Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Te Kāhui Maunga: The National Park District Inquiry Report

Te Kāhui Maunga: The National Park District Inquiry Report

Report Summary

The Waitangi Tribunal’s three-volume Te Kāhui Maunga: The National Park District Inquiry Report covers 41 claims spanning the area of Tongariro National Park and selected lands surrounding the park. The Tribunal refers to the people whose claims it heard as ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga. This name acknowledges their close whakapapa ties to one another and to the chiefly cluster of mountains: te kāhui maunga, which include Tongariro, Ngāuruhoe, Ruapehu, Pīhanga, Hauhungatahi, and Kakaramea and which dominate the inquiry’s landscape.

The Tribunal panel for the inquiry was made up of Waitangi Tribunal chairperson Chief Judge Wilson Isaac, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, Professor Sir Hirini Mead, and Dr Monty Soutar. The panel convened 10 hearings between February 2006 and July 2007.

The claims of nga iwi o te kāhui maunga concerned two issues above all: the establishment and management of Tongariro National Park and the creation and operation of the Tongariro power development scheme. In his letter of transmittal that accompanied the final report, released on 12 November 2013, Chief Judge Isaac said that ‘Both of these matters are of national importance and are at the heart of the inquiry’.

The Tribunal found that it was a myth that Horonuku Te Heuheu made a noble gift to the Crown of the peaks of Tongariro, Ngāuruhoe, and Ruapehu. Rather, it found that Ngāti Tūwharetoa made a tuku of their sacred mountains, inviting the Crown to share their taonga as joint owners and trustees. Ngāti Tūwharetoa wanted to work with the Crown, to protect the mountains forever.

The Tribunal found that the Crown did not honour the partnership intended by Horonuku Te Heuheu. Instead, it took the title to the mountains for itself, and established the national park without properly consulting ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga. The Tribunal found that the Tongariro National Park Act 1894 as a whole failed to meet the legitimate expectations of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and was a clear breach of Treaty principles.

The Crown gave no recognition to the interests of Whanganui iwi. The Tribunal found that the Crown ‘effectively confiscated’ lands in which Whanganui and Ngāti Rangi had interests, which included sacred places such as Te Waiamoe – the crater lake on Mount Ruapehu – and Te Ara-ki-Paretetaitonga – the main peak of Mount Ruapehu.

For more than a century now, the Crown has not enabled ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga to exercise their rangatiratanga – their authority – over the park.

The Tribunal found that these actions of the Crown have breached the Treaty principles of reciprocity and good faith and the Crown’s duty of active protection.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown honour its Treaty obligations and restore the partnership intended by the 1887 tuku by making a new partnership arrangement for the national park. Under this partnership arrangement, Tongariro National Park would be made inalienable, removed from Crown ownership, and taken out of the control of the Department of Conservation. The park would then be held jointly by the Crown and by ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga under a new Act and in a new title. The park would also be managed jointly by a statutory authority comprising representatives from the Crown and ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga.

The second matter at the heart of the claims before the Tribunal was the Tongariro power development scheme, which diverts water from the Whanganui and Tongariro River systems into Lake Rotoaira and releases it downstream to generate electricity.

The Tribunal found that the waterways diverted by the scheme are taonga of great importance to ngā iwi o te kāhui maunga, which never knowingly and willingly gave up possession and control of their waterways. The Tribunal found that the iwi retain development rights in those waterways and that they are entitled to compensation for the past and present use of their taonga to generate electricity, particularly in the case of Lake Rotoaira.

When the Crown set up the Tongariro power development scheme, it met only with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It did not consult the trustees who administer Lake Rotoaira (which is critical to the scheme) or Whanganui iwi. Because of these failures to consult, the Tribunal found that the Crown did not act honourably, fairly, or reasonably when it established the scheme.

The Tongariro power development scheme has meant losses in water quality, habitat, and kai. Lake Rotoaira, which is a significant taonga of ngā iwi o te kahui maunga, has suffered irreversible damage. Yet, the Crown did not compensate the lake’s owners for the use of their lake for storage or for the impacts of the scheme.

The Tribunal made particular findings about the Crown’s 1972 agreement with the trustees of Lake Rotoaira. Under that agreement, Māori retained title to the lake bed, but the owners had to surrender control of the lake for electricity generation, without compensation. The Tribunal considered that Ngāti Tūwharetoa signed this deed because the Crown both kept them in the dark about the true environmental effects of the Tongariro power development scheme on their lake and fuelled fears that it would take the lake. The Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principle of partnership and considered that it would be unconscionable for the Crown now to refuse to put aside the deed. The Tribunal also proposed a package of measures under which the Crown, local government, and ngā iwi o te kahui maunga might manage waterways together.

The Tribunal’s extensive report covered many other issues, including Crown laws and practices regarding the alienation of land, the operation of the Native Land Court, public works takings, land development, customary fisheries, waterways, and the geothermal resource.

Overall, the Tribunal noted that the Treaty principles of dealing fairly and with utmost good faith had been breached, that substantial restitution was due, and that the quantum should be settled by prompt negotiation.


Full report: Te Kāhui Maunga: The National Park District Inquiry Report


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Discussion Doc: 'Firearm Prohibition Orders' Power For Police

“FPOs would prevent people from being around others who have firearms, using them under supervision, or being at a location that enables access to guns. FPOs set conditions which people must follow, allow Police to monitor the conditions, and create penalties for breaches.

“In practice this may mean a person subject to a FPO could not live in or visit a property where firearms are held, even if the firearm owner is licensed. They could not be in a vehicle which is carrying a firearm. They could not go hunting even under supervision. They could still associate with lawful gun owners, but not if a firearm is present." More>>

 

Police: Armed Response Team In Low Level Arrest, 'Preventative' Patrols

Police later said the stop was entirely appropriate, and resulted in the man being arrested without incident for "breaching conditions". More>>

ALSO:

Startable Political Party: Sustainable NZ Party Holds Launch

The party's leader, Vernon Tava, told supporters at their launch over the weekend that the party will be pro environment, science and business. More>>

  • Out-Link - Sue Bradford: Is Sustainable NZ an endangered species from its birth? Or are friends in the wings? — Pundit
  • Children's Commissioner Comment: Damning Oranga Tamariki Review Of Uplift Case

    “The practice review released by Oranga Tamariki today is rigorous and robust. However, it describes a litany of failure at every step. It is a damning indictment of inadequate social work practice. Many social workers will welcome the light being shone on this case." More>>

    ALSO:

    Environment Commissioner: ‘Huge’ Data Gaps Undermine Stewardship

    Environment Commissioner Simon Upton says ‘huge’ gaps in data and knowledge undermine our stewardship of the environment and is calling for concerted action to improve the system. More>>

  • Image via Out-Link - Focusing Aotearoa New Zealand’s environmental reporting system
  • Science Media Centre - Measuring changes to our environment – Expert Reaction
  • Local Govt NZ - LGNZ backs call for better environmental reporting
  • Environmental Defence Society - EDS endorses Commissioner for the Environment’s report
  • Federated Farmers - Environment data gaps no basis for current policy swings
  • Zero Carbon Bill Passes: "Historic Day For Landmark Climate Change Legislation"

    The landmark legislation which provides a framework to support New Zealanders to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change delivers on the Government’s Coalition and Confidence Supply agreements, and is a key part of the Government’s plan to tackle the long-term challenge of climate change. More>>

    ALSO:

    Gordon Campbell: On National’s Anointing Of Christopher Luxon

    Clearly, the National Party hierarchy is very, very excited about Christopher Luxon... Such are the levels of anticipation that this week, Luxon was instantly forgiven for making up welfare policy, off the top of his head. More>>

    ALSO:

    "Serious Concerns": Officers Discuss Planting Drugs To Search Cars

    The Authority found that, while there was no proof this actually happened, some officers' comments demonstrated they were prepared to engage in improper and potentially discriminatory policing practices. More>>

    ALSO:

     
     
     
     
     

    LATEST HEADLINES

    • PARLIAMENT
    • POLITICS
    • REGIONAL
     
     

    InfoPages News Channels