UNDER
the Resource Management Act 1991
IN THE MATTER
of an application by The Astrolabe Community Trust to
the Bay of Plenty Regional Council for resource consents
in relation to the remains of the MV Rena.
Cultural Issues - Harawira Gardiner Reply Evidence
1.
This evidence in reply focuses on five key matters raised in the course of
the hearing after I gave my evidence, being allegations of:
(a)
deficiencies in engagement;
(b)
a divide and conquer approach;
(c)
inappropriate ranking;
(d)
payment to Te Patuwai; and
(e)
mauri.
Iwi engagement
2.
Throughout the hearing the Panel has heard varying opinions about the
quality of the engagement process conducted by the applicant and the
applicant’s advisors. Some witnesses, such as Mr Ranapia and Ms Bennett
have praised the applicant’s approach to engagement. Ngati Ranginui Iwi
Society Inc., Mataatua Maori District Council, and the Motiti Rohe Moana
Trust have also all acknowledged the applicant’s approach to engagement in
their letters of withdrawal. However, others, such as Dr Young (for the
Crown) stated that the applicant’s engagement strategy was deficient.
However, when questioned about how he would have done it instead, he
had no answer. Moreover Dr Young did not attend any meetings and to
my knowledge had little or no interaction with the parties and individuals
that Mr Zacharatos and Mr Owen met over the period of the last four
years. Nor had he visited Motiti or Otaiti. It is important for the Panel to
understand that the applicant made considerable efforts to talk to
1
everyone throughout the entire period and continues to do so even as
recently as this week.
3.
The engagement process was based initially on the concept of rangatira ki
te rangatira (chief to chief). In their first visit in July 2012, Mr Zacharatos
and Mr Owen set out to meet as many of the elders and chiefs of the iwi
and hapu affected by the Rena grounding as possible. On that first visit, all
major interactions were held on relevant marae at Tauranga Moana, Motiti,
Maketu, and Matakana. And while they were conducted on the principle of
rangatira ki te rangatira they were open to everyone and many people
attending raised numerous questions directly to Mr Zacharatos.
Later
meetings were also held on marae, but also with smaller groups, and
sometimes with chiefs and elders. There was flexibility and commitment to
the overarching principle that the applicant would meet with anyone who
wanted to meet, and would do what it could to accommodate any request
to meet.
4.
In his evidence Mr Hovell, at para 58, alleges that the chief-to-chief
approach sought to isolate individual views from their hapu and iwi base
and further, was a process strictly controlled and enforced by the applicant
without flexibility. As I have already indicated, this is incorrect. In their 10
visits to Tauranga and the more than 120 meetings and hui Mr Zacharatos
and Mr Owen attended, they made it known that they would meet anyone
who wanted to talk to them, at the times and locations that worked best
for them. Each time they came to New Zealand they were true to their
word.
To my knowledge no one who wanted to meet with, or talk
publicly or privately to, Mr Zacharatos and Mr Owen was declined. On
many occasions I observed Mr Zacharatos on the marae talking one-onone with someone who had asked him a question.
5.
Most of the meetings the applicant went to were organised by iwi and hapu
themselves, and not the advisors to the applicant. At a practical level, Mr
Rolleston (of Beca) would contact individuals and groups to let them know
when Mr Zacharatos and Mr Owen would be in New Zealand and to ask if
they wanted to meet.
Most responded by setting the location of the
2
meeting, who from their group they wanted to attend, and in some cases
the agenda. Many of the meetings were on marae, or other large venues,
with a broad representation of iwi and hapu members present. Others
were with key individuals, chiefs, and wider environmental groups.
6.
From my extensive observations and participation it is my view that Mr
Hovell is wrong on both counts - individuals were not isolated nor was the
process strictly controlled.
Divide and conquer
7.
A number of witnesses have also suggested that the applicant set out to
divide and conquer by its actions and by using funding of mitigation
packages to advantage one group over another.
The applicant and its
advisors categorically refute such an allegation. Some divisions have been
caused by internal differences within kinship groups that predate the Rena
accident and have their genesis in other events or activities. It is also fair
to say that from everything I have seen, the only ones alleging a divide and
conquer strategy are those who are strongly opposed to the application.
Those who are supportive have withdrawn, or who hold more moderate
views have not criticised others for the position they have decided to take.
Most submitters have acknowledged the rights of others to adopt
whatever views they wish, respectfully.
8.
One example of an activity that has caused division, beyond the
responsibility or control of the applicant, is the anti-Rena campaign
conducted on Facebook and through other media, including against those
who felt able to reach agreement with the applicant. I am reminded of the
powerful words spoken by Mr Morehu, when he said "I stand here on
behalf of Ngaiti Pikiao and Ngati Makino in support of the decision
from our divers. I have a marae if anybody wants to talk to me, they
can come to the marae." In respect of Motiti, it has been difficult to bring
the different groups together. On two occasions, relatively early on in the
process, we attempted to get the groups associated with Motiti to come
together at the same time. I explain below the difficulties we had, and
3
when it became clear that it would be difficult to engage with the groups
associated with Motiti together, we simply proceeded to engage with all of
the different groups, and sometimes individuals, separately. Everyone who
wanted to participated and was heard. At the present point in time, I
observe that there has been some progress, with Mr Ranapia and Te
Korowai Kahui o nga Pakeke o Te Patuwai supportive of the application,
together with Motiti Environmental Management Incorporated – while the
Motiti Rohe Moana Trust has withdrawn its involvement with the
application process (but acknowledged its concerns are satisfied).
9.
In terms of our earlier efforts to engage with Motiti as a whole, on 8 April
2013, I wrote to all parties who had an interest in Motiti and asked them
to attend a meeting on Monday 15 April 2013 at Classic Flyers, near the
Tauranga Airport. In my email to invited participants I advised them that
the purpose of the meeting was to deal with “process matters to determine
whether the parties are prepared to work together for the future of Motiti.... The
primary consideration is for a representative/s from your group to have the
authority to participate.”
Mr Zacharatos and Mr Owen had indicated a
strong wish to work with interested parties together and not individually.
It was emphasised that attendance at the meeting did not preclude
whatever other alternative actions parties might be taking. The meeting
went well and there seemed to be a willingness to engage. I arranged a
further meeting for 24 April 2013. Unfortunately, that meeting did not go
well.
10.
The second meeting, on 24 April 2013, was at the Hotel Armitage. A
disparate group of people turned up, including some who had not attended
the previous meeting. It was obvious from the outset that a small group
was intent on disrupting the meeting and when kaumatua tried to speak
they heckled them and shouted them down. It became very apparent that
the meeting was not going to discuss the matters raised at the hui on 13
April, and I decided to close the meeting. When I asked a kaumatua to
close with a prayer one of the protestors started yelling and abusing the
kaumatua who was trying to conduct the prayer of closure.
4
11.
This latter meeting brought home to me the intensity of emotions and
anger of some of those involved with the Rena, Otaiti and Motiti and also
the significant degree of fragmentation amongst them. Accordingly, going
forward, we focused on engaging with all groups and individuals having a
relationship with Motiti.
12.
There have also been accusations of ‘divide and conquer’, and the support
or mandate, in respect of non-Motiti iwi – Ngati Ranginui Iwi Society Inc.
and Te Arawa. I understand, that Ngati Ranginui Iwi Society Inc. has tabled
a letter with the Panel addressing its position, and that Mr Pou will have
addressed the position in respect of Te Arawa. I can comment further if
necessary, based on what I have observed or understand.
Claims of “ranking” Iwi
13.
Some witnesses and parties (e.g. Nga Potiki) have claimed that the
applicant deliberately ranked iwi and, as a consequence, Tauranga Moana
iwi were “ranked” after Te Arawa.
14.
The use of the term “ranking” to refer to the applicant’s approach is
inappropriate and pejorative – and does not reflect how the applicant, or
the applicant's advisors, have approached matters.
15.
Clearly, the applicant wanted to understand and be sensitive to the
strength of relationship the various iwi had to Otaiti, as part of its effects
assessment. It was for that reason it explored the relationships of the
various groups with Otaiti when it engaged with them. Whatever the
degree of relationship expressed or understood, it had no influence on
whether or not the applicant would meet or engage further. There was
never any refusal to engage with anyone that wanted to meet, irrespective
of their connections.
16.
No “winners” were chosen, and it has only been relatively recently - after
continuing engagement - that many of the tangata whenua submitters have
satisfied themselves and moved to support the proposal or withdraw.
5
17.
To the extent that there was identification of degrees of closeness to
Otaiti and therefore potentially differing levels of effects, the only
consequence of that has been in the offset mitigation funds proposed by
the applicant.
18.
In terms of those offset mitigation funds, I do not understand there to be
any dispute that those with the highest association with Otaiti were the
whanau and hapu with mana whenua over Motiti and mana moana over the
seas around Motiti, including Otaiti. I also understand that the Motiti
Projects Fund is for Motiti as a whole and is not allocated to, or to be
spent by, any one or more of the groups on, or having an association with,
Motiti.
19.
In terms of Te Arawa, from the outset, like Ngati Ranginui Iwi Society Inc.
they adopted a strong stance and set out their claim to an interest in Motiti
and Otaiti through their tipuna Ngatoroirangi. It is a well-known tradition
that Ngatoroirangi lived on Motiti and accordingly had a direct connection
to Otaiti. Te Arawa engaged at every opportunity to press their interest
and association. It was the strength of their argument and their willingness
to engage that led eventually to an agreement being arrived at between Te
Arawa and the applicant. Their engagement was also instrumental in the
work done at the Reef, which the applicant was advised was a
demonstration of their kaitiaki role.
20.
At a meeting, in 2013, with the senior leaders of Te Moana o Toi: Mr
Tawhiao (also chair of Ngaiterangi); Mr Reeder (chair of Nga Potiki); and
Mr Black (representing Ngati Pukenga), Mr Zacharatos advised them that
he was interested in hapu and iwi who had a connection to Motiti and to
what extent these interests were demonstrated. Mr Tawhiao advised that
Ngaiterangi had a broad interest in the oceans around Motiti and Otaiti but
no direct interest in Motiti, other than to support their hapu, Te Whanau
o Tauwhao. Mr Reeder advised Mr Zacharatos that Nga Potiki had no
interest in Motiti (subsequently, after engaging legal assistance, Nga Potiki
wrote to the owner saying that they did have an interest in Otaiti). Mr
Black said that he supported Mr Tawhiao’s views.
Ngati Ranginui Iwi
6
Society Inc., advised they had an interest in Te Moana a Toi but no direct
interest in Motiti. I was present at this meeting and recalled these
conversations.
21.
The claim that the applicant deliberately set out to rank iwi and hapu
thereby creating a divisive environment is not sustainable. Parties were
asked to establish their relationship with Otaiti according to traditional
connections as demonstrated by their stories, whakatauki, waiata and
karakia, and an intimate knowledge of fishing grounds, seasons and species
of the Moana.
Those who wanted to engage and demonstrate their
connection could and did.
Those who did not want to engage were
nevertheless approached on a continuing basis to seek engagement. The
applicant cannot be held to blame if a small number of groups decided in
due course to discontinue meeting, considering the efforts made to arrange
these meetings. For the small number that did disengage, that seemed to
coincide with the lead up to the resource consent application process.
Offer to Te Patuwai
22.
At paragraph 1.8 of her evidence Ms Akuhata says that Mr Rolleston and I
met with the Te Patuwai Tribal Council on 2 August 2015 and made a
financial offer to those present at the meeting. Neither the date of the
meeting or the suggestion that we made an offer is correct.
We
conducted preliminary discussions with the CEO of Te Runanga o Ngati
Awa who advised us that the Runanga would lead any discussions and
would convey any outcomes to Te Patuwai for ratification. This made
sense to me, as Te Patuwai is a hapu of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa.
23.
On 18 May, Mr Rolleston and I met with the Te Patuwai Tribal Council and
other members of the hapu. The purpose of the meeting was to reassess
the position of Te Patuwai Tribal Council on restoration and
mitigation. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting. Mr Rolleston
made travel arrangements for residents of Motiti to attend the
meeting.
Te Patuwai’s position remained unchanged. Moreover, no
financial offer was discussed at the meeting, by either Mr Rolleston or me.
7
24.
Between 19 May and 15 June I met on a number of occasions with the
CEO of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to explore options for Te Patuwai. We
discussed the prospect of a mitigation package for economic development
for Te Patuwai. I was assured at these meetings that Te Runanga o Ngati
Awa would take the leadership role and that the CEO and the Deputy
Chair of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, Mr Ngaropo would themselves
personally socialise any discussions we had with them with Te Patuwai.
After considerable discussion it was agreed that an economic mitigation
package would be offered to Te Patuwai to establish an economic base.
25.
On Sunday 14 June the CEO and Deputy Chair, Mr Ngaropo, met Te
Patuwai and put the proposal. Te Patuwai declined the proposal and also
declined an invitation to meet with Mr Zacharatos. The CEO sent a letter
advising of the decision of the hui and also indicated that Te Patuwai
leaders did not want to meet Mr Zacharatos when he arrived in New
Zealand later that week.
26.
Notwithstanding their intention not to meet with Mr Zacharatos, a
meeting did take place with Mr Akuhata, Mr Harawira and Ms Chapman.
They advised that they wanted the wreck removed. The last words went
to Ms Chapman who asked Mr Zacharatos, “to keep the door open.” I
understand that the door will continue to be kept open in the future.
Mauri
27.
There has also been significant discussion through the course of the
hearing on mauri, what it is, the extent to which the grounding has
impacted it, and how it might continue to be affected by the proposal to
leave the wreck on Otaiti. There are a range of views that the Panel needs
to take into account.
28.
On Motiti, there is a sharp point of difference between Te Patuwai Tribal
Council (as represented by Ms Akuhata and Ms Chapman), Te Runanga o
Ngati Awa witnesses and Ngai Te Hapu, and the kaumatua Mr Ranapia and
Te Korowai Kahui o nga Pakeke o Te Patuwai.
Te Arawa claim that
8
through their ancestor Ngatoroirangi they also have a direct relationship
with Motiti and Otaiti and thus have a kaitiaki role as well.
29.
On the one hand Te Patuwai and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa say the mauri
will continue to be sick until the wreck is removed from Otaiti. Ngai Te
Hapu contends that the mauri of Otaiti is “mortal” and therefore is capable
of being diminished and perhaps fatefully so, if the wreck is not removed.
On the other hand, Mr Ranapia and Te Korowai Kahui o nga Pakeke o Te
Patuwai contend that karakia and rituals can recover the mauri and that it
has already started to recover. Te Arawa generally supports this view but
places emphasis on appropriate resource consent conditions to help the
healing.
30.
How to balance or resolve these contradictory views is the question that
faces the Panel. To seek a resolution we must now turn to the role of
karakia. Ms Akuhata on behalf of Te Patuwai states that no karakia is
powerful enough to restore the mauri of Otaiti, and that the wreck must
be removed before this can occur. However, Te Korowai Kahui o nga
Pakeke o Te Patuwai and Te Arawa refute these views and state it is
possible to repair and recover the mauri.
31.
It seems to me that karakia is no less dynamic than other spiritual concepts
and is thus, in my view, capable of adaptation and modification according to
the circumstances. At paragraph 10 of his statement, Mr Ngaropo states
that following the grounding he and Mr Black placed a rahui (temporary
ritual prohibition) on behalf of Ngati Awa over the affected region. This
was imposed by karakia. By placing the rahui over Otaiti, Mr Ngaropo and
Mr Black are imposing a protective mantle over Otaiti that holds the mauri
in check and stops it from being diminished further. It is hard to imagine
that nationally recognised tohunga like Mr Ngaropo and Mr Black would
see themselves as being “powerless” to unlock the harm done to Otaiti by
the Rena.
32.
Over the centuries, tohunga have been confronted by many and hugely
challenging events including the arrival of the Pakeha, who over time tried
9
to diminish the role of tohunga and karakia, including passing legislation in
1907 (The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people
using traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or
spiritual element). But karakia and our spiritual concepts still survive and
seem to grow stronger to face evolving contemporary challenges.
Mr
Ranapia is confident that there are appropriate rituals including karakia that
can help restore the mauri of Otaiti. He is a recognised tohunga in the
same mould as Mr Ngaropo and Mr Black. Additionally, however, Mr
Ranapia is of Te Patuwai descent; he lives on the island and is a known
expert on Motiti. Because of his local knowledge of Motiti he has been
relied on by the Environment Court to complete a hapu management plan
for Motiti. Mr Ngaropo in his evidence also acknowledges Mr Ranapia’s
help in providing cultural information.
33.
So, if the Panel has a mind to grant consent I for one am confident tohunga
will rise to the new challenge and continue to evolve appropriate new ways
and karakia to help recover the mauri of Otaiti, should these be necessary.
Conclusion
34.
Finally can I reiterate that the applicant's door remains open and Mr
Zacharatos continues, as he has done for the past four years, to meet and
engage with parties even in this final week of the hearing. Mr Zacharatos
has confirmed he will continue in the future to meet parties and individuals
until this process has been completed.
Harawira Gardiner
7 October 2015
10