Ngati Rauhoto’s Issues 116

The issue that arises here is the lack of procedure to allow for hapu input at the beginning of large development projects. The RMA, as already mentioned, does not adequately provide for rangatiratanga; neither does the HPA as shown by the examples above. Wananga participants felt that if large developments are going to alter or destroy culturally significant areas such as Otuparae, then it would be advisable to have this provision.502 _{This provision}

would truly recognise mana whenua and would make hapu more supportive of

the project.503 Ignoring hapu rights as in the case of Otuparae only leads to mistakes and ultimately unrest. Wananga participants commented that these

499 _{2004/94, Historic Places Trust, Wellington.}

500 _{Geoff Rameka (Ngati Rauhoto Hapu Member) in interview with author, 30 July 2009.} 501 _{2004/94, Historic Places Trust, Wellington.}

502 _{Thesis Wananga (Nukuhau Marae, January 23, 2010).} 503 _Ibid.

117 areas that were known to be very culturally significant to iwi that is why occupation took place as it did at Otuparae.504

Ultimately, if one does choose to develop sites like Otuparae, it must be said that it is in a developer’s best interest to do this anyway, as consent applicants will ultimately pay financially. This did happen in the case of Otuparae as the developer had to pay for delays caused by council and HPT processes to meet its requirements under the RMA and HPA.505 The lack of respect afforded to hapu in this case led to heritage destruction and the unearthing of

koiwi. In doing so, occupation of the site ensued. Eventually, the developer sustained heavy financial losses and legal proceedings due to public perception of the site after the supposed ‘accidental discovery’ of koiwi. On top of this hapu members, including a kuia, were arrested for trespassing.506 In the end everybody lost something—the developer lost financially, the hapu lost culturally, economically and socially and the trustees lost financially and socially. This underlines the importance of building relationships early with the

proper mana whenua and giving weight to their input before lodging consents

and an archeological authority.

One of the most disturbing problems was that when the HPT assessed the application for the authority, our heritage as hapu was treated like a scientific project. These are the ‘sites’ of a living culture that has already suffered from classifying, poking and pointing at differences. It was clear that the regional archaeologist was more concerned with whether it was a settlement as opposed to a pa site, as previously recorded. Waka Vercoe was informing HPT staff that the ‘sites’ on Otuparae were not ‘wahi tapu’ but ‘wahi noa’. The

rua pits where classified as such and yet this is where koiwi are commonly

found.507 Rauhoto’s whare sites on Otuparae were claimed to be ‘common’ by

the trustees and HPT accepted this. However, as Perry Fletcher points out,

504 _{Times Reporters, “Hapu ‘unites’ Over Protest,” Taupo Times (Taupo), June 7, 2007.}

505 _{Planner to Chris Kimpton, 12 November 2003, L151585, Taupo District Council Archive, Taupo.} 506 _{Ned Wotherspoon, “Police Swoop on Parawera Protest Site,” Taupo Times (Taupo), 11 October, 2007.} 507 _{2004/94, Historic Places Trust, Wellington.}

118 these were the last remaining sites of this kind between Rangatira Point and Nukuhau.508

The fact remains that, for Ngati Rauhoto, these were very significant sites, which can now only be visited in photos. Who are the HTP to be setting the heritage values of hapu and iwi? Who are the HPT to determine what is worth preserving and what is not in terms of iwi heritage? Finally, it must be asked of all agencies: what is it that you see as adequate consultation? The consultation that took place in determining heritage values was, on the HPT’s behalf, paternalistic and degrading of Ngati Rauhoto’s mana as a hapu. It took the HPT staff to witness a potential assault on a trustee at Nukuhau Marae for you them to recognise that everything that took place, influenced by their decisions, was wrong.509 There were other sites in the country at the same time that received far better treatment and preservation.510

The biggest insult to us as hapu is this paternalist attitude of Crown agencies

who determine what adequate consultation with tangata whenua is.

Essentially, mana whenua are pushed to one side and told what we were given was adequate. In terms of heritage we had Maori from other iwi

determining whether it was appropriate for the heritage of Tuwharetoa to be destroyed. It is bad enough that we are barely surviving culturally as hapu

when the Crown is constantly placing more importance on this thing called ‘iwi’—an entity that cannot be defined by the corporates who prefer this iwi

system.511 It appears that a racist attitude and an assimilatory agenda of ‘they are all Maori they must all be the same’ is present. Since this is the attitude it is fine to destroy this and that at the will of the developer and market forces.

508_{Perry Fletcher (Local Archaeologist/ Historian) in interview with author 1 November, 2009.} 509_{Geoff Rameka (Ngati Rauhoto Hapu Member) in interview with author, 30 July 2009.} 510_{Perry Fletcher (Local Archaeologist/ Historian) in interview with author 1 November, 2009.} 511 _{Mead, “TikangaMaori,”}

119