Hereora Dave: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15814] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I stand as the chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee in support of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I preface my comments by saying that Maori members of the committee obviously have some links and ties to discussions surrounding the whenua and we all declare a conflict of interest because of that. In this case in particular as I was the chair of the committee I reiterated that fact given my links to Tauranga Moana where my whenua is and Matakana Island which lies right beside Mauao Mount Maunganui where my tipuna lie. I recall as a younger lad at the age of 17—about 20-odd years ago which makes me 37 now—running up the Mount as part of a normal routine. I was a bit slimmer then and I think that nowadays I would gently amble up. I wanted to preface my contribution by indicating that conflict of interest. 
The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill was referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration in December last year. The committee heard the public submissions on the bill in Tauranga Moana and I suppose to that end acknowledged that that was the first time the Maori Affairs Committee had agreed to meet during the adjournment to deal with this bill which shows the willingness of all members in relation to the work on this bill. 
It should come as no surprise that the submissions were overwhelmingly in support of the return of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi. Twenty-seven submissions were received and 17 of those submitters appeared before us. They included kaumatua who are also the trustees; the iwi runanga o Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga; representatives of Waitaha; individual members of Tauranga Moana iwi; the Mayor of Tauranga Stuart Crosby; and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. We were especially grateful to hear the views of kaumatua on the bill given their lead role in this initiative and their responsibility on behalf of the iwi as holders of the fee simple estate once the bill is passed. 
The key issues raised by submitters were in relation to ownership rights and obligations as reflected in clauses 7 and 8. The committee has considered submitters’ concerns that clause 7 does not provide for the return of full ownership of Mauao to iwi and that the wording was of concern because it stated that the reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve was still vested in the Crown. It was felt by some that the land was being returned in name only with all rights remaining with the Crown. We recommended that clauses 7 and 8 be deleted and that drafting changes be made to a new clause 8 to incorporate the intent of clause 7. 
Mauao has the status of a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. Mauao comprises three parcels of land which are Crown land over which the Minister of Conservation has certain powers duties and obligations. These include a power to appoint an administrating body to manage and control the reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. A clause is required in the bill to ensure—as the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides—that all general law will continue to apply to Mauao after the vesting takes place. The intention of the clause is for the rights and obligations under for example occupational health and safety legislation building legislation and roading liability legislation to continue to be responsibilities of the Crown. However the Crown cannot know what laws may be passed in future that could have an effect on the owners of Mauao as further rights and obligations could be created under laws that are yet to be made. 
Under the current provision in the bill the Mauao trustees will not bear any of these present or future ownership obligations. If clause 7 is removed entirely significant legal uncertainty will arise concerning what obligations the trustees may bear and what rights they might have as owners of Mauao. We recognise the offence caused by the original wording of clause 7 and have recommended that the intent of the clause be reworded in clause 8 to address this concern. 
Several submitters recommended excluding Waitaha from the bill. We do not agree with the recommendation. It is very clear to us that Waitaha have a relationship with Mauao having resided on Mauao for 700 years and because the agreement to introduce vesting legislation provides for Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao to be recognised. We do note however that Waitaha was originally included equally in the proposal. Waitaha supported the final agreement on the basis of the statement of recognition of Waitaha and its ongoing representation at the management level. 
The mayor has indicated that Waitaha’s status in the management of the Mauao historic reserve remains unresolved. Waitaha is represented on the council’s Mauao steering group and has been there for some time but the recent memorandum of understanding reached between the council and the three Tauranga Moana iwi rununga does not currently recognise Waitaha’s relationship with Mauao. 
There are clearly some issues to be ironed out around the management in future including the matter of the involvement of the trustees. We do not however consider that any further changes to the bill such as attaching the memorandum of understanding are the appropriate way of addressing these. As we considered the submissions we discussed the suggestion that the bill be amended to provide for joint management over the Mauao historic reserve by the Tauranga City Council and the holders of the fee simple estate. The management of Mauao as a historic reserve has emerged as an important issue in this process. We considered a range of information including the nature of the negotiated agreement which is for the retention of the current management arrangements; the costs and infrastructure required to manage control and administer Mauao as a historic reserve; and the memorandum of understanding reached between the council and Tauranga Moana iwi which reflects their aspirations in relation to Mauao. 
We also heard from the Mayor of Tauranga City who considered that iwi representation on the council’s Mauao steering committee effectively provides iwi with joint decision-making status right now. In accordance with the Mauao management plan and under the Reserves Act 1977 we heard from the Historic Places Trust which submitted that a draft proposal is in the pipeline to register Mauao as a wahi tapu in view of the very large number of sacred and historical sites on and around the maunga. As the council’s Mauao management plan is due to be reviewed in 2009 we are satisfied that any changes will only further enhance the protection of Mauao. As the mayor pointed out the next logical step would be to formalise the Mauao steering group as a full standing committee. 
Finally as chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee I would like to recognise the efforts of the submitters in coming before us and sharing their views. I also appreciate the contribution of the members of the committee. As previous speakers have indicated it was certainly a pleasure to be able to get consensus in resolving the issues that were brought before us by submitters. I also acknowledge the sponsor of the bill the Hon Parekura Horomia and to that end I stand in support of the second reading of this bill and its amendments.