Land ruling could set precedent for M¯aori as kaitiaki
After a years-long legal battle, an iwi hopes it has helped build a framework for Ma¯ori to have some say over land to which they have strong cultural ties.
The Environment Court in December rejected a bid by a group of farmers and landowners seeking to expand the Rural Urban Boundary and the Future Urban Zone across more than 83 hectares of land on Pu¯ kaki Peninsula, near Auckland International Airport.
The matter had been in front of the courts since the landowners objected to Auckland Council knocking back their proposed rezoning of the peninsula in 2016.
But the Environment Court panel closed the door on the appellants after the High Court sent the matter back for clarification, cementing a decision which acknowledged local iwi Te A¯ kitai Waiohua’s ancestral and cultural ties to the land.
In 2018, Environment Court Judge Jon Jackson said: ‘‘It may be difficult for landowners to accept that, but it is a matter of national importance for the Auckland Council to both recognise and provide for the relationship of Ma¯ ori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites waahi tapu, and other taonga.’’
Both the High Court and the most recent Environment Court decisions backed Jackson’s 2018 assessment.
While much of the land on the peninsula no longer belongs to the iwi, the area still has strong ties to their history, stories, whakapapa (genealogy) and mythology.
In the judgment, the court highlighted historical portage links and traditional land use, as well as the mythology ascribing two volcanic craters on the land as the footprints of Mataoho, the volcano god.
Te A¯ kitai Waiohua spokeswoman Karen Wilson said she was not surprised by the weight the cultural landscape had been given.
‘‘It can set a precedent, but you have to have the goods to go with it,’’ Wilson said.
‘‘It will be great for iwi, because they know they have a shot or a chance, but that comes with the responsibility to ensure you give sufficient thought and evidence around your claims. We hope [what we have done] could be a how-to guide to put forward those claims.’’
Prior to the case, the iwi had been working with Auckland Council, as part of the Auckland Unitary Plan, to formulate a framework that illustrated the cultural landscape.
Wilson said it was important for other iwi to understand how to put together a formal outline of what they considered a cultural landscape within the strict planning and judicial frameworks. ‘‘I think the courts appreciated the way we had outlined our case and the work that had gone into our evidence-based approach,’’ she said. Auckland University’s Dr Kenneth Palmer said it was an interesting case that reflected ‘‘changing attitudes and an acceptance of Ma¯ ori interests’’. Palmer gave the example of Ihuma¯tao, where in 2012 the Environment Court ruled against Auckland Council trying to turn land into a public open space, instead forcing it to rezone for business or residential purposes. In less than 10 years, the court’s approach and attitudes had changed, Palmer said.
But while he said it was important Ma¯ ori be recognised, he added the decision could cause issues when it came to iwi being able to make submissions on land they no longer owned.
Lawyer Jeanette Caldwell said the decision could have implications for future planning decisions involving land to which Ma¯ ori had strong cultural ties.
In an analysis of the decision, Caldwell said the values were multi-layered and were informed by written, oral and archaeological history, memories, ancestry, and traditional activities. In part, they were captured by the form and spirit of the land itself.
‘‘[The case] is a reminder that landscape is a social construct, one that can overlap with other values of national importance under the RMA, including heritage and the relationship Ma¯ ori have with the land,’’ she said.
Wilson said the decision also gave Te A¯ kitai Waiohua a sense they were part of the decisionmaking process around the land and allowed them to fulfill their duties as kaitiaki – guardians of the land.
She said it was important to note the land was not being taken from owners, merely that the iwi was able to have a say in the decision-making process regarding the future of the land.
‘‘We’re not high-profile, and we don’t wish to be.
‘‘We just wish to get about our business and our business is to make sure our cultural landscape remains as intact as we can get it.’’
‘‘We’re not high-profile, and we don’t wish to be. We just wish to get about our business and our business is to make sure our cultural landscape remains as intact as we can get it.’’ Karen Wilson