Manukau recommendations are for the attention of all NZers, says Tribunal

Tu Tangata, Issue 26, 1 October 1985, Page 4

Manukau recommendations are for the attention of all NZers, says Tribunal

The following are excerpts from the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Manukau claim to the Minister of Maori Affairs

The Manukau harbour is not merely a public utility for Auckland. It is part of the homeland of the northern Tainui tribes, a heritage that they would share, in the way that they know best, with the people of Auckland.

The decisions we have to make are not simply about the protection of the harbour. They are decisions about the place of the indigenous people in their own homeland.

There is an assumption that proper planning can protect this heritage and still accommodate more and more development. There is a feeling that with enough research and stronger conditions somehow all will be well. It is an assumption that can no longer be held. For the Manukau the critical questions are when is enough enough? and what can we do now to repair the damage already done?

There is a view that Maori fishing interests can be protected as part of the general public interest in amateur fishing. This view reflects a refusal to take Maori values seriously or to come to grips with the promises our forefathers made in the Treaty of Waitangi. When European New Zealanders deny the Maori his ‘treaty rights’ with regard to the lands and waters they deny their own rights to be here too. We must now face Maori demands for the exclusive use of traditional fisheries in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Treaty. Yet separate and exclusive usage was not chiefly sought by them. The claimants sought recognition of their status. They want their own experience, traditions and values to occupy an honourable place in our society.

There is a myth that Maori values will unnecessarily impede progress. Maori values are no more inimical to progress than Western values. The Maoris are not seeking to entrench the past but to build on it. Their society is not static. They are developers too. Their plea is not to stop progress but to make better progress and to progress together. It is not that they would opt

out of development in New Zealand. It is rather they need to know they have a proper place in it.

They need that assurance. The Tainui tribal authorities are actively promoting policies to improve the economic and social performance of their people and engender a better respect for the laws and institutions of the country. The profound question is whether they can succeed given the enormous denigration their people have had to suffer and which influences their view of our current society in every way. The issue is not whether they can succeed for they must. The issue is how we can help them succeed for that question affects us all. It affects the hope implicit in the Treaty of our forebears that together we can build a better nation.

INTRODUCTION

This claim to the Manukau Harbour has raised many separate issues. It is important for the whole community not only because of its far-reaching nature but also because of the deep-seated sense of injustice that Maori people feel

and which we have felt obliged to investigate.

As the finding shows our researches reveal that the Manukau Maori people were attacked without just cause by British troops, their homes and villages ransacked and burned, their horses and cattle stolen. They were then forced to leave their lands and were treated as rebels, all their property being confiscated in punishment for a rebellion that never took place.

These events happened before our jurisdiction commenced in 1975 but we explored them because consequences have followed that still have their effects today.

We were also required to investigate the effects on the waters of the Manukau of the steel mill at Waiuku and the slurry pipe-line project which is about to be put into operation.

The liquigas terminal to be built in the Papakura inlet was another matter for investigation, and the operation of the Auckland Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant at Mangere was also the subject of complaint.

We have come to see all the matters raised by this claim as illustrating in various ways the powerful feeling among Maori New Zealanders that the Treaty of Waitangi is a contract made with European New Zealanders which the pakeha has failed to honour.

The Maori New Zealander points out, with justification, that at a time when his people outnumbered the European by over one hundred to one he

agreed to allow the European to live and settle in New Zealand on terms and conditions solemnly agreed to in writing by both parties. He says that he has kept his side of the bargain throughout its existence.

The Manukau claim throws into relief the way in which it is said that the European New Zealander has failed to live up to his obligations.

Our task has been to examine these complaints and reach a conclusion within the limits of our statutory instructions and authority.

What follows is the result of our hearings, our researches and our most anxious consideration.

We recommend to all New Zealanders an equally careful consideration of the matters we have had to bring to the notice of the Crown.

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM

The “Manukau claim" is the most wide-ranging claim that this Tribunal has had to consider. To consider it in any broad and co-ordinated way it could not be severed into the several claims that it really constitutes.

Basically the claim is about the despoliation of the Manukau Harbour and the loss of certain surrounding lands of the Manukau tribes. More potently underlying this claim is an enormous sense of grievance, injustice and outrage that continues to haunt the Manukau Maori and bedevil the prospect of harmony in greater Auckland.

The sense of grievance begins with the land confiscations of the 1860 s. By confiscation the Manukau tribes lost most of their lands including their villages and sacred places. They live with this loss today.

We knew of the confiscations of 1863 but we were to learn also of the view, illustrated by many examples, that the confiscations never stopped in 1863. It is said they have continued, in one form or another, from then to the present day. In their view the pattern of unjust treatment continues still, and unless arrested, will yet continue until nothing is left but a deeply embittered people and the shreds of a worthless treaty.

We are seriously disturbed by what we heard of recent events affecting the Manukau Maori people. Our jurisdiction prevents us from investigating those events that occurred before 1975 but it is still necessary to consider them. The claim in respect of current concerns cannot be severed from the earlier events of the past. From their one time extensive lands, forests, estates, and fisheries all that is left to the claimants is a few pockets of land, a severely restricted ability to enjoy traditional fisheries, and a legacy of their denigration as a people. If that which is left to them cannot be pro-

tected for their benefit, not as a consequence of a recent environmental awareness, but through a substantive recognition of their status as the indigenous people, then the pattern of the past, the plundering of the tribes for the common good, will simply be affirmed and continued.

We have examined the history of past events in that context. We present them in that form to you, so that the people’s current concerns, and hope for a better future, can be assessed in terms of what has gone before.

We are frankly appalled by the events of the past and by the effect that they have had on the Manukau tribes. Unlike our jurisdiction that of the Government is not constrained. We urge you to consider in more detail the events to which we will later refer. It may be practicable to provide a measure of relief at this stage. If it is at all practicable, we would urge that steps be taken now, for they are long overdue.

Our recommendations concerning those matters within our jurisdiction do not go a far as many of the claimants would have liked. Although many of those claims are well founded upon a strict interpretation of the Treaty, other circumstances of the case point to the impracticality of providing the relief sought by some. But we feel a great deal can be done to recognise the status of the Manukau tribes in the affairs of the region, and to implement the doctrine of aboriginal rights to which the Treaty of Waitangi gave expression. To achieve this in practical terms will depend not only upon the implementation of our recommendations, but upon the answers, if any, that you may find to rectify many of the earlier wrongs.

Nganeko Minhinnick is a member of the Waikato-Tainui group of tribes. She brought this claim on behalf of a section of that group, Te Puaha ki Manuka, but it was soon apparent that the claim had the general support of the WaikatoTainui people as a whole.

She did not presume her claim to cover all the concerns of her tribal group or that all members would agree with it. She did not presume to speak first but spoke last and called on the people to speak for themselves.

We were addressed by 38 of the Waikato-Tainui people in the presence of several times that number. The significance of the presence of Te Arikinui. Dame Te Ata-i-rangi Kaahu was not lost upon us. Her presence was a public expression of the importance that her people placed on the claim. We were also addressed by Henare Tuwhangai, an elder spokesman for the Kingitanga. Robert Mahuta, spokesman for Nga Marae Toopu, and Hori Forbes, chairman of the Tainui Maori Trust Board.

We were told of a large number of instances by which it was alleged that traditional rights to the enjoyment of the land or waters of the Manukau had been limited or denied. The claims were wide ranging and although some were outside our jurisdiction to determine, each illustrated a central theme, that the promise of undisturbed possession of the lands, homes, and fisheries of the Maori people had not been and was still not being recognised in the Manukau and lower Waikato river areas. It was claimed:

1. That the Manukau and the lower Waikato are part of the tribal demesne of the Waikato-Tainui confederation of tribes. 2. That the tribes having the traditional right to use and occupy the land and waters of the Manukau area are various subtribes of Waikato-Tainui together with the Waiohua, Kawerau and Ngati Whatua people to whom they are closely related. 3. That those tribes have used and enjoyed the lands and waters of the Manukau and lower Waikato from early times to the present day. The river and harbour are as much their gardens as their cultivations on land. 4. That the use and enjoyment of their land has been severely limited by compulsory acquisitions, the effects of growth and development and a failure to recognise or give proper consideration to tribal occupational rights. 5. That the use and enjoyment of the waters has been severely limited by pollution from farm run off, sewage and industrial discharges, the effect of major works, commercial fishing and a failure to recognise or give proper thought to tribal fishing rights. 6. Particular respects in which it was claimed tribal interests in the waters are not recognised include the granting of water rights with insufficient regard for tribal fishing practices and cultural values inadequate policies for the protection of waters for fishing purposes ineffective policies to prevent depletion of the fish resource lack of recognition of tribal rights in respect of the harbour and river, and the denial of access to certain parts of the harbour and to certain lakes at Awhitu. 7. Particular projects claimed to infringe tribal rights in respect of the waters include the mining of ironsands at Maioro on the Waikato River the proposed slurry pipeline of New Steel Limited and discharges

to the harbour from Glenbrook Mill, and the proposed siting of a liquified petroleum gas wharf terminal in Papakura channel. 8. Particular respects in which it was claimed tribal interests in the land are not recognised include compulsory acquisition of certain lands siting of major works on or near Maori lands so that land ownership is lost or land enjoyment limited denial of access to the harbour, river and lakes, and destruction or failure to protect sacred sites (wahi tapu) 9. It was claimed the promise in the Treaty of Waitangi to full exclusive and undisturbed possession of Maori lands homes and fisheries had not been kept and is still ignored in current projects and policies. 10. Recognition of tribal fishing rights was sought but opinions varied on how recognition should be given. Some claimed the whole harbour belonged to the local tribes and ought to be vested in them. Others claimed representatives of the tribes ought to be appointed as Guardians of the harbour. Others asked for particular areas to be reserved for their use. Others asked simply that tribal fishing rights be recognised in fishing laws and planning policies and be given greater priority. We interpreted the broad claim as hav-

ing two aspects an allegation that the tribes are prejudiced by the omission of the Crown to recognise “treaty rights” (the comprehensive claim), and allegations that the tribes are prejudiced by particular acts policies and practices adopted by or on behalf of the Crown (the specific claims). With regard to the former it was said that the alleged omission of the Crown to recognise “treaty rights” is not new because the omissions of today are a continuation of a policy or practice that intensified with the land wars and has never really ended....

The Story of Pukaki

Pukaki is the principal marae of Ngati Te Akitai and Waiohua. Before the land wars the main buildings were located on the southern headland of the confluence of Pukaki and Waiokauri creeks. Other buildings and the urupa (burial ground) were on the opposite bank overlooking Pukaki lagoon. The estuary and creek provided for the people’s seafood needs. The estuary gave access to the Harbour and Pukaki lagoon gave shelter to canoes. The lagoon had additional significance as one of the sacred footsteps of Mataaho (Nga Tapuwae o Mataaho) the vulcan god whose footprints are evidenced by a series of depressions in the landscape starting from Lake Pupuke on Auckland’s North Shore.

Prior to the land wars the people were forced to leave and what was left behind was looted and destroyed. Following the land wars the main marae area, urupa and 1300 acres surrounding were confiscated and occupied by settlers. Only 160 acres on the north bank remained. The people shifted there on their return from Waikato and a new marae was built in 1890. We were told that by the 1950 s there were 200 families at Pukaki. The marae buildings constituted a very large complex, the dining room being said to hold 1000 people at one sitting. Although the burial ground had been confiscated the people continued to use it. It is still used and is well maintained, but the Maoris do not own the land. They use the burial ground at the sufferance of the private owner. They cross other land in private ownership to gain access.

Pukaki Lagoon (now dry land) comprises 33.6 hectares. In 1911 the Manukau Harbour Control Act vested the lagoon in the Auckland Harbour Board although the Maoris considered the lagoon was theirs. In 1925 the Board leased the lagoon under 5147 of the Harbours Act 1908 which permitted mudflat areas to be reclaimed or impounded for pastoral or agricultural purposes. A stop bank was constructed to exclude tidal waters and the reclaimed land was drained and brought into agricultural use. In 1959 a lease in perpetuity was granted. Today the

lessee owns the land surrounding the lagoon as well, including the urupa, except for an access strip to the lagoon from Pukaki Road, which is owned by the Board.

In the 1970's a stock car track (now abandoned) was built around the lagoon. A part of the adjoining burial ground was bulldozed away and remains were exposed. The Maoris complained (to the Department of Health and the local authority) and claim they did not get replies until too late. In any event they no longer owned either the lagoon or the burial ground. It was further claimed that quarrying is now taking place on another part of the lagoon.

Auckland International Airport was opened in 1965 and adjoins the mouth of the Pukaki creek. A causeway and bridge built across the mouth for airport maintenance and rescue purposes is said to affect the flow of waters causing siltation of the creeks and depletion of the fishing. In addition, airport protection regulations restrict fishing or the passage of boats carrying fish in proximity to the airport. The people claim to have lost the greater part of their seafood resource and access to the harbour for fishing purposes. Pukaki marae was also in the flight path of a projected second runway and restrictions were introduced on any development in the proposed path. It is claimed that these restrictions prevented the Pukaki marae from developing with the result that the people were “forced” to abandon the area.

At the time some of the buildings had become dilapidated. Some did not meet health requirements and the people sought to repair them. They were denied building and renovation permits, according to Joseph Wilson from the early 19505. Mahia Wilson claimed that it happened in the early 19605. She said the people thought that if they cooperated and tidied up the place they would be favoured and allowed to rebuild. She said that the people pulled down the buildings themselves including the marae buildings (demolished in 1966) but then could not get permits to renovate or rebuild. Witnesses for the airport authority gave 8 May 1960 as the earliest date on which restrictions were introduced as a result of the airport. Joseph Wilson recalled 1953 as the year in which a permit to repair the marae was first refused because of the proposed airport. In any event the people left their ancestral area to build elsewhere. We were told they left “in despair” because of restrictions of one sort or another over a long period. The next step, and the source of considerable grievance today, was the sale of much of the remaining land and the mistaken inclusion of the marae itself in the sales. With the abandonment of occu-

pation, rating problems, and the people’s need for money to build homes elsewhere, the land itself was at risk. In the 1960's several owners sought to sell their properties. Initially negotiations to sell to the airport authority were proposed (as the body whose regulations had inhibited the use and enjoyment of the land), but most lands were eventually sold privately.

Throughout these sales the local people considered the marae itself, and an area for housing around it, would always be protected and held, even though planning restrictions might prevent the use of that land for communal living purposes. It was their understanding that a three acre marae area had been “cut out” and reserved, together with roadway access.

Then in 1974, the siting of the proposed second runway was shifted. Pukaki marae was no longer in the flight path. There was now a prospect that the marae and the surrounding Maori land held back from the sales could be used to support a small Maori village complex. On the review of the Manukau District Scheme in 1982 the people made submissions to the local authority seeking zoning for this to happen. By this time a new enlightenment had crept into Town Planning and marae papakainga (housing) zoning had been provided for in several district schemes. In response to the submissions the three acre marae area was zoned Residential 9 (Maori Purposes Zone). Now yet another problem presented itself. Doubts arose as to whether the marae had in fact been protected and whether the Maori people still owned it. These doubts existed at the time of our hearing and we had to investigate the matter. We learnt: (a) That prior to the decision in 1955 to establish an airport at Mangere. Pukaki marae was part of the Maori land block known as Parish of Manurewa Allotment 156 of some 47 acres. (b) In 1947 the Maori Land Court was asked by the owners to set aside as a Maori Reservation that part of Allotment 156 containing three acres, already fenced, as would include the Pukaki marae, and a house (then occupied by Tame Wirihana) as a meeting house and papakainga reserve. The Court agreed. It was noted that the land was at the southeastern corner of the block with frontage to “the harbour". An order dated 6 March 1947 was duly sealed recommending that an Order in Council be gazetted to reserve the land accordingly. (c) The order was not in fact acted upon and the land was not in fact gazetted as a reserve.

(d) On 30 January 1953 the Court was advised that the people had had the marae reserve surveyed (on a plan approved by the Chief Surveyor as ML Plan 13581), but that as the reserve was without access to Pukaki Road, the surveyor had provided for a private roadway over allotment 156 to serve the reserve. The Court made an order creating the roadway as a Maori Roadway and then minuted a direction “Recommendation for reserve to be sent forward with copy of approved plan”. This meant that the recommendation had to be sent forward to the Head Office of the Department of Maori Affairs to have the reservation gazetted. Once gazetted the land would be inalienable. (e) Still the recommendation was not acted on. The land was not in fact gazetted as a reservation. The roadway order was not in fact registered against the Certificate of Title in the Land Transfer Office. The Chief Surveyor forwarded the plan to the District Land Registrar to enable those things to be done, but they were not done because the gazette notice was never put through or actioned.

(f) On 15 April 1953 and subsequently three other areas were cut out of allotment 156 for a total area of seven acres, three roods, 14 perches. These are the areas surrounding the marae, the only areas that remain as Maori land today. (g) In 1969 an estate agent was engaged to negotiate the sale of the balance of the block to the airport authority. After some years the negotiations fell through when the principal owner died. By then there were 22 owners. On 15 August 1972 after hearing Counsel for the estate of the deceased owner, other owners, Counsel for the Manukau City Council and Counsel for the Auckland Regional Authority, the Maori Land Court appointed a real estate agent as trustee for the land (and two other blocks) “to negotiate or complete a sale of the above lands to the Auckland Regional Authority for extensions to the Mangere International Airport”. The ARA offer of $120,000 (for the three blocks) did not compare with the offer of $252,000 from a private buyer and eventually the lands, including the residue of allotment 156, were sold by trustee to the private purchaser. (This was in fact contrary to the terms of the trust order which contemplated that the land was needed for airport purposes and restricted any sale to the A.R.A.) (h) what was sold? Our enquiries reveal that the area sold in fact included the marae and roadway. The

transfer was registered on 5 February 1982. The new title that then issued to the purchaser (CT 52D/518) depicts the part allotment 156 that was sold as being held in two parts, the area that we can identify as the marae and roadway part of 1.2141 ha, and the residue of 14.8118 ha but of course both parts are in the one title and stand vested in the purchaser. It seems clear to us that this is so because the Chief Surveyor lodged the plan for the marae, but the recommendation that the marae be reserved was never gazetted or registered and the roadway order was never registered. It appears on our enquiries that a recommendation of the Maori Land Court that land be gazetted as Maori Reservation is a matter to be followed through to gazettal by the Department of Maori Affairs as a simple administrative exercise. Further action on the part of the owners is unnecessary unless survey is required. In this case, survey was attended to in 1953 that the 1947 recommendation be sent forward for gazettal. It appears to us that in 1969 and 1972 both the owners and the Maori Land Court could reasonably have expected all necessary steps would have been taken to ensure that the marae was reserved and protected from the sale then proposed.

Pukaki illustrates the way in which Maori people have lost their lands, homes, sacred places and fisheries through insensitive and (to them) incomprehensible laws and regulations. We are aware of new laws, new policies and new attitudes that may prevent this sort of thing from happening again but we feel strongly that although there are currently limits on what we may recommend, the problem of Pukaki cannot be ignored. Witnesses cried openly as we were told the story of Pukaki. Many of the people shifted to the lands of their kin-folk at Makaurau only to be faced there with the closure of the Oruarangi creek, the loss of the Makarau seafood resource and the construction of the treatment plant. Today nothing remains of the Pukaki marae that supported some 200 families in the 19505, apart from three houses on the remaining pockets of Maori land. We were told of how current hopes to rebuild the marae and re-establish homes continue to be thwarted. We were told that approaches have been made to Ministers of Maori Affairs and Registrars of the Maori Land Court, and of course to the landowners, but without success. The Auckland Regional Authority told us that it would lend what assistance it could to aid the return of lands and the re-establishment of the marae. We were told that if they could, the people would return. They return now only to bury their dead in the ancient burial ground that is no longer theirs.

Recommendations

We recommend to the Minister of Maori Affairs in each case, and: To the Ministers of Transport (re Harbours Act), Local Government (re controlling authorities), Energy (re Coal Mines Act and rivers), Fisheries (re seabeds) and Works and Development (re planning laws) that in view of Maori sensibilities to the ownership of river, coastal and foreshore areas and the need to reconcile those sensibilities with public ownership, and in view of the diversity and occasional anomalies in the laws and practices governing grants of control of various parts of those areas, and the need to integrate those controls with sound planning principles in both environmental and commercial management, the laws relating to the ownership and control of rivers, harbours, coastal and foreshore areas be reviewed, together with the particular enactments in force for particular harbour, coastal and foreshore areas with a view to restoring the ownership of the Crown and expressing therein the Crown’s judiciary responsibilities to the local tribes in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and with a view to rationalising existing control anomalies and providing integration with other planning statues.

To the Minister of Civil Aviation and Meteorological Services That in view of the tribal interests in the fishing grounds of Pukaki Creek and the Karore and Oriori banks, now affected by the Auckland International Airport, the Civil Aviation Division of the Ministry of Transport be directed (i) to investigate and report to you on the practicality of restricted fishing and/or passage rights to licensed individuals of the Pukaki tribes within the areas of current restriction, and (ii) include in its current review of the Pukaki causeway and bridge, a report to you on the possibility of changes to improve water flows and maintain sea access in order that the fishing rights guaranteed to the Pukaki people in the Treaty of Waitangi might by partly restored

To the Ministers for the Environment and Works and Development (a) that following the release of the Manukau Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme the Commissioner for the Environment be asked to advise on the formulation of a Manukau Harbour Action Plan with definite commitments to take positive measures for the restoration of the harbour having regard to our finding that the deterioration of the harbour seriously prejudices the enjoyment of fisheries protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, and that positive action is needed more than policies of containment to remove that prejudice (b) that the advice should consider ways in which the plan might be implemented and subsidy assistance settled

To the Minister of Transport That pending the formulation of an Action Plan as in 3 above, further reclamations in the Manukau be prohibited.

To the Ministers of Maori Affairs and Environment That Manukau Guardians be appointed to provide a Maori and environmental overview of the harbour and a

Maori overview of the environs, and to restore the mana Maori in both, in the manner recommended.

To the Minister of Fisheries (a) that in view of Treaty of Waitangi guarantees for Maori fisheries and the current lack of recognition given them, contrary to the Treaty, and in view of our findings that there is need for greater research on how Maori fisheries might be more adequately provided for in legislation, policy and management planning, and in view of our finding that there is potential for conflict between Maori, public and commercial fishing interests and that the potential for conflict should be eliminated and in view of the fact that the options adopted in other countries with indigenous minorities have not been

fully examined or made known locally, and in view of our finding that Maori representatives on bodies under the aegis of the Ministry ought to have appropriate support and access to research opinion, that comprehensive studies be undertaken now to identify areas of major Maori habitation and fishing activity throughout the country, the nature of the fishing activity, the location of particular tribal fishing grounds and the marae and hapu associated with each, and the options available for the recognition,

protection or compensation of Maori fishing interests, and that the information be made available for public consideration, (b) that in the interim, the lower creek and mouth of Whatapaka or Clarkes creek, and the Pukaki-Oruarangi creeks and tributaries, be reserves now for the exclusive use of the hapu of Whatapaka and Pukaki marae respectively, (c) that a comprehensive study be undertaken on the effects of commercial fishing in the Manukau Harbour and lower Waikato River and, (d) in the event that conclusions on that study cannot be finalised within three years, following consultation with affected interests and public consideration, commercial fishing in the Manukau Harbour and Port Waikato River mouth areas be prohibited until such time as a marked improvement in the fish stocks is clearly apparent

To the Minister of Works and Development (a) that consideration be given, in the long term, to modernising and integrating a range of planning statutes with provisions, to bind the Crown in the same way as the private citizen, to codify the principles to be applied, as appropriate, to all affected statutes, to provide for combined hearings to enable projects requiring several consents to be dealt with at one hearing to provide for the assessment and consideration of the cumulative effect of developments and the maintenance of appropriate environmental qualities, to enable the conduct of the parties to be considered and any direction for further disclosure, discussion or research to be made and, to provide for the review of existing use rights. Applicable principles should include consideration of the relationship of the Maori people their values, culture and traditions to any lands, waters or resources, and the protection of Maori lands and fishing grounds.

(b] that existing legislation be amended forthwith (i) to enable Regional Water Boards to take into account Maori spiritual and cultural values when considering water rights applications (ii) to provide specific reference to Maori fishing areas and the values pertaining thereto in the laws affecting water rights (iii) to provide for the review and reformulation of existing water right discharges that have not been approved by Regional Water Boards (the Manukau Sewage Purification Works for example) to bring them into line with current standards (iv) to require that Maritime Planning Schemes and Regional and District Planning Schemes shall have regard to the relationship of the Maori people, their values culture and traditions to any land, waters or resources (v) to remove any exemptions for the Crown from the requirements of the general planning laws and to apply the planning procedures to all mining under the Mining Act 1971 and gas pipeline authorisations under the Petroleum Act 1937 or provide other sanctions for the protection of Maori interests affected by those Acts

To the Ministers of Maori Affairs, National Development and Local Government That consideration be given to affirmative action to fund and assist tribal authorities to establish an economic base for their people, that development levies be apportioned where marae and papakainga are affected by developments and that an additional levy be provided where traditional fisheries are affected or where Maori people have a significant cultural interest in affected resources.

To the Ministers of Lands, Forests, Energy and Works and Development That negotiations be continued with all affected parties for a settlement of the claims in respect of the compulsory acquisition of lands in the Waiuku State Forest, if practicable without further recourse to this Tribunal.

To the Minister of Internal Affairs (a) that the Antiquities Act 1975 and any policies for the administration of that Act be reviewed in the light of the concerns expressed in para 7.4 upon the ground that while the principle of protecting Maori taonga is consistent with the promises of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty pro-

mises were intended to confer a benefit on the hapu owning or entitled to those taonga and that the claimants in this case have not received a benefit since the passing of that Act (b] that in view of the apparent lack of knowledge of this Act among those who appeared before us, the Department make known widely in the community both the provisions of the Act and Departmental policies under it To the Ministers of Maori Affairs, Lands, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology and Fisheries That their Departments be authorised, at their discretion to assist Maori groups with the preparation and formulation of submissions and the presentation of available evidence to those bodies, boards and tribunals involved in planning processes in order that their concerns might be better known and where practicable verified from available information or opinion.

To the Ministers of Lands, Forests and Energy (a) that the consents and licences whereby NZ Steel Ltd is authorised to undertake mining operations at Waikato North Head be reviewed and renegotiated, or new undertakings sought, to protect sacred sites and adjoining Maori lands, (but not so as to presume that all former Maori freehold lands are sacred sites], with provision for the re-inter-ment of discovered remains, and with provision for the reinterment of the remains within larger wahi tapu where burials are dispersed, with the concurrence of elders of Ngati Te Ata (b] that if agreed to by Ngati Te Ata, assistance be given for the survey of agreed sacred sites, and their establishment as Maori Reservation with trustees appointed for their control.

To the Ministers of Maori Affairs and Works and Development That in view of our finding that Maori wahi tapu are not adequately protected and that the ownership or control of wahi tapu are not adequately secured to the tribes, and that these things are contrary to the Treaty statutory provision be made for the compulsory acquisition of significant sacred sites for settlement as Maori Reservations in appropriate cases.

To the Ministers of Maori Affairs and Internal Affairs That research be undertaken into the desirable options for the identification of Maori sacred sites on Crown or General land having regard to the recent Australian experience pertaining to Aboriginal sacred sites.

To the Minister of Lands That the Crown negotiate with the current owners and lessee for the acquisition of the Pukaki marae site, urupa (with access thereto] and lagoon, and if those areas or any of them can be acquired then without charge to the Maori hapu the Crown should gazette those areas as Maori Reservations for Ngati Te Akitai and Waiohua, upon the ground that they are existing wahi tapu of those tribes, that such action is necessary to secure and protect them, that there are currently insufficient laws to protect and secure such areas to the prejudice of the affected tribes, and that the omission to provide such laws is contrary to the principles of the Treaty.

Conclusion

We now end our report where we began it. The enormous losses sustained by the Manukau tribes must be looked at, although they are for the most part beyond our jurisdiction to examine in any detail. The policies that led to the land wars and confiscations are the primary source of grievance although they occurred last century. It is the continuation of similar policies into recent times that has prevented past wounds from healing. Special consideration must now be given to the people of the Makaurau, Pukaki and Te Puea Marae. In various degrees they have lost the greatest part of their traditional seafood resource and access to the harbour or have been affected by developments around them predating the year from whence our jurisdiction begins. The Makaurau people lost more than most. Compensation has not been assessed but even were it to be assessed under existing laws, the tribal and fishing loss is not compensatable. This most unsatisfactory state needs to be remedied. Any compensation payable ought to be payable not to individuals but to the various marae. Although compensation was not sought it provides the only practical alternative.

Even after all these years Ngati Te Ata ought to be fully informed on why they had to vacate Moeatoa marae on whether or not they still have an interest in the Awhitu Lakes and whether access or user rights can still be secured to them. The Rangariri people ought to be told of on the position concerning their papakainga and should be assisted to re-establish their mana whenua at Awhitu.

Despite the injustices of the Manukau's past, and some chafing at the bit from a younger generation, those before us re-affirmed their loyalty to the nation and their reliance on the due processes of law. It is not their loyalty that is in question but the good faith of the other party to the Treaty, the Crown in right of New Zealand.

Past wrongs can be put right, in a practical way. and it is not too late to begin again.