logo
We shouldn't have to fight this hard to prove our mana in Tāmaki

We shouldn't have to fight this hard to prove our mana in Tāmaki

The Spinoff10-07-2025
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei deputy chair Ngarimu Blair reflects on a hard-fought Environment Court battle, and what the ruling on Westhaven Marina really means for tangata whenua.
While there was major gratitude for the success of my iwi in the recent decision from the Environment Court regarding the Westhaven Marina, it was tinged with some sadness. Sadness the action needed to be taken, requiring significant cost and time to fight a process that challenged the very essence of my iwi – our status as tangata whenua of central Auckland.
But there was also immense sadness at the unnecessary conflict the Crown and council consultation and settlement process forces on my people, plus the devastation it has had on some formerly close and collegial relationships.
The judge asked me why I thought there was so much competition for our rohe. I responded that no one wanted it 100 years ago, but when iwi are forced to fight for the crumbs of the Treaty settlement process, this is what happens. However, it doesn't need to be like this.
It is incredibly disappointing that court action was required again to confirm what almost everyone with passing knowledge of and connection to Tāmaki Makaurau knows – that my people, through devastating loss and harrowing adversity, has hard-earned our place as tangata whenua of central Auckland.
My people can look across from our marae in Ōrakei to the very development at the heart of this dispute – a dispute where Crown and council policy enabled an action that we had no option but to oppose. This is an ongoing reality for us.
The court decision resulted from action taken in response to resource consent obtained by Eke Panuku Development Auckland from the council to expand Westhaven Marina. Conditions required engagement with 19 listed mana whenua groups through a forum. Originally 19 Pou Whenua for each 'mana whenua' were proposed, along with transferring the title of the reclaimed area to the Tāmaki Collective, not to ourselves.
Such council action challenges the immense sacrifices of my tūpuna, a challenge that says our centuries of hard-fought occupation, and the immense sacrifice and loss required for our people to keep our home fires burning here in central Tamaki Makaurau, meant nothing: That our kaumātua had no more authority to speak on the whenua at the heart of this dispute than those whose marae are more than 100km away.
The court acknowledged the connection of Ngāi Tuperiri of Ngāti Whātua ki Tāmaki to Westhaven through take raupatu, take tūpuna, take tuku whenua, and ahi kā – the pillars that uphold mana for all iwi and hapū across the motu.
'We are struck at just how little evidence there is of use and occupation by any of the [other] parties of the lands and waters around Westhaven over the past 200 or more years,' the decision said. The Marutuahu traditional expert explained that according to their tikanga, we have been keeping their fires warm for them on their behalf as they base themselves in the Hauraki-Thames district. A unique tikanga indeed.
The court's decision came last Friday, on the same day we farewelled one of our own, Clay Hawke – a beloved stalwart of our iwi. His tangi was large and filled with aroha. It was there, among our grieving whānau, that our chair, Marama Royal, stood and read the court's summary decision. Despite the sorrow that brought us together, a cheer rippled through the gathering. Not of triumph, but of affirmation. The decision was tika and pono – right and just.
It acknowledged the mana of our ancestors, the work of those who have preserved our tikanga, our knowledge of this whenua and waters, and the immense sacrifice of so many to uphold our place here. It acknowledged my cousin Clay who we had laid to rest.
For me, I hope this decision begins a change. A change that stops incentivising others to claim equal say with those who clearly are the tangata whenua of a rohe, those who have generations of knowledge to inform their understanding, and place as kaitiaki for their rohe.
The value of the whenua where my people live is both a blessing and a curse. No other iwi experiences the incursions and claims into their rohe like my iwi. However, the wealth and power of central Auckland has also allowed my people to regain some resources to help nurture and support our own, to try and undo some of the devastation and exclusion that colonisation unleashed on my iwi, as a consequence of being surrounded by Aotearoa's largest city.
We will work with the council to undo and walk back their adversarial policy, and seek a return to the collegiality that existed with our neighbouring iwi prior to the settlement process for my iwi.
In some cases, this journey of reconnection, of rekindling whanaungatanga, has already begun. The deep adversity endured by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has honed our patience, our humility, our understanding of the need to fight as hard as we can, but also seek peace and reconnection with those who share our aspirations. We have our investment vehicle, Te Tomokanga ki Tāmaki, so others can access opportunities here through the front door. A number of iwi have already committed to our first development – a twin tower project in the CBD. There will be more for those willing to acknowledge us as the home people.
Thank you to the Environment Court, for bringing this sorry process to an end. Thank you to those among the 19 iwi who did acknowledge our status as tangata whenua. Thank you to my people for being so strong and supportive, it is our unity that is our greatest strength.
To our neighbouring iwi who we faced in court, let us begin the process of understanding and a return to the times of our past. As iwi Māori we have so much more that unites us, than stands us apart.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Government's secret pay equity overhaul bypassed public scrutiny
Government's secret pay equity overhaul bypassed public scrutiny

NZ Herald

time20 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Government's secret pay equity overhaul bypassed public scrutiny

It halted existing claims and raised the threshold for proving work had been historically undervalued to support a claim. Claims then had to start again under the new threshold. The bill halted existing claims and raised the threshold for proving undervalued work. Photo / Jason Dorday It was revealed in the Budget that the savings from tightening the regime amounted to about $12.8 billion over the next four years. The documents, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, revealed ministerial meetings, including one involving the Prime Minister, were carefully managed, with instructions to withhold their proactive diary release under confidentiality provisions. One email from Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden's office instructed officials to manually remove digital access to cabinet papers, warning that leaving the default settings in place 'will give access to ministers but also SPSs [senior private secretaries] and some ministerial advisers. So you might want to remove that and we can add individual named ministers instead'. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden's office kept details of pay equity changes under tight wraps. Photo / Mark Mitchell Another memo described how hard copies were hand-delivered to ministers' offices to avoid creating digital trails. 'If you really need a soft copy, I can email it through,' wrote an official from the office of van Velden. 'For context, I swear I'm not being weirdly difficult – this was the method of distribution that has been advised.' The strategy was internally referred to as 'Project Ten'. A comprehensive communications pack was prepared in advance, to be released only after the bill had been introduced and passed. 'We recommend that any announcements or statements about the proposed amendments must be made after the introduction of the bill,' one paper said. 'This is because there is a risk of a large increase in the number of claims being raised if information about the proposed changes is made public beforehand.' That advice was followed. The legislation stopped 33 active claims overnight, some of which had been under way for years, and implemented a stricter legal test for future ones. The documents make clear that fiscal concerns were central to the push – a key driver was to significantly reduce costs to the Crown. Officials stressed the need for the law to be passed in time for Budget 2025, reinforcing the cost-cutting motive. But, they acknowledged the truncated timeline meant there was no opportunity for public submissions on the bill, a process later criticised as 'particularly unusual and draconian'. Officials also conceded limited testing and analysis of the policy proposals because of the short timeframe, and raised concerns about unintended consequences arising once the bill has been passed. Despite the rushed process, the internal discussions reveal the Government was aware of the contentious nature of the changes. Officials noted the proposed transitional arrangements, which 'retrospectively remove and alter people's rights', were 'most likely to be contentious' and 'may engage the Human Rights Act and Bill of Rights Act'. It proceeded anyway. – RNZ

NZ Reopens For Petroleum Exploration
NZ Reopens For Petroleum Exploration

Scoop

timea day ago

  • Scoop

NZ Reopens For Petroleum Exploration

Operators will be able to apply for new petroleum exploration permits as early as September following the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Bill removes the ban on oil and gas exploration beyond onshore Taranaki, better aligns decommissioning settings with international practice, establishes a new tier of permit to undertake small-scale non-commercial gold mining, and signals the Coalition Government's intent to reinvigorate investment in Crown-owned minerals. 'This Government is pragmatic about the vital role natural gas will play in our energy mix in the decades ahead and we have set a course for greater energy security backed by our own indigenous reserves,' Mr Jones says. 'The ill-fated exploration ban in 2018 has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs. Reserves are also falling faster than anticipated. 'New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment. These factors are taking a toll on our economic growth and prosperity. 'We are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal to meet peak energy demand. 'This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply and protect electricity affordability.' During the progression of the Bill, a gap was identified in the existing Crown Minerals Act that relates to liability for the costs of decommissioning petroleum infrastructure. In certain circumstances, parent companies of permit-holders could sell their shares without remaining responsible for the costs of decommissioning old petroleum infrastructure, exposing the Crown to fiscal risk. 'Together with changes to the decommissioning regime that better balance regulatory burden and risk to give operators the clarity they need to invest in exploration and development wells, we have introduced ministerial discretion to assign liability for decommissioning costs to former permit-holders and others who have held interests in a permit,' Mr Jones says. 'We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach for every scenario not only erodes investor confidence, it also doesn't allow us to best manage risk. 'I want those who benefited from having an interest in a petroleum permit to pay for decommissioning the relevant infrastructure. While financial securities remain at the core, the new approach to assigning liability will ensure the most appropriate person will remain responsible for costs if the current permit-holder cannot meet their obligations and financial securities are insufficient.' Most of the changes through the Bill will take effect immediately, while others will require staged implementation and secondary legislation. All changes will be operational by the end of September 2025.

Cabinet Ministers Defend Hiking Board Fees For Crown Bodies
Cabinet Ministers Defend Hiking Board Fees For Crown Bodies

Scoop

time3 days ago

  • Scoop

Cabinet Ministers Defend Hiking Board Fees For Crown Bodies

Cabinet ministers are defending a move to hike board fees for Crown bodies by up to 80 percent, insisting those in the roles are overseeing billions of dollars - not just "beer and skittles." Labour says the decision proves the government is out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis and has accused it of trying to sneak the news by the public. A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000. The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries. Speaking on Tuesday, Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset. "We need to make that a little bit more competitive, so that we can actually attract good talent," he said. Luxon said paying more to ensure "really good governance teams" could save billions in the long run. Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the point, stressing that New Zealanders deserved value for money. "This isn't beer and skittles. This is billions of dollars of public money. We need the very best people making governance decisions about it." Public Service Minister Judith Collins told reporters that the updated fees still fell short of private sector rates - around 80 percent of the going rate. "A lot of people who are experienced directors don't want to do these jobs in the public sector because they know they're going to lose money," she said. Collins said she did not think the public would be worried by the news. "One of the problems is that we've had an underperforming public service that's taken a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money, and so it is very important that we have the right people in charge of that." Hipkins accuses government of 'twisted priorities' Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision revealed the government's "twisted priorities" at a time when households were doing it tough. "They're saying that board members can get up to 80 percent increases in their pay, whilst nurses and teachers are being told to settle for 1 pecent or less," he said. "They've said everyone needs to tighten their belts - apparently except for the people who they hand-picked to put on public sector boards." Hipkins rejected the idea that higher fees were necessary to attract quality candidates, calling it "absolute nonsense." He said many public appointees had altruistic motivations and were already sitting on "very well paid directorships" in the private sector as well. "They're not doing it for the money," Hipkins said. Hipkins accused the government of trying to "slip this [announcement] out quietly" without scrutiny. But Luxon denied any secrecy: "It's normal practice... how it's been communicated." Hipkins does not appear to have issued a media release as Public Service Minister in 2022 when the then-Labour Cabinet agreed to a smaller 10 percent increase in fees. In November, State Owned Enterprises minister Paul Goldsmith did publish a release about a similar but separate move to increase director fees for 22 Crown-owned companies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store