9 February 2010 NGATI WHATUA O ORAKEl MAORI TRUST BOARD The Clerk of the Committee Auckland Governance Legislation Committee Private Bag 18041 Wellington 6160 further copy by e mail to: select.committees@parliament.govt.nz SUBMISSIONS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND LAW REFORM) BILL Submitter: NGATI WHATUA O ORAKEI MAORI TRUST BOARD Tena koutou RECEI V ED I {1 FEB 2010 / Auckland Govemance [ LLe:islation Committee ] INTRODUCTION This submission is by Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board ("Trust Board"). The Trust Board represents all of the interests of the three Tamaki based hapu of the Ngati Whatua iwi, Te Taou, Nga Oho and Te Uringutu. They have Tuperiri as common ancestor, are the three southern hapu of Ngati Whatua and in modern times usually collectively known as Ngati Whatua o Orakei because that was the place of their last lands in Tamaki and where their marae is and has been situated since the times of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The rohe of Ngati Whatua o Orakei incorporates what is in current territorial authority terms Auckland City, North Shore City, the bulk of Waitakere City and other lands largely shared on the southern side of Rodney District and the northern side of Manukau City. The rohe of other Ngati Whatua hapu continue north from our rohe but still within the northern boundaries of the Auckland (Super) City and then northwards again. The Trust Board has a statutory mandate to be the sole negotiator for the people of Ngati Whatua o Orakei in regard to the customary rights and usages of the hapu deriving from the mana whenua of the hapu in the Tamaki Isthmus set out in Section 19 of the Orakei Act 1991. The Trust Board has also negotiated the present Agreement in Principle between Ngati Whatua o Orakei and the Crown in respect of outstanding historical Treaty claims.
We can be contacted at: The Chief Executive Officer Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board PO Box 42045 Orakei Auckland 1745 Attention: Tiwana Tibble Phone: (09) 336 1670 Direct Dial: 929 0014 Fax: (09) 336 1671 e mail: tiwanaqngatiwhatuaorakei.com or through our Solicitor: Don Wackrow Wackrow Williams & Davies Limited PO Box 461 Shortland Street Auckland 1140 Phone: (09) 379 5026 Fax: (09) 377 6553 e mail: don@wwandd.co.nz 3. We wish to appear before the Committee and speak to our submission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Our submissions concern the Maori Statutory Board process (Part 7 and Schedule 3 in this Bill). Our first major submission is that the present provisions for selection of the seven mana whenua members of the Maori Statutory Board are flawed and may well give an outcome where major iwi and hapu and the areas they represent are excluded from the Maori Statutory Board. Our submission is to ensure that there is proper and broad representation of mana whenua. Clearly the legislation would intend that all major elements of mana whenua should be represented. We propose a system where the seven mana whenua members are made up of: i. Two representatives from Ngati Whatua ropu; ii. iii. Two representatives from Waikato ropu; Two representatives from Hauraki/Marutuahu ropu; and
iv. One representative from Ngati Wai ropu. The second submission concerns the relationship between the Maori Statutory Board and Local Boards. The responsibilities of Local Boards and the demarcation of work and operations between Local Boards and the Auckland Council are not yet known. The applicable statutory provisions permit Local Boards to have committees. If in the event, Local Boards have committees which deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources, or other Local Boards committees wish to have a Maori member, the respective provisions in Part 7 Section 70 should apply to such committees as well as to committees of the Auckland Council (as Section 70 currently provides). BACKGROUND We should make it plain that Ngati Whatua in no way withdraws the submissions made as to the need for mana whenua seats on the Council and believes this Advisory Board structure set out in the Bill is a completely inadequate method of reflecting proper mana whenua interests in Auckland. Be that as it may, we can only make submissions on the material set out in the Bill and this we now do. It may be helpful to those Select Committee Members who are not from Tamaki to have some very broad overview as to the iwi and hapu (we will call them "tribes") within the Super City boundaries and in a very loose sense the physical areas of their core rohe. You should bear in mind in reading this very short summary there are overlaps in their various claimed interests, some of which are agreed between the tribes and some of which are very firmly not agreed. Mana whenua within the Super City can be broadly looked at as involving four broad ropu (groups): Ngati Wai ropu. Includes iwi/hapu of Ngati Wai, Ngati Manuhiri and Ngati Rehua. They are acknowledged as being exclusive mana whenua in Great Barrier Island. They have interests in other of the Gulf Islands. Otherwise within Super City boundaries they are mana whenua at Pakiri Beach and thereabouts. Together they are smaller in number than the three other ropu. In broad terms, their focus is the north east segment of the Super City. Ngati Whatua ropu. The Trust Board represents its three southern most hapu, i.e. Te Taou, Nga Oho and Te Uringutu whose rohe comes within the current Auckland City, Waitakere City and North Shore boundaries with some very limited areas (largely shared) at the very north of Manukau City and the very south of Rodney. The other tribes within the Ngati Whatua ropu are north of us and indeed the entire iwi rohe goes to above Dargaville on the West Coast and to the southern shores of the Whangarei Harbour on the East Coast and has interests in some of the Gulf Islands. Within Super City boundaries, besides the names of the groups already given and
Ngati Whatua itself, you will also see the names of Ngati Rongo and Te Uri o Hau. In very broad terms their focus is the northern and central segments of the Super City. Waikato ropu. Here one sees the names of Ngati Te Ata, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngai Tai, Te Akitai and Kawerau a Maki. Within the Super City boundaries they are dominant mana whenua in South Auckland. Principally through Kawerau a Maki they are mana whenua in the west of Auckland with a particular focus on the West Coast. They have some claims into the current Auckland and North Shore Cities. Therefore in terms of current local authority boundaries you should think of their focus as the southern and western segments of the Super City incorporating Franklin, Papakura, Manukau City and Waitakere City, although there are other interests claimed within Auckland City and North Shore. Hauraki ropu. Within the Super City boundaries the names you see are the Maratuahu tribes of Ngati Paoa, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Tamatera (and some Ngai Tai look to them rather than Waikato). Relevantly within Super City boundaries the Hauraki tribes have a main focus on the south eastern segments of the Super City and throughout most of the Hauraki Gulf. Those relevant interests are primarily within the present Franklin, Manukau City, the Gulf Islands part of Auckland City (subject to what was said about Great Barrier Island, etc. above). They also claim in the south eastern section of Auckland City and from the Hauraki Gulf side into North Shore City and Rodney. All of the Hauraki tribes also have interests outside the Super City in Hauraki, Thames, Coromandel Peninsula, etc. Therefore their primary relevant interests move from the south eastern segment of the Super City and run up primarily the east side of the Super City. This very general overview is necessarily very foreshortened and a more accurate and sophisticated analysis would run to a number of pages. 10. Another background matter to be borne in mind is that both the Waikato and Hauraki ropu are part of Tainui. Ngati Whatua and the Ngati Wai ropu are not. You will recall that Ngati Whatua and Tainui strongly argued before this Committee that there should be at least two mana whenua seats on the Super City Council, and in the event of two seats one should be Tainui and the other should be Ngati Whatua plus the Ngati Wai interests. That Tainui/non Tainui distinction is another way you can group the Super City mana whenua. SUBMISSION ONE THE EFFECT OF THE CURRENT SELECTION/ELECTION PROCESSES FOR THE MAORI ADVISORY BOARD 11. The current system in the Bill is set out in its Schedule 3. It has the Minister of Maori Affairs obtaining one representative each from what are called "mana whenua groups" defined as groups who are either one or more of: a mandated iwi organization under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004; and/or
5 a body that has been the subject of a settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claim; and/or a body that has been confirmed by the Crown as holding a mandate for the purposes of negotiating Treaty of Waitangi claims and is currently negotiating over the claims. Together individual representatives from each of these bodies make up the "Selection Body", effectively an electoral college, appointing the seven mana whenua members and the two taura here members who make up the Maori Advisory Board. These nine people have three year terms and exercise all of the Maori Advisory Board functions. 12. This method of selection is flawed. The problem is that a bare majority on the Selection Body appoints all members of the Maori Advisory Board. The numbers on the Selection Body are not in any way proportionate to the mana whenua interests in the Super City. For example, one body representing a large natural grouping has the same single representative as each member of a selection of comparatively small bodies together making up an equivalent natural grouping within other ropu. It is an accident of Treaty negotiations' history as to how many there are. 13. Using the criteria currently set out in the Bill: The Ngati Wai ropu we believe would have three members because despite the comparatively small numbers we understand individual mandates are held by Ngati Wai, Ngati Rehua and Ngati Manuhiri. ii. The Ngati Whatua ropu would have three members. Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua (because it is both a mandated negotiator for Treaty claims not covered by Orakei and Kaipara and a mandated iwi organization under the Maori Fisheries Act), Kaipara ki te Tonga (which is a collective of the mid northern hapu of Ngati Whatua because they are negotiating the Kaipara Treaty claims) and the Trust Board (because it both has been the subject of a Treaty of Waitangi claim and it is a negotiator for current claims for the three southern hapu). i1i. Waikato ropu would have six members because each of the five tribes referred to will have mandates to negotiate and Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust (based in the Waikato) is the mandated fisheries organization for all the Waikato tribes. 1V. Hauraki ropu would have six members because each of the five tribes referred to will have mandates to negotiate and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board based in Thames is the mandated iwi fisheries organization for all the Hauraki tribes. Hauraki provides a good example of the arbitrary nature of the numbers of representatives that would be given by the Bill. For many years the Crown has been looking to negotiate with Hauraki as one grouping not many groupings. The longstanding and deep seated debate within Hauraki, causing deep divisions, has been whether the Hauraki Maori Trust Board has the mandate to conduct those negotiations, or another grouping called the Marutuahu Federation. This has gone without resolution for many years. Then a few months ago the Crown decided to move the mandate down a level to individual tribes who are currently in various stages going through Ib:nga618/55:600
6 individual mandate processes all of which will be completed by the time this Bill comes into effect. Therefore the Hauraki ropu as at 2010 would have six representatives but if the same question had been asked in 2009, or any years previous, the Hauraki ropu would have had one representative (if the Hauraki Maori Trust Board had the mandate) or two if the Marutuahu Federation were granted the mandate but the Hauraki Maori Trust Board were represented because of their fisheries mandate. 14. You can see how the numbers might then work when the selection body elects the seven mana whenua representatives. For example, a combination of Waikato and Hauraki can ensure that the seven mana whenua representatives are all from them, which would mean that the Ngati Wai ropu and the Ngati Whatua ropu would be wholly excluded. A comparatively minor "breaking of ranks" within the Waikato and Hauraki ropu could mean any two of the ropu could be wholly excluded. Either Hauraki or Waikato aligning with the northern tribes could mean that the other of either Waikato or Hauraki could be wholly excluded. 15. It is not only the injustice in the potential for exclusion of one or more major mana whenua groupings in the Advisory Board. This would be unjust not only to the tribes concerned, but also to the lands those tribes have within their rohe. For example, the first scenario where Ngati Whatua and Ngati Wai are excluded would mean there would be no effective mana whenua representation north of the Harbour Bridge, little north of the Otahuhu Portage, nothing from Great Barrier Island and inadequate representation in respect of the other Gulf Islands. 16. There is a better way which will ensure that representation of mana whenua interests is appropriately spread over the territory of the Super City. That is to provide a make up of two members each from the Ngati Whatua, Waikato and Hauraki ropu and a single member from Ngati Wai ropu. That will at least ensure that every major mana whenua grouping within the Super City has membership on the Maori Advisory Board. 17. Something very similar to what we recommend is currently being advanced in respect of the collective settlement of Treaty claims concerning eleven maunga in the Tamaki Isthmus. While Ngati Wai does not participate in respect of these maunga because its interests lie elsewhere, it has been agreed between the Treaty negotiators for the various tribes that the collective body representing mana whenua interests for the maunga and other items of their collective redress will have equal representation from Ngati Whatua, Waikato and Hauraki. As the Advisory Board would be dealing with all Maori interests in lands and resources within the Super City's boundaries we believe that those seven mana whenua members should be selected as follows: i. Two representatives from Ngati Whatua ropu; ii. iii. Two representatives from Waikato ropu; Two representatives from Hauraki/Marutuahu ropu; and lb:nga6l 8/55:600
7 iv. One representative from Ngati Wai ropu. SUBMISSION T WO ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTATIVES ON LOCAL BOARD COMMITTEES 18. The work division and other demarcation of responsibilities between the new Council and the Local Boards has not yet been set. Our original submissions on the Maori seats stressed the need for local accountability, as did our submissions to the Local Government Commission on the size and make up of wards on the Auckland Council. We understand that the need for local access and local accountability has been stressed by the vast majority of people who have made submissions to this Committee since it was first instituted to consider the various Super City Bills that have moved through Parliament. 19. We and the other citizens of Auckland seek that Local Boards have real functions, real work, real responsibilities and real powers delegated to them to enable them to carry on their work. We note that Local Boards generally will each serve substantial areas and substantial populations. For example, we see that there will be only six Local Boards on the Isthmus between and running to each side of the Whau and Otahuhu Portages (i.e. old "mainland" Auckland City and part of Waitakere City). 20. Local Boards have the ability to have both Committees and Sub Committees. This follows from Section 29 of the Bill which applies to them various powers set out in Part I of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, including its Clauses 30 and 31. 21. Therefore if under Section 70 of the Bill the Maori Advisory Council must appoint a maximum of two persons to sit on the Auckland Council's committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources and that the Auckland Council may ask the Board to appoint a person or persons to other of the council's committees, there is no reason why those same rights and responsibilities should not occur in regard to equivalent decision making at a Local Board level. If there is a reasonable level of devolution to Local Boards, which indeed is our hope, those Local Boards will have committees that deal with "management and stewardship of natural and physical resources" and otherwise have committees whose members may well believe they would benefit from Maori input. If the Section 70 rights and responsibilities do not additionally extend to committees and sub committees of Local Boards, the intent of Section 70 will be effectively neutered by a simple allocation of responsibilities to Local Board committees which are beyond the current scope of Section 70. Surely that cannot be intended.
8 22. Therefore we respectfully seek that the words "and Local Board committees" be added to Section 70(1) and that in sub section (2) the words "or Local Board" and "or Local Boards" be added, and that in sub section (4) the words "or Local Board" be added; in each case after the reference to "the Auckland Council". Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board