Flavell Te Ururoa: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15812] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kei nga mema Maori o te Whare i te po nei tena tatou. 
[ 
Greetings Madam Assistant Speaker and to us tonight Maori members of the House. 
] 
This time last week a crowd of some 350 people ascended the sacred mountain at the entrance to Tauranga Harbour Mauao. At the peak of the 232-metre-high landmark they were inspired by a korero from a graffiti artist—a legal graffiti artist—called Graham Hoete or “GMAN” founder of the clothing label REPZ and a master of the spray-can. The purpose of the hikoi was to pay homage to the memory of Sir Edmund Hillary. In reflecting on his legacy Hoete told the crowd that “All things are possible to those who believe.” 
As we consider this bill to vest the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust “All things are possible to those who believe.” might well have been a good byline for documents to transfer the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve from the Crown to Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. It is apparently necessary for this bill to come forward in this way because the Reserves Act 1977 does not provide for a transfer of this nature. 
I suggest that the three Tauranga Moana iwi want to believe that the Crown will demonstrate respect for their mana for their rangatiratanga and for their capacity to uphold the rights and responsibilities of kaitiakitanga. It seems pretty straightforward to me from their perspective—hand back the ownership of Mauao. Kaore i ko atu kaore i ko mai; nothing more nothing less. Would they look after it? Hell yeah of course they would such is the respect that those iwi place on their association with Mauao. Would they look after the interests of all New Zealanders like the Crown says it does? Of course. But in the end if one is the owner—kei a koe te tikanga—that is their business. 
That is what I think Tauranga Moana people are after. The iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha also seek to believe that a healthy relationship can be established between them and the Crown. It is here however that believers may well start to have some reservations. The reason is that for all intents and purposes despite this bill Mauao remains as if it is in Crown ownership. The iwi of Tauranga Moana have not been transferred any ownership rights including the right to at the very least co-administer their own maunga. Instead the nominal owners are specified as the Crown through the Minister of Conservation devolved to the Tauranga City Council. 
Its ownership is presumably different from that identified in the preliminary archaeological survey which reports that the Mauao historic reserve constitutes a cultural landscape representing approximately 600 years of human occupation by Tauranga Moana iwi. The archaeological survey reports the first human settlement in the 13th century the expelling of the Nga Marama people the battle of Kokowai and finally the Ngapuhi incursion into the Bay of Plenty. 
That is 600 years of history prior to the Tauranga City Council. One would have thought that that would give the three Tauranga Moana iwi a special status. Yet nearly a year ago in May 2007 the chair of the Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana the chairs of the three Tauranga Moana iwi runanga and a representative of Waitaha indicated that “The draft agreement continues to impinge on and/or diminish our mana with respect to exercising our rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over Mauao.” 
Although this comment was made while the agreement was in draft form the sentiments are harsh enough to suggest that they represent the exact opposite of the view that was intended in the commitment to building healthy relationships. Here is the rub. This is the consistent and universal tension working against such relationships with the Crown when the alleged rights of the Crown appear as in the case of Mauao to completely stifle the ownership interests of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. 
The most significant point of tension is focused on clause 7 of the bill as other members have talked about which has the effect of the Crown continuing to bear the rights and obligations as if it were the owner of the reserve. The 27 submissions repeatedly addressed their concerns around this clause which retains the general provision in the law that the Mauao historic reserve is vested in the Crown. Submissions variously opposed Crown ownership and council control as I heard when I attended the select committee hearing in Tauranga. The New Zealand Maori Council insisted that the land should be returned to iwi ownership without conditions and without clauses that take it back out of iwi control. 
Colin Bidois from Te Runanganui o Tauranga Moana suggested that clause 7 dilutes the fullness of ownership whereas Maru Samuels of Ngai Te Rangi explained that clauses 7 and 8 would work only if there was a joint management structure with iwi. The suggestion from Rahera Ohia of Te Au Maro o Ngati Pukenga that clause 7 be either removed or amended to clarify its application and scope must be given serious consideration during the Committee of the whole House debate as other members have alluded to. 
Another recurring theme was around the mismanagement of communications undertaken during the passage of the bill. Brian Dickson of Te Runanga o Ngai Te Rangi advised the committee that the negotiations led by Te Runanga o Tauranga Moana were ill managed and poorly communicated leading to tensions flaring throughout the rohe. Another Ngai Te Rangi submitter Hauata Palmer reinforced this point concluding that the Crown had used the process to manipulate a preordained outcome creating much turmoil and division along the way. Colin Reeder confirmed these views saying that the process imposed by the Crown had lacked integrity and was fundamentally flawed. 
None of this helps much in igniting public interest that this bill is indeed necessary and can well make a difference. Under the circumstances I suspect that other iwi may well have given up but not the iwi of Tauranga Moana. They will continue to negotiate to listen and to hold strong to the line. They will continue to put forward their views about how this arrangement could work. 
HuikakahuKawe of Ngati Ranginui recommended that useful grounds for discussion might include environmental management commercial development and the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 upon Ngati Ranginui. RaheraOhia raised the question of whether the bill covers intra-Crown payments. The Mauao trustees themselves outlined issues they defined as being outstanding suggesting that for the return of Mauao to have more substance the implications of the Foreshore and Seabed Act must be factored into the discussion as well as issues around resourcing and compensation. 
It is impossible to read through the submissions to talk with the people and to sit and spend time with those who have believed that Mauao will one day be returned to them and not feel their pain and disappointment. As one koroua expressed to me in providing advice about how we might vote: “Ko auakoreroano ara ko te tumanako ka whakahokia mai tomatou maunga tuturu ki a matou” meaning “It’s the same old story. We hope that our mountain will be returned to us.” All things are possible to those who believe. 
I mihi to the iwi of Tauranga Moana who have believed that the entire Mauao historic reserve would be returned and that the process and outcome would uphold the mana of the three iwi. What has been achieved is very much a Clayton’s settlement as referred to by other members—ownership in title only. The Minister of Conservation has an overwhelming role in determining how this maunga will be managed in the future. Despite this and in spite of the inflexibility of the Crown in refusing to agree to any of the solutions put forward by the iwi the iwi have begun negotiations with the Tauranga City Council to establish a partnership management with them. 
The Maori Party puts on record our admiration for the strong resolve and passionate determination of the people. They negotiate memorandums of understanding at the local level to try to improve their situation. They always wanted joint management of Mauao and although it was considered outside the scope of this bill we in the Maori Party recognise the courage of the iwi of Tauranga Moana in moving on. 
Of course we are pleased that the select committee has recommended the removal of the offending clause 7 which spelt out in explicit detail that full ownership had not been provided to the iwi. The jury is out as to whether the new clause 8 is sufficient to restore the faith of the people. But we will support the iwi of Tauranga Moana and Waitaha in their decision to do what they can to advance their own affairs. The Maori Party will always promote the leadership of iwi in doing the best they can for their people often under the most trying of circumstances. It is for these people that we support this bill at its second reading.