acres covering the greater Wellington area: 17,,py900 acres NZ Company claimed to have purchased from Taranaki tribes ◦ 137,242 acres of ‘wasteland’ Crown gave itself title to on assumption tha t no-one hdhad title because not occupied or cultivated by Maori CROWN BREACHES Accepting as valid purchases by the NZ Company, which could not possibly have constituted a legal sale or provided valid title to the land CROWN BREACHES (cont) Disposing of wrongfully acquired land by sale to the private sector, grants to local authorities, and statutory organisations and committing it to use for public reserves and public purposes CROWN BREACHES (cont) Dispossessing Maori of their homes, cultivations, lands, water-ways & sea resources Implementing Reserved Land laws affecting Maori landowners’ ability to manage their own resources on fa ir and equal terms, and to participate in development of region and local economy TRIBUNAL REPORT Ngati Tama had: ahi ka rights within Port Nicholson block, Kaiwharawhara and environs and parts of southwest coast; take raupatu over remainder lands Te Whanganui a Tara Me Ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District (Waitangi Tribunal, 2003) TWO NGATI TAMA GROUPS Ngati Tama ki te Upoko o te Ika: ◦ Established 28 March 2002 to manage Wai 735 claim & interests of NT, with support from Ngati Toa & NT (Taranaki & Te Tau Ihu) & 700 member register NiNgati WWiai o NNigati Tama ◦ Wanganui-based hapu of NT representing interests of Te Kaeaea, paramount chief TRIBUNAL FINDING It will be for the two NT groups to agree on who is to represent them in their negotiations with the Crown in resp ect of variou s Treaty breaches which affected NT, along with Te Atiawa, Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui (pg 490) A specific breach unique to NT also occurred PNBC Most claimants set up PNBC to negotiate settlement on behalf of Te Atiawa, Ngati Mutunga, Taranaki, Ngati Ruanui & Ngati Tama, with support from local Tenths Trusts Some Ngati Tama preferred separate process and representation of NT on PNBC Agreed not to be part of PNBC deliberations PNBC Deed of Mandate response NT SUPPORT Support - Ngati Toa, Ngati Tama (Taranaki / Te Tau Ihu) & 700 reg members that NT: ◦ manages the Wai 735 claim, ◦ is an Iwi in its own right and, ◦ represents NT interests in Wellington Concern from PNBC, Te Atiawa & Tenths Trust ◦ that a NT split claim would encourage others ◦ preference for one set of negotiations only PNBC DEED OF MANDATE Eventuallyyg, recognised by the Crown ◦ “subject to the condition that there’s provision for two permanent seats on PNBCT for the two Ngati Tama groups of equal standing to all other seats” (28 Jan 2004) 5 weeks later.....Crown weakens its resolve ◦ “The Crown cannot compel the PNBCT to agree to guaranteeing full membership ◦ rihtights” (8 Marc h 2004) CROWN AWARE OF RISKS “There is a high likelihood that PNBCT’s mandate and/or the proposed settlement will be challenged by Ngati Tama individuals, either in the Court s or the Tr ibuna l” “The Crown will not be in a strong position to defend itself”. (MICOTOWN, 8 March 2004) PNBC’ S RESPONSE “Unable to provide Ngati Tama a role as a mandated representative... Instead Ngati Tama can sit on a PNBC subcommittee... Occasionally, there may be an opportunity to meet the full PNBC mandate team”. (2 July 2004) NGATI TAMA REPLIES “The effect of being barred from participation on the mandate team is that we have not been included in its meetings and decision-making” “We take very seriously the intransigent views of the PNBC mandate team; these views are not consistent with the advice officials provided us” (10 Ju ly 2004) PNBC ADVICE TO CROWN PNBC not prepared to fulfil the outstanding Crown conditions to Deed of Mandate regarding NT’s representation on PNBCT It cannot confer PNBCT member riihtghts on those not mandated through their process Anyyy,way, NT is ade quatel ypy represented as 8 of the 11 PNBCT members affiliate to NT (20 July 2004) CROWN FAVOUR PNBC “Ministers have not yet made a formal decision regarding the outstanding Ngati Tama representation issues” “However, both Ministers have expressed sympathy with the PNBCT’s views on this matter” (MICOTOWN and MMA, 20 July 2004) MEETING WITH MINISTER 26 July 2004 two NT groups met with MICOTOWN to express concerns, supported by Ngati Toa & others Landmark ministerial decision: ◦ “To exclude from the PNBC negotiati ons the hist ori cal clai ms of those Ngati Tama people who did not consider themselves appropriately represented by the PNBC” NGATI TAMA RESPONSE Hold firm to our view that PNBCT is not representative of NT in Wellington Acceppgpyt that this agreement provides way forward for separate negotiations Expect Crown to honour Minister’s intentions Noted that PNBCT Deed of Negotiation addressed the issue of mandate for NT (26 July 2004) TERMS OF NEGOTIATION Next day...Crown and PNBC agree to: ◦ Affirm previous day’s undertakings ◦ Discuss with NT the extent to which their claims will be covered by negotiations ◦ Seek to involve NT in negotiations with the Crown when those negotiations directly relate to those entities (27 July 2004) Ngati Tama never consulldted MINISTER CONFIRMS “I acknowledge that there are some Ngati Tama individuals who do not feel that they are represented by the PNBCT” “Based on this and in an effort to move forward, I proposed at our meeting that those Ngati Tama individuals who do not consider themselves to be represented by the PNBCT could have their claims excluded from PNBC negotiations with the Crown” ((g19 August 2004) TRY AND RESOLVE IT Minister Wilson further advises (19 August 2004) “preference for one set of negotiations, but if not resolved those Ngati Tama individuals who did not consider themselves to be represented by the PNBC team could then choose to have their historical claims excluded from the PNBC negotiations” FACILITATION Independent facilitated claimant meetings & lawyers’ meetings NT advises Crown that lawyers’ discussions not successful and asks that Minister’s undertaking to exclude Ngati Tama from PNBC negotiations be honoured (14 June 2005) Crown acknowledges that NT had chosen to have their claims excluded from PNBC negotiations (2 September 2005) PNBC SETTLEMENT Crown and PNBCT sign Agreement in Principle (13 Decem ber 2007) ◦ Reconciliation – apology, forgiveness ◦ Cultural redress – 17 properties transferred ◦ Financial redress - $25m, Shelly Bay, right of refusal ((y)100 years) of Crown ppproperties Deed of Settlement Legislation DEED OF SETTLEMENT All Ngati Tama persons fall within definition of Tarana ki Whanu i ki Te Upok o o Te Ika unless they choose to have their historical claims settled by another group with a Crown recognised mandate. Should a settlement negotiated by that other group become unconditional, those persons will be excluded from the Taranaki Whanui definition in the Deed of Settlement, legislation & governance entity (Clause 8.2.3, DoS, 25 Aug 08) POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Early-mid 2008, Dr Michael Cullen brought a sense of urgency to negotiate and settle claims Crown made a genuine attempt to negotiate a way forward for NT with several options NT fail to reach agreement among themselves and with the Crown: ◦ Divided over settlement provisions ◦ Expectations unrealistic, inflexible, and complicated ◦ UblUnable to keep to tight timeframe NEW LEADER The intention given by former MICOTOWN, Hon Margaret Wilson, to negotiate with those NT who do not consider themselves represente d by PNBCT will be possible if: 1. Two NT groups negotiate under one entity 2. Reconfirm their Crown approved mandate WAY FORWARD Crown recognised mandate almost achieved Next steps: ◦ Enter direct negotiations with Crown ◦ Confirm Agreement in Principle ◦ Deed of Settlement drafted on confirmation ◦ New governance entity created to receive settlement ◦ Legislation to give effect to the settlement OUTCOMES Re-established tribal organisational structure Recognised by the Crown, Iwi, and others Asserting Iwi identity, mana, tino rangatiratanga Providing an independent voice, and focus for advancement of NT interests in Wellington Mutual co-existence and mutual co-operation Valuable insights into the workings of Govt. and the wider state & private sector LESSONS LEARNT Vision and singular focus on key issues Committed individuals & Iwi members Iwi support / Inter-iwi dynamics Crown policy/Govt. officials and key politicians .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shelly Bay Timeline February 2020
    SHELLY BAY TIMELINE FEBRUARY 2020 2014, June – WCC POLICY: Wellington City Housing Accord o Signed June 2014, sets out how the Council and the Government will work together to increase housing supply in the city. o Media statement from Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Mayor Celia Wade-Brown. 2015, 8 April – COUNCIL MEETING: Nomination of SHAs o Nominations for Tranche Two SHAs, including Shelly Bay o Agenda, Minutes 2015, 8 October – COMMITTEE MEETING: Transport and Urban Development Committee. o Final consideration of nomination of Special Housing Areas, including Shelly Bay. o Agenda, Minutes 2015, 9 October - WCC MEDIA RELEASE: Next steps for Shelly Bay development o Shelly Bay recommended to be zoned as Special Housing Area in line with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA). o Shelly Bay SHA map 2015, 28 October – COUNCIL MEETING: Report of the Transport and Urban Development Committee Meeting of 8 October 2015. o Agenda, Minutes 2015, 9 December - BEEHIVE MEDIA RELEASE: More special housing areas for Wellington o Announcement from Building and Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown of three new SHAs in Wellington including Shelly Bay. 2015, 19 December – NEWS REPORT: Trust moves to sell its land at Shelly Bay to The Wellington Company 2016, 22 January – NEWS REPORT: Low voter turnout could block trusts attempt to sell land at of Shelly Bay 2016, 12 February – NEWS REPORT: Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust fails to sell Shelly Bay to Wellington Company 2016, 14 March – RESOURCE CONSENT: Pre-application discussions commenced between the Council and The Wellington Company Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill
    Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement This Bill . records the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Ngati Tama in the deed of settlement dated 20 December 2001 between the Crown and Ngati Tama: gives effect to the deed of settlement in which the Crown and Ngati Tama agree to a final settlement of all the Ngati Tama historical claims in Taranaki. Scope of settlement Ngati Tama is one of the 8 iwi of Taranaki. They are located in northern Taranaki and have approximately 900 registered members. In the deed of settlement, and in this Bill, Ngati Tama have been defined as the descendants of- • Whata, Rakaeiora, or Tamaariki; and • people who exercised customary interests in the Ngati Tama area of interest from 1 January 1800. The settlement settles all of the historical claims of Ngati Tama in Taranaki. Those claims include all claims that are founded on a right arising from the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, under legislation or at common law (including aboriginal title or customary law), from fiduciary duty or otherwise, and that arise from, or relate to, acts or omissions before 21 September 1992 by, or on behalf of, the Crown or by or under legislation. The Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of those claims. *1 1 Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Explanatory note Any claims that Ngati Tama may have as a result of any loss of interest in land, or natural or physical resources, outside of Taranaki are not settled under the deed of settlement or this Bill.
    [Show full text]
  • TE ARA O NGA TUPUNA HERITAGE TRAIL MAIN FEATURES of the TRAIL: This Trail Will Take About Four Hours to Drive and View at an Easy TE ARA O NGA TUPUNA Pace
    WELLINGTON’S TE ARA O NGA TUPUNA HERITAGE TRAIL MAIN FEATURES OF THE TRAIL: This trail will take about four hours to drive and view at an easy TE ARA O NGA TUPUNA pace. Vantage points are mostly accessible by wheelchair but there are steps at some sites such as Rangitatau and Uruhau pa. A Pou (carved post), a rock or an information panel mark various sites on the trail. These sites have been identified with a symbol. While the trail participants will appreciate that many of the traditional sites occupied by Maori in the past have either been built over or destroyed, but they still have a strong spiritual presence. There are several more modern Maori buildings such as Pipitea Marae and Tapu Te Ranga Marae, to give trail participants a selection of Maori sites through different periods of history. ABOUT THE TRAIL: The trail starts at the Pipitea Marae in Thorndon Quay, opposite the Railway Station, and finishes at Owhiro Bay on the often wild, southern coast of Wellington. While not all the old pa, kainga, cultivation and burial sites of Wellington have been included in this trail, those that are have been selected for their accessibility to the public, and their viewing interest. Rock Pou Information panel Alexander Turnbull Library The Wellington City Council is grateful for the significant contribution made by the original heritage Trails comittee to the development of this trail — Oroya Day, Sallie Hill, Ken Scadden and Con Flinkenberg. Historical research: Matene Love, Miria Pomare, Roger Whelan Author: Matene Love This trail was developed as a joint project between Wellingtion City Council, the Wellington Tenths Trust and Ngati Toa.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngati Maniapoto/Ngati Tama Settlement Cross-Claims Report
    THE NGÂTI MANIAPOTO/NGÂTI TAMA SETTLEMENT CROSS-CLAIMS REPORT WAITANGI TRIBUNAL REPORT 2001 The Ngâti Maniapoto/Ngâti Tama Settlement Cross-Claims Report THE NGÂTI MANIAPOTO/NGÂTI TAMA SETTLEMENT CROSS-CLAIMS REPORT Wai 788, Wai 800 Waitangi Tribunal Report 2001 The cover design by Cliä Whiting invokes the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequent interwoven development of Maori and Pakeha history in New Zealand as it continuously unfolds in a pattern not yet completely known A Waitangi Tribunal report isbn 1-86956-259-3 © Waitangi Tribunal 2001 Edited and produced by the Waitangi Tribunal Published by Legislation Direct, Wellington, New Zealand Printed by SecuraCopy, Wellington, New Zealand Set in Adobe Minion and Cronos multiple master typefaces Contents Letter of Transmittal _____________________________________________________vii The Ngâti Maniapoto/Ngâti Tama Settlement Cross-Claims Report 1. The Background to the Urgent Hearing ______________________________________1 1.1 The Taranaki Report __________________________________________________1 1.2 The Ngâti Tama heads of agreement _____________________________________2 1.3 The Ngâti Maniapoto claims ___________________________________________2 1.4 Mediation _________________________________________________________4 1.5 Urgency is granted___________________________________________________4 1.6 Revision of the Ngâti Tama settlement package_____________________________5 2. The Hearing ___________________________________________________________8 3. The Issues ____________________________________________________________11
    [Show full text]
  • Water & Atmosphere 19, October 2017
    Water & Atmosphere October 2017 When it rains it pours Dealing with sodden seasons No Bluff Tackling the threat of another oyster parasite Great expectations The challenge of setting up automatic weather stations in Vanuatu Cool moves NIWA scientists all aboard for Antarctic study Water & Atmosphere October 2017 Cover: Flooding on Shelly Bay Road, Wellington. (Dave Allen) Water & Atmosphere is published by NIWA. It is available online at www.niwa.co.nz/pubs/wa Enquiries to: In brief The Editor 4 Water & Atmosphere Baby snapper an unexpected prey, marking NIWA makos for mortality, photo ID for dolphins, Private Bag 14901 pine pollen travels far Kilbirnie Wellington 6241 6 News New Zealand WRIBO, phone home: Hi-tech buoy email: wa-editor@niwa.co.nz providing valuable information about ©National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd current, waves and water quality in ISSN 1172-1014 Wellington Harbour Water & Atmosphere team: 16 No Bluff Editor: Mark Blackham Battling oyster pathogens Production: NIWA Communications and Marketing Team Editorial Advisory Board: Geoff Baird, Mark Blackham, Snapped Bryce Cooper, Sarah Fraser, Barb Hayden, Rob Murdoch 26 The best images from NIWA's Instagram account 28 Fire – call NIWA When fire breaks, the Fire Service seeks NIWA's expertise Follow us on: 30 Vagaries of variability facebook.com/nzniwa Fewer, but more intense, tropical cyclones – NIWA's outlook for New Zealand twitter.com/niwa_nz 32 Q&A: Going to sea for fresh water www.niwa.co.nz Searching for an alternative source of water for Wellington 34 Profile: Shoulder to the wheel Water & Atmosphere is produced using vegetable-based inks on Wills Dobson's 'lucky' break paper made from FSC certifed mixed-source fibres under the ISO 14001 environmental management system.
    [Show full text]
  • Shelly Bay Development
    Questions and answers – Shelly Bay development The Council proposes to enter into a sale and lease agreement with Shelly Bay Ltd so the planned development of housing and public space can go ahead as envisaged in the bay. Here are some common questions about the proposal, with answers. If you have a question that’s not answered here, email us at shellybay@wcc.govt.nz To find out more about the proposal and give your feedback, go to wellington.govt.nz/shellybay 1. How much of the Council’s land is proposed to be sold/leased? 2. Why did the Council not consult the community about the Shelly Bay resource consent? 3. Would the public be consulted about the Shelly Bay development if it progresses? 4. What are the next steps following public consultation? 5. Why is the Council only engaging with Shelly Bay Ltd for this development? 6. What could Shelly Bay Ltd develop if the Council does not sell/lease the land as proposed? 7. Can Shelly Bay Ltd fund more of the cost of the infrastructure improvements and public space development? 8. Does the Council usually fund infrastructure costs for developments? If not, why is the Council proposing to part fund the infrastructure and public space for the Shelly Bay development? 9. What changes are proposed for the road between the Miramar intersection and Shelly Bay? 10. What happens if the proposed road (six metres wide with a 1.5 metre adjacent path) is not adequate? Who would fund improvements? 11. What changes would be made to the road through Central Shelly Bay development? 12.
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE CIV-2017-485-803 [2018] NZHC 614 UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review BETWEEN ENTERPRISE MIRAMAR PENINSULA INCORPORATED Applicant AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL First Respondent THE WELLINGTON COMPANY LIMITED Second Respondent Hearing: 5 and 6 March 2018 Appearances: M S Smith, P Milne and M R C Wolff for Applicant N M H Whittington and A E Minogue for First Respondent P J Radich QC and T P Refoy-Butler for Second Respondent Judgment: 9 April 2018 JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules I direct the delivery time of this judgment is 11.30 am on 9 April 2018 ENTERPRISE MIRAMAR PENINSULA INCORPORATED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 614 [9 April 2018] Introduction [1] Approval of an SHA [7] The site [15] The application [26] Judicial review [38] Particular challenges [47] Non-compliance with HASHAA procedural rules [47] The first decision [71] Legal test [73] Analysis [85] Council’s financial interest [105] Delegation to independent commissioners [125] The discretion given in s 76(2)(d) of HASHAA [132] Analysis [137] Combined effect [149] Misconstruction/misapplication of s 34(1) [154] The second decision [154] Misunderstanding of s 34? [170] Relatively little weight/lesser weight [175] Double-counting [178] Internal weight [191] Section 34(2) [202] Incorrect reliance on s 72(3) of HASHAA [231] Acting for improper purposes [240] Conclusion [250] Introduction [1] The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (“HASHAA”) was enacted on 13 September 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pakakohi and Tangahoe Settlement Claims Report
    The Pakakohi and Tangahoe Settlement Claims Report THE PAKAKOHI AND TANGAHOE SETTLEMENT CLAIMS REPORT Wa i 7 5 8 , Wa i 1 4 2 Waitangi Tribunal Report 2000 The cover design by Cliä Whiting invokes the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequent interwoven development of Maori and Pakeha history in New Zealand as it continuously unfolds in a pattern not yet completely known A Waitangi Tribunal report isbn 1-86956-257-7 © Waitangi Tribunal 2000 www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz Produced by the Waitangi Tribunal Published by Legislation Direct, Wellington, New Zealand Printed by Manor House Press Limited, Wellington, New Zealand Set in Adobe Minion and Cronos multiple master typefaces Contents 1. The Parties and the Path to the Urgent Hearing of the Claims 1.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________1 1.2 The Claimants ______________________________________________________1 1.3 The Crown and the Working Party ______________________________________2 1.4 Background to the Urgent Hearing of the Claims ___________________________4 1.5 The Taranaki Report _________________________________________________4 1.6 The Crown’s Recognition of the Working Party’s Deed of Mandate ______________5 1.7 The First Application for an Urgent Tribunal Hearing ________________________5 1.8 The Crown’s Opposition ______________________________________________6 1.9 The Claimants’ Response _____________________________________________6 1.10 The Tribunal’s First Decision on Urgency__________________________________7 1.11 The Second
    [Show full text]
  • SHELLY BAY Councillor Question and Answers - 2 Funding
    SHELLY BAY Councillor question and answers - 2 Funding 1. Has the Council put aside funding in the Long-term Plan (LTP) for the Shelly Bay development which, if we didn't go forward could be released for other priorities? Yes - however, this is noting the significant costs that would be required of Council to repair and/or demolish the buildings and seawalls as outlined in the Council paper. 2. Infrastructure costs: Can the rate payer be assured that we will be paying maximum $10m on infrastructure costs? Why/why not? Yes - it is a term of the Key Commercial Terms (KCTs) and will become a contractual requirement of any development agreement. 3. Who would pay for the road infrastructure upkeep? Is that key infrastructure? The Council is the owner of the road and is responsible for its repair and maintenance, as is the standard practice for all Council roads. 4. If we go ahead, assuming this investment of $10 million be part of the next Long-term Plan (LTP)? And we will need to consider along with other costs? The $10m funding cap has been provided for in the 2018 – 2028 LTP. Any further funding will be at Councillors discretion, following engagement on any roading upgrade beyond what is required under the developments resource consent. 5. One of the outcomes is – “Unlocking the potential value of council land” – what does this mean? The Council would receive market value for the land which is sold or leased. 6. What does Wellington stand to gain in rates? And when is this estimated to commence? The 2017 paper estimated the development would contribute an additional $2m per annum, once the development is complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 13 Shelly Bay Cultural Impact Statement
    CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT WHĀTAITAI, MARUKAIKURU, SHELLY BAY Taikuru Prepared by Kura Moeahu, Peter Adds and Lee Rauhina-August on behalf of Taranaki Whānui Ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, September 2016 STATUS: FINAL 1 Executive Summary This is a Cultural Impact Assessment Report for Shelly Bay/Marukaikuru commissioned by the Wellington Company Limited. It assesses the Māori cultural values of Marukaikuru Bay from the perspective of the tangata whenua, namely the iwi of Taranaki Whānui represented by the PNBST. The main findings of this cultural impact assessment are: • Marukaikuru Bay has high cultural significance to the iwi of Taranaki whanui • Taranaki Whānui people actually lived in the Bay until 1835 • We have found no evidence of other iwi connections to Marukaikuru Bay • Taranaki Whānui mana whenua status in relation to Marukaikuru and the Wellington Harbour is strongly supported in the literature, including the Waitangi Tribunal report (2003) • The purchase of Shelly Bay by PNBST from the Crown was a highly significant Treaty settlement transaction specifically for the purpose of future development • Any development of Marukaikuru must adequately take account of and reflect Taranaki Whānui cultural links, history and tangata whenua status in Wellington. • Taranaki Whānui have kaitiakitanga (guardianship) responsibilities to ensure the protection of the natural, historical and cultural dimensions of Marukaikuru. • The resource consent application submitted by the Wellington Company Limited is supported by the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. 2 WHĀTAITAI, MARUKAIKURU, SHELLY BAY Taikuru Kapakapa kau ana te manu muramura ki te tai whakarunga Māwewe tonu ana te motu whāriki o te tai whakararo Makuru tini e hua ki whakatupua-nuku Matuatua rahi e hua ki whakatupua-ruheruhe Pukahu mano e hua ki whakatupua-rangi Inā te tai hekenga ki runga o Tai Kuru e..
    [Show full text]
  • TARANAKI TU MAI We Were Proud to See Them Step up and ‘Aka for Prime Minister Jacinda Rights
    NGĀTI RUANUI CELEBRATES Ngāti Ruanui Celebrates At 80 years old, W’aea Mahuri isn’t Services to Māori ready to slow down yet. She travels "Just helping between her home in ‘Awera and her children and seeing through early w’ānau in Australia, spending time with them grown and her children, grandchildren and great childhood grandchildren in each country. develop, I hope I “There’s always something to come made a difference to education back to. I take our Kaikaranga classes their lives". at Pariroa Pā twice a year.” She mentors, supports and encourages W’aea Mahuri has always believed a person Mahuri Tipene those interested in becoming should help wherever and whenever they Kaikaranga because it’s so can. She’s devoted her life to supporting important to keep these vital teachings the next generation through 35 years as a Matua Sydney Kershaw alive. ko’anga reo voluntary educator and She did all this while also caring for her and W’aea Mahuri Tipene mentor, a Matua W’āngai caregiver, as a w’ānau, she had nine children, helping were both honoured in Māori Liaison volunteer with Victim with the Ramanui Playcentre committee Support, with the Māori Women’s Welfare the recent Queen’s and supporting Aotea Netball. League, as Kaikaranga, and training the Birthday List. “Just helping children and seeing them next generation of Kaikaranga. These awards recognise a grow and develop, I hope I made a She's inspirational. Her home has always difference to their lives. It was rewarding, I lifetime of ma’i and been open to anyone in need– "I’ve see them now all grown up and it’s really dedication to Kaupapa enjoyed every bit of it.” good.” Māori.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinary Meeting of City Strategy Committee Minutes
    CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 ORDINARY MEETING OF CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE MINUTES Time: 9:30am Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2017 Venue: Committee Room 1 Ground Floor, Council Offices 101 Wakefield Street Wellington PRESENT Mayor Lester Councillor Calvert Councillor Calvi-Freeman Councillor Dawson Councillor Day Councillor Eagle Councillor Foster Councillor Free Councillor Gilberd Councillor Lee Councillor Marsh Councillor Pannett (Chair) Councillor Sparrow Councillor Woolf Councillor Young Minutes of the City Strategy Committee 27/09/2017 Page 1 CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 Business Page No. 1. Meeting Conduct 5 1. 1 Apologies 5 1. 2 Conflict of Interest Declarations 5 1. 3 Confirmation of Minutes 5 1. 4 Public Participation 5 1. 5 Items not on the Agenda 5 2. Strategy 5 2.1 An Integrated Masterplan for Shelly Bay 5 2.2 Island Bay Cycleway Recommendations 11 3. Monitoring 15 3.1 2016/17 Annual Report 15 4. Public Excluded 17 4.1 Acquisition of Land 17 Minutes of the City Strategy Committee 27/09/2017 Page 3 CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 1 Meeting Conduct 1. 1 Apologies No apologies were received. 1. 2 Conflict of Interest Declarations Mayor Lester and Councillor Young declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 2.1 (An Integrated Masterplan for Shelly Bay). Mayor Lester and Councillor Young did not vote or take part in the discussion. 1. 3 Confirmation of Minutes Moved Councillor Pannett, seconded Councillor Marsh Resolved That the City Strategy Committee: 1. Approve the minutes of the City Strategy Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2017, having been circulated, that they be taken as read and confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.
    [Show full text]