National Park Tribunal

Introduction The National Park Inquiry District was established in 2004. The Tribunal members were Chief Judge Isaac Wilson, Sir Doug Kidd, Professor Sir Hirini Mead and Monty Soutar.

A number of claims were made to the Tribunal on behalf of the descendants of Tamakana- WAI 954 (Rangi Bristol and Raymond Rapana/ Tamakana Council of Hapu); WAI 1072 (Matiu Haitana/ Ngati Ruakopiri-Patutokotoko); WAI 1073 (Chris Ngataierua/ Ngati Kowhaikura); WAI 1089 (Buddy Taiaroa/ Ngati Kahukurapango); WAI 1170 (Rangi Bristol, Raymond Rapana, Matiu Haitana / Uenuku); WAI 1192 (Dean Hiroti, Patrick Te Oro, Aiden Gilbert/ Ngati Maringi).

Hearings were conducted from February 2006 to July 2007 at marae -including Mangamingi, Papakai and other venues within or close to the National Park District.

The Tribunal Report Te Kahui Maunga was published in 2013. Following are excerpts from the report:

Introduction “The colder climate around Te Kahui Maunga, the elevation and the slope of its land, and the difficulty of establishing imported sub-tropical food plants compelled its first settlers to explore the area’s extensive forests, wooded hills, wetlands, streams, lakes and geothermal outlets. They found them well resourced, but because they were less sought after than the alluvial flats of other areas, they were less closely demarcated.

A main tributary from Ruapehu was known as Manganui o te ao. The river was only navigable for a short way- a canoe could be floated two kilometres, four at the most, and at its upper reaches travelers had to climb the side of a gorge for about 300 feet.

On the southern slopes of Mt Ruapehu the boundary of the Inquiry District is more unnatural than anywhere else. Historically, Ngati Uenuku and Ngati Rangi claim mana whenua in this part of the district. There were no permanent pa here; those with user-rights generally trekking up from the Manganui o te ao valley to gather seasonal resources. Ohakune township, which touches the south-western boundary of the inquiry district, began life in 1897 as a camp for workers building the North Island Main Trunk Railway.

The relationship between Ngati Rangi and their Uenuku relatives came apart during the wars of the 1860s when Te Peehi Pakaro and Topia Turoa led their people into battle against crown forces; first in support of the Kingitanga and then as adherents of the Pai Marire faith. Ngati Rangi generally took the opposing side.

The huge Waimarino block lies to the west of Mt Ruapehu and just a small portion that reaches up to the peak Pare-te-tai-tonga is captured within the inquiry district. Hau-hunga-tahi is the high feature on the plains that was once a haven for titi. Waimarino pa (now National park township) was a permanent residence from at least the 1830s, as was Nga-toko-erua from the 1860s. Both pa border the inquiry district. A significant river running from Ruapehu, in a south westerly direction across the Waimarino plains is the Manganui o te ao. It was the route from Te Kahui Maunga to the lower reaches of the Whanganui River.

Most groups settled on the fringes of the district or beyond, and only made seasonal forays into the inquiry district. The Crown acquired most of the land within the district under the misconception the land was unoccupied- without realising connection of hapu to the Maunga.

The reality is that all claimants in this inquiry feel some spiritual association with the mountains. Those who live at the foot of the mountains assert a more intimate relationship such as Ngati Hikairo, Ngati Uenuku and Ngati Rangi.

Whakapapa Connections- Both the Taurewa and Waimarino were partly included in the National Park District. Taurewa was the original home for Tamakana, until his move to Manganui o te ao in the Waimarino block.

The interests Ngati Tamakana retained were recognised by an award of land in the Taurewa West block; while Tamakana himself was the sole tupuna for the Waimarino block.

His descendants travelled out from the Manganui o te ao valley, and established seasonal settlements over all the land between the valley and Mt Ruapehu. His mokopuna Kowhaikura, Hinekoropanga, Tamakaikino, Tawewe and Nene were established as tupuna in the Raetihi, Ngapakihi, Urewera, Rangataua and Waiakake blocks. Their mana traced back to Tamakana.

Ngati Rangi Trust have recently suggested in their treaty settlement documents that Tamakana married a daughter of their tupuna Rangituhia, and gained some mana by that marriage.

However there is no reliable evidence from any source that such a marriage occurred. In Tamakana’s time there was little if any contact between the Uenuku people of Manganui o te ao and Rangituhia’s descendants at Murimotu.

This contention appears to have arisen from evidence given at the Murimotu Land Court hearing in 1873, when it was put forward to support a claim by Patutokotoko to land in that block. Major Kemp (conducting the case) and the Ngati Rangi chiefs present said the evidence was false- that there was no such whakapapa connection of Tamakana to a Ngati Rangi tupuna and that Patutokotoko were a distinct iwi from Ngati Rangi.

The whakapapa was rejected by the Court in 1873, and never heard of again until its recent revival by Ngati Rangi Trust as part of their Treaty settlement process.

Claimant evidence from the Hearings– Morehu Wana (also known as Molly Rupuha Reuben) explained that all streams from the maunga were spiritually part of Uenuku because their essence sustained the people and gave them vitality in their lives. ‘We swam in the waters as children.’ she remarked ‘We drank the waters. We fished in the waters. We used the waters as Rongoa’.

The Urewera block was a favorite hunting spot for Ngati Uenuku because the miro trees were so numerous. Buddy Taiaroa explained the name was originally Moanawera and before that Kopuni. The name changed in the time of their tupuna Hinekoropanga who burnt her knees while warming herself beside a fire.

Sir Archie Taiaroa gave a whakatauki: The mighty river flows from the mountain to the sea; I am the river- the river is me.

Buddy Taiaroa said that titi feathers gathered on Hauhungatahi were used for warmth in traditional clothing, particularly the lining of the kakahu to protect from the puaka (heavy mist) of the area.

Che Wilson said Ngati Rangi Trust were not happy with Turoa being the name of the skifield above Ohakune, as it was not a name associated with Ngati Rangi.

Tribunal Findings: Establishment of the National Park:

Whanganui Maori were excluded from any consultation concerning the establishment of the Park; although previous Native Land Court dealings had provided substantial evidence as to significance of Te Kahui Maunga to Whanganui iwi.

Mt Ruapehu, from the peak of Paretetaitonga to the southern reaches of the inquiry district was a taonga for Whanganui iwi, just as the mountains more northern slopes were treasured by Ngati Tuwharetoa and its associated hapu.

The Tribunal contrasted the lengthy negotiations with Tuwharetoa for the northern part of the Park, with the lack of consultation with Whanganui for the southern portion- the task of acquiring this land left to land purchase agents.

In the acquisition of land for the Park the Crown failed in its treaty obligation to protect the interests of tangata whenua.

The Crown failure to consult with Whanganui over creation of a Park was a breach of the obligation to consult, and a breach of treaty principles of active protection and good faith.

Rangipo North 8 – This block of land of 5180 acres includes the peaks of Mt Ruapehu and the crater lake Te Wai a Moe. This land was still customary Maori land when acquired by the Crown for the Park. It was adjacent to the Waimarino block, and the uri of Tamakana were among the owners of the land.

Ngati Rangi witnesses gave evidence of their association with this land and of their tradition of internments of their tupuna in Te Wai a Moe.

Kaumatua from Tamakana gave evidence that they had no knowledge of this practice and were doubtful it existed- because of the extremes of climate on the upper mountain and the area above the snow line being a tapu region for only the spiritual guardians- Te Ririo and his cohorts- the kaitiaki patupaiarehe.

For Tuwharetoa the name Te Wai a Moe (Ruapehu Crater lake) is in reference to the lake sleeping, but knowing it will awake, during an eruption.

The Crown acknowledged its failure to consult and compensate the owners of Rangipo North 8 was a breach of Treaty principles.

Management of the Park– The Tribunal said the treaty guarantees have not been met in the history of Park management. The Crown failed to recognize and protect the tino rangatiratanga of Whanganui iwi within the legislative framework governing the Park.

Delegating responsibility to a Board of Management imposed a European concept of a National Park on tangata whenua, and did not take away the Crowns treaty based obligations to Whanganui iwi.

The Crown should have provided a place on the National Park Board for representation by Whanganui Maori from the time the Board was first established.

In summary we find the Crown did not adequately fulfil its fundamental duty of active protection to nga iwi o te kahui maunga, failed to recognise the rangatiratanga of Whanganui Maori, and that this has had an irreversible impact on their way of life.

Native Land Court Maori were forced to take part in a costly land court process. The Tribunal said it was bitter irony that after the land court process and individualization of title the land usually ended up back in one hands- the Crown.

Native Land legislation led to processes that breached the Crown’s Treaty obligations of partnership, good faith and active protection.

Crown purchasing in the 19th Century -The usual Crown purchasing tactics were used in this district- including advance payments, & purchasing under pre-emption- the practice of undivided share purchasing-in blocks such as Waimarino and Rangataua undermined community ownership and collective decision making- allowed the Crown to acquire land quickly- in breach of partnership, autonomy and active protection.

20th Century Development –Little evidence Crown consulted owners of forest lands, or compensated them for loss of economic opportunity. Crown failed to allow owners of Urewera 2A2 to purchase their land- a breach of the obligation to act in good faith.

The Crown did not monitor rate of Maori land loss in 19th and 20th centuries although it had an obligation to ensure sufficient land was left in Maori ownership for their present needs, or to allow Maori to participate in the new economy.

Public Works Takings- 135 blocks of around 6,000 Ha taken for public works- mostly roads and in the 1950s the Tongariro Power Development. Tribunal recomended land taken for quarries be made usable and returned to owners- and concern expressed that surplus land had not been retruned to owners.

Department of Conservation- The Tribunal said the Crown had provided minimal opportunity for Whanganui Maori to exercise Kaitiakitanga. The Tribunal recomended the Park be taken out of DOC control and instead managed by a statutory authority, on which both the Crown and nga iwi o te kahui maunga are represented- this will require a new Tongariro National Park Act and a new form of title.

Waterways -Over centuries nga iwi o te kahui mainga had exercised control over waterways in accordance with tikanga. The waterways and fishery was a taonga, and the Crown has an obligation under article 2 to protect the customary ownership and use of the resource, so long as Maori wished to retain it.

However, this precious resource has been degraded under Crown management, and the principle of redress requires the Crown to use its best endeavours to help restore the tribal base and mana of nga iwi o te kahui maunga.

Tongariro Power Development. (TPD) The Crown met with only Tuwharetoa in the planning stages for the TPD- Whanganui iwi neither informed nor consulted. This failure to consult with Whanganui iwi or inform them of steps being taken to legalise and construct the TPD were in breach of the Crown duty of good faith.

Towards a Settlement-

We recommend the Park be jointly owned by the Crown and nga iwi o te kahui maunga and that it be managed and governed jointly by nga iwi o te kahui maunga and the the Crown.

We have found the Crown committed numerous serious breaches of the terms of the Treaty and Treaty principles. These breaches had considerable economic, social, cultural, environmental and spiritual repercussions for nga iwi o te kahui maunga.

For the Treaty breaches we have identified substantial and culturally appropriate compensation is due, and quantum should be settled without delay.