Flavell Te Ururoa: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13936] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Madam Speaker kia ora tatau katoa. Tauranga Moana mena kai te whakarongo mai koutou i te wa kainga tera pea kai runga i te rori a tera pea kai te noho mai i nga pakitara o te Whare nei ko taku noa ake ki te whaiwhai haere i nga mihi a tena a tena ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to us all Madam Speaker. To you of the Tauranga Harbour whether you are listening in perhaps from home on the road or seated within the confines of this House my part is merely to follow up the acknowledgments made by each of those before me saying: greetings to you greetings to you and to all of us 
.]  
There is a short video clip on YouTube called “Mauao Bombs” which features some Maori kids in baggy black pants doing bombs off Salisbury Wharf in Tauranga. The creative acrobatics and diving prowess of these young rangatahi is capped off at the end of the clip by a close-up of a sign that states “NO JUMPING”. The comments alongside the video clip state: “It’s a shame the council decided after decades of fun to ban jumping from this wharf.”  
With a healthy appreciation of the skills that are required to jump off a bridge having spent some of my childhood perfecting the art of bombing at school and anywhere else I could show off I can say that the video grabbed my attention as I was thinking about this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. For those who are unfamiliar with the name by the way—and it has been discussed already—Mauao is the original name for what is now known to most as Mount Maunganui in Tauranga.  
The video made me wonder whether the mana and integrity of Tauranga Moana iwi will be as constrained by the enactments of this bill as the Mauao boys are constrained by the local council by-laws. The big question as we consider this bill is how the ownership rights of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga will be respected when all rights remain with the Crown through the Minister of Conservation devolved in part to the Tauranga City Council. That is the question.  
Who will end up doing the jumping and who will end up nailing down the signs of possession and control? I ask this question with all due respect to the signatories from Tauranga Moana. As I understand it Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga sought a comprehensive package in respect of the transfer of title management arrangements and Treaty settlement negotiations for Mauao. Their expectation was that they would receive the entire Mauao historic reserve. Their expectation was also that the process and outcome would uphold the mana of the three iwi of Tauranga Moana.  
To cut to the chase I say that they want their maunga back. It is that simple. In case someone tries to use the old scare tactic of saying that Maori will not allow access I am clear that that claim is absolute rubbish just as it was for the seabed and foreshore legislation. The challenge for this House is to gauge whether the way in which this bill vests the fee simple estate of Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust goes anywhere near to reaching this expectation.  
In its most practical form the bill gives effect to the agreement to introduce vesting legislation in relation to Mauao signed by the Crown and iwi in August of this year. Importantly the bill makes explicit the objective of the Crown. The Crown says that it is all about building healthy relationships with Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui Ngati Pukenga and Waitaha. On the face of it it all seems to be pretty good stuff—positive expectations of the iwi constructive commitment from the Crown and at the heart of it all acknowledgment of the historic significance of Mauao.  
As the story goes I am told that the Patupaiarehe gave the name Mauao to this mountain following a battle of love between a humble nameless hill and a great chiefly mountain Otanewainuku both of whom were vying for the love of Puwhenua. Unsuccessful in his pursuit for the heart of Puwhenua the nameless one longed for the sea. The Patupaiarehe drew on all of their magical powers to drag him to the places where he now stands which marks the entrance to Tauranga Moana. He became known as Mauao—caught by the dawn—and in time he has assumed greater mana than his lifelong rival Otanewainuku.  
Mauao features throughout the mythologies whakapapa and korero known to Ngati Pukenga Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Waitaha. The archaeological landscape within the Mauao historic reserve is also of lasting local national and international significance. It represents the physical remains of approximately 600 years of human occupation. The archaeological features of Mauao have considerable cultural significance to iwi of Tauranga Moana. In short it is the most sacred landmark of the whole Tauranga area and is the reason that Tauranga iwi have actively resisted any commercial imposition on the mountain.  
Huge pa sites from Ngati Ranginui and Waitaha were located on the mountain. The history also includes the occupation of Ngai Te Rangi iwi through the battle of Kokowhai and the archaeological heritage of Mauao as a wahi tapu ensures that the cultural and historical significance will never be lost.  
There is also a post-contact history in which the Government of the late 1800s forcibly acquired ownership of the maunga by forcing owners to pay for expensive surveys of the land—surveys that in themselves were so prohibitive that the owners were eventually placed under no alternative but to sell their interest to extinguish the debt. According to other records fossicking by European settlers also desecrated the maunga.  
The sacred maunga of Mauao was central in the stories and whakapapa of Tauranga Moana iwi and Waitaha. His name features in the tribal pepeha. He is central to the mana rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of the three Tauranga Moana iwi. Members should think about it. Clause 7 of this bill states that the general law continues to apply as if the Mauao historic reserve was still vested in the Crown. What I am saying is that iwi have only the title. That is right; this is a Clayton’s return of the maunga which has the potential to completely stifle the ownership interests of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga.  
Yet again we remember the words of Nopea Panakareao at the signing of the Treaty who passed comment: “The shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria but the substance remains to us.” The problem is that only a year later he was to rephrase that original statement concluding: “The substance of the land goes to the Europeans the shadow only will be our portion.”  
In the case of Mauao it must be said that there was concern about the difference between the shadow and the substance even before the vesting agreement was signed. As I understand it on 14 July this year Ngati Pukenga attended a ratification hui at Hairini Marae at which 87 percent of them voted against the signing of the agreement. At this stage the understanding was that if the vote of the four iwi was split or consensus was not reached another hui would be called a month later for a final vote to be taken. But hello what happened? Suddenly the Crown intervened and shifted the threshold of the vote concluding that a mere 66 percent of all voters would be sufficient—a decision made without consulting or notifying the iwi runanga and in particular the people of Ngati Pukenga in this case. It was all done in the shadow of the Crown.  
We have on record information that informs us that Ngati Pukenga twice voted resoundingly for not signing the agreement. We also have statements that describe how the resolve of Ngati Pukenga has been tested unduly and unnecessarily and I quote: “The process thus far has been seriously flawed and our people have been alienated because the mana of our iwi was not respected.”  
We contrast this statement with the emphasis the Crown gave in the preamble of the bill about its so-called commitment to healthy relationships with the iwi of Tauranga Moana. But yet again the Crown comes up sadly wanting. We have a situation in which to all intents and purposes Mauao remains in Crown ownership. We have a situation in which Tauranga Moana iwi were unable to find resolutions to their concerns about the long-term impacts of clause 7 which clearly sets out that the Crown continues to bear the rights and obligations as if it was the owner of the reserve.  
Iwi wanted to know exactly how clause 7 would have an impact. Ngai Te Rangi remind us that although their old people wanted the maunga returned at all costs the price of clause 7 may be too high. I have met with representatives of Ngai Te Rangi and some of them are not happy. It is the classic divide and rule tactic. It is the same old story with settlements: “Take it or leave it. But if you leave it don’t come back and don’t do a tangiweto.” So what happens? The people become divided. It is an all too familiar feature of the interactions set in train by Crown intervention.  
What makes me angry is that the Crown will never fully understand the long-term impacts and trauma that come about through provoking such division. These are iwi just like the high-spirited young boys jumping off the wharf who see Mauao as being central to their identity and to the sense of who they are. They deserve the House’s full respect for the way they have acted and for the integrity and commitment they have always upheld in trying to achieve the best outcomes for Tauranga Moana iwi and for Mauao.  
We will support this bill going through to the select committee to ensure that all the voices that need to be heard in this debate have the chance to put their concerns. But we will be watching to see that securing Mauao remains of the highest priority for those iwi who have always called it “He maunga tipua he maunga tapu ae he maunga nui”.