Heritage Consultancy Services 27 Lake Crescent Hamilton NZ 3204 T 64 7 834 9338 M 021 296 7431 F 64 7 834 9338 E amcewan@slingshot.co.nz

Proposed Onehunga Foreshore

Rec lamat ion Project

Cu l tura l Impact Assessment

Ngat i Te Ata , Te Ak i ta i and Ngat i Tamaoho

(Te Waiohua) Prepared for: Ngati Te Ata, Te Akitai & Ngati Tamaoho (Te Waiohua) Prepared by: Dr Ann McEwan Final Report: 14 November 2011

2 | P a g e

HE TIKANGA Ā TE RŌPŪ KAITIAKI KI TE TIAKI TE WAIRUA-TANGA, TE AHUREA MŌ ŌNA AKE WHENUA ME NGĀ PUNA TAONGA. TĒNEI WHAKAATURANGA KI TE WHAKAMŌHIA IA KOUTOU TO TĀTOU WHAKAPAPA, WHENUA, WHAKAHAERE Ā MANA WHENUA

IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE, THE GUARDIANS HAVE SPIRITUAL AND CULTURAL COMMAND OVER OUR TRADITIONAL LANDS, WATERS, AND RESOURCES. OUR INTENTION IS TO GIVE YOU A GLIMPSE INTO OUR CULTURE, REGION, CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND CARETAKER RESPONSIBILITIES

Kaiwhare Taniwha of the Manukau

3 | P a g e

1.0 Backdrop 1.0.1 This cultural impact assessment represents only a starting point for initial engagement and will require further consultation and dialogue between iwi, the Onehunga Local Board and Auckland Council. Further discussion will be needed around the implications of the proposal to identify information gaps in our thinking, raise issues or opportunities we had not foreseen, and clarify and reach agreement of those issues as identified in this report. 1.0.2 It is intended that this assessment will assist with ongoing decision making from all relevant parties involved and ensure that iwi issues, concerns, interests and values are provided for including resource consent requirements. The ultimate goal for Iwi being the protection, preservation and appropriate management of natural and cultural resources, including landscapes, in a manner that recognises and provides for our interests and values, and enables positive environmental outcomes. 1.0.3 For Te Waiohua it is vital that three key considerations are provided for regarding this process and proposal: 1. That the mana of our people is upheld, acknowledged and respected 2. That our people have rangatiratanga (opportunity to participate, be involved and contribute to decision making) over our ancestral taonga 3. That as kaitiaki we fulfil our obligation and responsibility to our people (current and future generations) as custodians, protectors and guardians of our cultural interests and taonga 1.1 Introduction 1.1.0 Auckland Council proposes to undertake a reclamation project in Onehunga, south of State Highway 20 in the vicinity of Orpheus Drive. This work is intended to mitigate the impact of the 1975 highway development that involved the reclamation of land across Onehunga Bay and the consequent creation of the Onehunga Bay Reserve. As part of the consultation and resource consent submission process three Pou of Te Waiohua (Ngati Te Ata, Te Akitai and Ngati

4 | P a g e

Tamaoho) have commissioned this report to consider the affect the proposed works will have on the cultural heritage values of the subject area. 1.1.1 The Manukau Harbour has been a place of Maori settlement and sustenance for many hundreds of years. The people of Te Waiohua, Ngati Whatua, and Te Kawerau all have a long history of association with the harbour and a present-day role in its care and well-being. Since the time of European colonisation, Onehunga has also been a significant meeting point for Maori and Pakeha, thanks to its strategic location on the northern shore of the Manukau Harbour close to the early settlement of Auckland. 1.1.2 The importance of Manukau Harbour, its foreshore and hinterland to the people of Te Waiohua is undisputed. The proposed reclamation project will impact upon the cultural heritage values embodied in Onehunga Bay by further compromising the historic integrity of the foreshore and seabed in the subject area. The development has the potential to undermine, rather than strengthen, the historic relationship between Te Waiohua and the Manukau Harbour. Should the project be limited in scope to a refurbishment of the Onehunga Bay Reserve it could, however, provide a welcome opportunity to highlight the Maori heritage values of Onehunga Bay, thereby enhancing the historic awareness of both local residents and visitors to the area. 1.2 Authorship Dr Ann McEwan (Principal) & Lynette Williams (Senior Researcher / Associate), Heritage Consultancy Services Acknowledgements Karl Whare Tipeti Flavell (Ngati Te Ata) Berenize Peita (Ngati Te Ata) Lucille Rutherfurd (Tamaoho Trust) David Wilson (Te Akitai)

5 | P a g e

Fig. 1. Edward Ashworth Onehunga Beach, Manukau Harbour [sic], 1843. Alexander Turnbull Library, A-208-001.

1.3 Summary historical information 1.3.0 Manukau Harbour has been a place of sustenance, commerce, transport and communication for Maori for many hundreds of years. Te Waiohua, Ngati Te Ata, Te Akitai and Ngati Tamaoho, have a relationship with Onehunga, Manukau Harbour and the greater Auckland isthmus that significantly predates European settlement but also includes the colonial and post-colonial eras. 1.3.1 In the early 18th century the people of Te Waiohua, led by Kiwi Tamaki, had pa at Maungakiekie, Mangere and Onehunga, and pa or defensive sites at a large number of other sites in the greater Auckland region. ‘In fact, [Kiwi] appears to have held undisputed possession of the whole country from the Tamaki river to Te Whau, and stretching from the Manukau to the Waitemata’ (Fenton’s Important Judgements pp.62-3). Te Waiohua prospered and grew powerful but also engaged in actions against Te Taou and Ngati Whatua that were to lead to loss of life and land. 1.3.2 In about 1741 Te Taou retaliated against Te Waiohua for a series of attacks in the previous year. Te Waiohua was overcome by Te Taou and Kiwi Tamaki was killed. Te Taou then took possession

6 | P a g e

of the Maungakiekie pa and all the other Waiohua pa in the vicinity. Te Waiohua withdrew to Mangere but were overpowered and this pa also fell. Further battles between Te Waiohua and Ngati Whatua threatened the existence of the Waiohua people but after conquest came a peace that endured, according to Chief Judge Fenton’s record, through the latter half of the 18th century. Te Taou, Ngaoho and ‘the returned refugees of [Te] Waiohua, under the name of Te Uringutu, lived together in different places in or near the isthmus, in undisturbed possession’ (Fenton’s Important Judgements, p 65). Fig. 2. Detail from Fenton’s map of 1879 showing the Onehunga Pa of Uringutu and Ngaoho 1.3.3 Onehunga had considerable strategic importance for Tamaki iwi, given its position on the Manukau in close proximity to Maungakiekie, the Tamaki River and thence to the Waitemata. Te To Waka (the dragging place for canoes), the portage route between the Tamaki River and Manukau Harbour first used by Hoturoa on the Tainui canoe, was ‘the most frequently-used canoe portage in pre-European New Zealand’ (‘The canoes of Tamaki’ Te Ara, updated 4/3/2009). In war and in peace waka were dragged overland not far from Onehunga, even after the arrival of Europeans. Nga Puhi war parties led by Hongi Hika, for example, used the

7 | P a g e

Onehunga portage in 1823 on their way south to the Waikato (Fenton’s Important Judgements, p. 69). The Portage Crossing Festival keeps this aspect of the region’s history alive, making modern-day residents and visitors aware of those aspects of the physical environment which were part of the cultural landscape for pre-European Maori. 1.3.4 Maungakiekie lava caves beneath Onehunga, including one known today as Scotlands Cave un-der the block bounded by Onehunga Mall, Grey, Arthur and Galway Streets, are also part of the area’s cultural landscape for Tamaki iwi. In times past the caves were used by Waiohua tupuna, some as burial caves. 1.3.5 Nga Puhi raids in the early 19th century united the Manukau tribes and in 1832 Te Akitai, Te Taou, Ngatiteata, and other Manukau tribes follow them north, [and] defeat them. ... When, therefore, in 1835, Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief in the district, proposed to conduct the Manukau tribes to their old places, and locate himself amongst them, there was little chance of their being molested by any of the armies which had for 12 years made this isthmus a place where it was impossible for anyone to live. Accordingly we find in 1835 Te Wherowhero, with his own personal tribes Ngatimahuta, Ngatiapakura, &c, brought down Ngatiteata, Ngatitamaoho, Te Akitai, and the other Manukau tribes, along with Te Taou, Ngaoho, and Ngatiwhatua (Important Judgements pp. 74, 75-76). 1.3.6 Potatau Te Wherowhero then settled at Awhitu, Ngati Te Ata took possession of their lands at Awhitu, Tamaoho returned to Pehiakura and Te Akitai to Pukaki. By 1840 Te Wherowhero and Ngati Te Ata had cultivations at Onehunga (Daily Southern Cross 26 October 1868 p. 5), Te Wherowhero himself having taken up permanent residence in Onehunga in 1838.

8 | P a g e

Fig. 3. John Johnson, The Hobson Album The ware of Te Whero Whero, Chief of the Waikato, Onahonga 1843. Alexander Turnbull Library, E-216-f-174-1. 1.3.7 At the same time as Tamaki iwi were returning to the Manukau, Waikato iwi were bringing their produce, especially wheat and flour, to the Auckland markets via the Te Awaroa portage. Europeans were drawn to the harbour and its hinterland to exploit the area’s timber resources. From the mid-1840s colonial settlement became well-established at Onehunga, as it was at Auckland on the Waitemata, and the first major buildings, including a number of hotels and the Anglican Church, were built. Land was alienated from native title and entered government or private ownership. Nevertheless the beach continued to be a busy landing place for Maori trading with the newcomers. 1.3.8 Consequently the commercial centre of the colonial town developed on the waterfront between Norman’s Hill and Princes Street. An influx of military settlers arrived after Onehunga was made the first of Auckland’s fencible settlements in 1847. Two years later a fire destroyed most of the buildings on the waterfront and likely prompted the shift in focus for commercial activities to Princes Street. That said, until a wharf was built at the end of Queen Street in 1858 the beach was still abuzz with waka landing. In 1856, for example, 544 waka are said to have landed at Onehunga Beach (Jones City@Risk Onehunga citing D Scott’s Fire on the Clay Auckland, 1979, pp. 10-11).

9 | P a g e

Fig. 4. EA Williams Onehunga - July [1864]. Alexander Turnbull Library, B-045-001. A composite image, which in-cludes scenes of Maori with waka and fish. 1.3.9 Although tensions were mounting between the colonial government and North Island Maori during the 1850s, Onehunga continued to play a central role in the relationship between Tamaki iwi and Auckland settlers. In c.1850 a native hostelry and grain store was built on land reserved for such a purpose at the junction of Princes Street and the shoreline. Like the hostelry erected in Mechanic’s Bay, the Onehunga Native Hostelry was built to provide free accommodation and a market-place for visiting Maori. The stated intention of such a reserve was to confine Maori trade to a defined area. Notwithstanding the inherent paternalism of this approach the Onehunga Native Reserve would have also reinforced the settlement’s identity as a Maori maritime port. 1.3.10 The hostelry appears to have existed until at least 1880, although it may no longer have been in use after c.1873, and at least part of the reserve was leased by the colonial government for industrial purposes from c.1863. Matthew Roe established the first timber mill on part of the hostelry site, which was subsequently taken over by the Kauri Timber Company. After a fire in 1919 the lease was taken over by local contractors Bray & Co. Bray’s Landing at the hostelry site later gave its name to the nearby Onehunga Bay Reserve.

10 | P a g e

Fig. 5. Report of a meeting of the Auckland Municipal Council [note last sentence] Daily Southern Cross 9 March 1852 p. 2.

11 | P a g e

Fig. 6. Detail of SO 683 showing Onehunga Beach and the Native Hostelry site at bottom right. 1855. Triangular parcel of land at centre top appears to have been the location of Te Wherowhero’s whare, thereafter the site of the New Leith Inn built by Robert & Margaret Forbes, c.1844.

Fig. 7. Edmund Norman Detail from Onehunga Beach, 1852?, showing Native Hostelry site and wharf. Alexander Turnbull Library, A-050-024. The long single storey building in the centre of the picture resembles the Native Hostelry erected in Mechanic’s Bay

12 | P a g e

1.3.11 At the end of the 19th century, now that the reserve land on the foreshore was used as a timber yard, the question of a Maori hostelry in Onehunga was briefly revived. In 1891 the Onehunga Borough Council was approached by the Minster of Native Affairs Alfred Cadman, who asked if the council might provide a site, free of cost, for a building to accommodate Maori [Auckland Star 24 November 1891, p.2]. It would therefore appear that the reserve site on the waterfront was by this time solely used for commercial purposes and so was no longer available as a hostelry. In 1892 it was reported that Te Wherowhero’s son Tawhiao visited Onehunga with the Minister Cadman, in order to select a site for a[nother] Maori hostelry. Nothing appears to have come of this meeting. 1.3.12 In 1900 the petition of Te Whakapopo and 68 others was presented to the Native Affairs Committee, asking that ‘moneys which have accumulated from rents in connection with the Native Hostelry site at Onehunga be expended in providing suitable lodging-house for Maoris visiting that town, and after such provision has been made any balance unexpended be handed over to them.’ The Committee recommended that the petition be referred to the government, ‘with a view to provision being made for accommodation for Maoris visiting Onehunga’ [Reports of the Native Affairs Committee, dated 3 October 1900, available at www.nzetc.org.nz]. Once again nothing seems to have happened in this regard, although as a postscript to this story a 1940 amendment to the Native Reserves Act make provision for a disbursement of £250 to be put towards the establishment of two Maori hostels in Hamilton.

13 | P a g e

Fig. 8. Detail of Town of Onehunga map, 1906, showing beach and Native Reserve. Sir George Grey Special Collec-tions, Auckland Libraries, NZ Map 2673.

14 | P a g e

Fig. 9. DP 19623 showing site of Maori hostelry, Onehunga. Dated May 1926. 1.3.13 Of course by 1900 the time of Onehunga as a prosperous meeting place of Maori and settlers had long since passed. The Waikato Wars of 1863-64 had turned Onehunga into a link on the supply chain for colonial troops, supplanting its role as a Maori port and commercial hub. One aspect of the war that had a direct and highly visible impact on the Onehunga foreshore was the beaching of the great waka Te Toki Te Tapiri, purchased by Ngati Te Ata in the 1850s. After it was confiscated and partially deconstructed the waka lay abandoned on the beach at Onehunga for a number of years.

15 | P a g e

1.3.14 Through the 20th century Onehunga continued to function as a major port and the industrial jobs created by the port, local timber companies and engineering works no doubt attracted Maori to live and work in the area. Reclamation of the Onehunga foreshore in the 1970s created further land for industrial purposes and highway developments. Where once a waka could be berthed on the beach at the foot of Norman’s Hill, is now a lagoon reserve. Since 1985 the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process has addressed the wrongs of the past and offers the peo ple of Waiohua the prospect of restoring their mana and rekindling their relationship with the Manukau Harbour and Onehunga. 1.4 Individuals associated with the area 1.4.0 Kiwi Tamaki (Waiohua / Ngaiwi, died c.1741) Leader of Waiohua with pa at Maungakiekie, Mangere and Onehunga in the early 18th century. Killed in battle at Porurua (Big Muddy Creek) by Te Taou in c.1741. 1.4.1 Potatau Te Wherowhero (Ngati Mahuta, died 1860) Resided at Onehunga in late 1830s and early 1840s, at the same time also having whare at Awhitu and Pukekawa. ‘He was one of the chiefs who sold land to the government in the Manukau area’ in the 1840s (S Oliver, Dictionary of NZ Biography, see below). In the late 1840s at ‘Governor Grey’s request Te Wherowhero and some of his followers moved to Mangere and in 1849 he signed an agreement to provide military protection for the city of Auckland’ (Ibid). Te Wherowhero was installed as the first Maori King in 1858. 1.4.2 Tawhiao, Tukaroto Matutaera Potatau Te Wherowhero (Ngati Mahuta, died 1894) Succeeded his father Te Wherowhero as the second Maori King in 1860. Tawhiao accompanied Native Affairs Minister Alfred Cadman on a visit to Onehunga in 1892 to select a site for a new Native Hostelry [Auckland Star 14 May 1892 p. 1). 1.4.3 Te Whakapopo (hapu unknown) Lead petitioner in 1900 asking that the rents from the Native Hostelry site in Onehunga be used to build a new lodging house for Maori visiting the town. * Further research would be desirable here to discover more about Whakapopo and his fellow petitioners.

16 | P a g e

Fig. 10. William Strutt Detail from Studies of Maori, from Onehunga and Taranaki, 1856. Alexander Turnbull Library, E-452-f-014. 1.5 Cultural Impact Assessment & Recommendations 1.5.0 Onehunga Bay has historic and cultural heritage significance as a place of Maori habitation, cultivation, commerce and maritime activity. Ngati Te Ata, Ngati Tamaoho and Te Akitai, in addition to Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau, have strong historic ties to Onehunga and the Manukau Harbour. Over centuries hundreds of waka would have berthed on the beach at Onehunga. Today’s waka ama competitions in the lagoon created by the 1975 motorway reclamation embody some of the heritage value of the Onehunga foreshore and seabed. 1.5.1 The archaeological report prepared by Russell Foster and Associates for Auckland Council [July 2011] examines the documented archaeological sites in the vicinity of the subject site. According to the Foster report the archaeological sites identified to date show ‘the wide extent of Maori occupation in the area’ [Foster report, p. 7]. Both the Foster report and that written by Martin Jones, NZ Historic Places Trust, for the Onehunga City@Risk report [2011] adequately document the history of the subject area and note the historic relationship between the people of Waiohua and modern-day Onehunga.

17 | P a g e

1.5.2 The proposed reclamation works will further compound the negative impact of the 1975 motorway reclamation, which resulted in the significant distortion of the original shoreline of Onehunga Bay. The proposed reclamation will magnify the loss of the bay’s historic integrity. While the 1975 reclamation for SH20 cannot be undone, to undertake additional and substantial reclamation works will only serve to create an even greater distance between the cultural landscape of the past and the heritage values of the present. 1.5.3 The project should more correctly be described as a reclamation as it is incorrect to describe making land where none has previously existed as a ‘restoration’ project. Restoration could only be achieved with the removal of the highway and the incorporation of the Onehunga Lagoon area into the harbour once more, and that is clearly not likely to happen. 1.5.4 Any suggestion that the creation of new beaches on the seaward side of SH 20 will ‘restore’ wholly or in part, the ‘historically important links’ between the town centre of Onehunga and the Manukau Harbour should also be resisted [see Foster archaeological report, p. 14]. The reclamation will fabricate, not restore, the Onehunga Bay foreshore, further distancing the original shoreline from the harbour itself. This will in turn further modify the historic landscape, known to iwi for generations, which was significantly altered in the mid-1970s. 1.5.5 The names of iwi who lived and worked in the vicinity of Onehunga Bay should be recorded and their contribution to the economic and cultural life of the area acknowledged. Any site interpretation that is prepared, whether in the form of signs, public art, or publication, should be made available to iwi for input before it is finalised. One way by which to connect with today’s tamariki could be in the form of simplified waka installed on the Onehunga Bay Reserve. Such an installation could combine the twin functions of an interactive structure for children and an evocation of the many waka which were once landed on the beach. Proximity to the Native Hostelry site [Mitre 10] would also offer the opportunity for telling the commercial and maritime history of the location in more detail. 1.5.6 It is noted that the site of the native hostelry and the early mill have not been recorded as an archaeological site, probably as there may be little recognisable surface evidence due to

18 | P a g e

subsequent disturbance and building. It is recommended that Native Hostelry reserve is fully recorded to be consistent with other sites in the area that have been recorded even though they also lack physical evidence. 1.5.7 It is recommended that an archaeological alert overlay be imposed on the parcel of land described as Pt Allotment 11 Sec. 20, bounded by Princes St (on its northern side) and Wharangi St (on its eastern side) and encompassing the reclamation land on the west, so that in the event of any future earthworks any surviving archaeological evidence can be identified and recorded. It is anticipated that there would be evidence of structures relating to the Maori hostelry, which was still extant at least in part in 1880, e.g. the main building, stables, outhouses and the grain store, which may include midden deposits and the remains of earth ovens. It is possible that the site also includes evidence of shipbuilding activities. 1.5.8 In regards to existing NZAA site record forms it should be noted that the kainga, recorded as archaeological site R11/99, may be on the same parcel as the hostelry. Archaeological site R11/2710 records the jetty/wharf associated with the saw mill but not the mill itself; this record needs to be elaborated to include the mill or a separate site record established. Comprehensive site record forms for the places of greatest potential archaeological value within Onehunga Bay, including the site of Te Wherowhero’s whare at the bottom of Norman’s Hill, are essential for future recognition, preservation and interpretation. 1.5.9 Should the project be approved, either wholly or in part, an Accidental Discovery Protocol should be implemented, keeping in mind that the Foster report and this document, as well as other histories of Onehunga, have established where and of what nature any artifacts discovered during site works are likely to be found. On-site monitoring of earthworks in the immediate vicinity of Beachcroft Avenue (original shoreline) and the Native Hostelry site is highly desirable and should include the area below the high tide mark in the locations of the 19th century jetties. If other parties, including but not limited to the NZ Historic Places Trust, require that on-site monitoring during earthworks operations be carried out by a qualified archaeologist that person should have the trust and confidence of Ngati Te Ata, Te Akitai and Ngati Tamaoho.

19 | P a g e

1.5.10 Construction personnel should be briefed as to the cultural heritage and archaeological values of the site before any consented earthworks commence. In the absence of on-site monitoring an Accidental Discovery Protocol will only be effective if site personnel are watchful and well-in formed. 1.5.11 The entirety of the Onehunga Bay Reserve is scheduled in the City of Auckland District Plan Isthmus Section as a Heritage Place (Map Ref H09-03). The name of this heritage place is given as Bray’s Landing, which seems somewhat mistaken in view of the fact that the Bray family only leased the Native Hostelry site south-east of the reserve from 1919. This name also fails to acknowledge the Maori history of the beach. This heritage item might more properly be recorded as Te Puheatanga o Te Ata, ‘the blowing back of Te Ata’ (refer Manukau Coastal Walk, Auckland Council). 1.5.12 In the mid-1970s SH20 was built over the path of Puhea Creek at the western end of Onehunga Bay. In this area the proposed reclamation will further alter the natural landscape of the bay, which has been known to Maori for hundreds of years. From the water, by which route the people of Waiohua would have accessed Onehunga beach, the physical distinction between Hills borough and Onehunga Bays has already been changed by the motorway. The proposed reclamation will impact negatively on the appearance of the headland overlooking Onehunga Bay, upon which housing in Seacliffe Road now stands. 1.6 Conclusion 1.6.0 The planning for the ‘Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project’ is well advanced but resource consent documentation has not taken into account tangata whenua cultural values, nor has it adequately addressed the holistic historic heritage significance of Onehunga Bay and surrounds. 1.6.1 Management of the Onehunga Bay Reserve by Auckland Council in partnership with mana whenua groups and the local community would create the optimal setting for a positive recognition and interpretation of the natural, cultural and historic heritage values of the area.

20 | P a g e

1.6.2 Reclamation activities in the Manukau Harbour since the 1970s has resulted in the loss of natural and cultural heritage values embodied in the Onehunga foreshore and seabed. The proposed reclamation will also have a negative impact on the cultural and historic heritage values of the area and so should be declined.

Fig.11. View to Hillsborough / Onehunga Bays headland. A McEwan 4 October 2011. 1.7 Unanswered Questions: 1.7.0 What, if any, steps have been taken by Auckland Council to ensure that, in relation to the Onehunga Bay Reserve, the proposed works have been planned in view of the identified historic heritage values of the reserve (see Appendix 1 of the Isthmus Section of the City of Auckland District Plan)?

21 | P a g e

1.7.1 What is the current status of ownership, management and financial return of the former Native Hostelry site and how may the historic heritage values of this site be better managed in future? In this regard the Archives New Zealand holding ‘Auckland and Onehunga Native Hostelries Act 1867 [counsel for claimants] c.1987-c.1989’ may be germane (ref ABRS, 21471, W4552, 5/ , F10). 1.8 Sources 1. Appendix 1 Schedule of Buildings, Objects, Heritage Properties or Places of Special Value and Those Subject to Heritage Orders & Appendix 3B Schedule of Geological Features City of Auck-land - District Plan - Isthmus Section - Operative 1999 2. Daily Southern Cross & Auckland Star various items from the period1848-1901. See http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast 3. ‘Domain Waters 4: The Waipapa Hostels’ Timespanner - A Journey through Avondale, Auckland and New Zealand history See http://timespanner.blogspot.com/ 4. ‘Hillsborough Bay Circuit’ Manukau Coastal Walks (Auckland Council, see http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/whatson/places/walkways/manukau/hillsboroughbay.asp) 5. Historic photographs, maps and artwork of Onehunga See www.matapihi.org.nz 6. ‘History of Onehunga District 1835-1989’ See http://www.onehunga.net.nz/History 7. Martin Jones, NZ Historic Places Trust ‘Historical Background’ City@Risk Onehunga 2010 8. Native Land Court, Chief Judge Fenton’s Important Judgments: Delivered in the Compensation Court and Native Land Court, 1866-1879 (Auckland, 1879) See http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-NatImpo.html 9. Official documents and legislation pertaining to Native Hostelry at Onehunga, including Auck-land and Onehunga Native Hostelries Act, 1867; Report from the Commissioner of Native Re-serves, 1871; Reports of the Native Affairs Committee, 1889 & 1900 10. Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project documentation 11. ‘Onehunga 2011 Heritage Festival Walk’

22 | P a g e

See http://www.onehunga.net.nz/uploads/77902/files/2011_HERITAGE_FESTIVAL_WALK_- _Web_Copy.pdf 12. Presentation to Manukau Harbour Restoration Society, Onehunga 20 June 2011 13. Rāwiri Taonui 'Tāmaki tribes' Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 24-Sep-11 See http://www.teara.govt.nz 14. Russell Foster and Associates ‘Onehunga Foreshore Restoration - Archaeological Assessment’ July 2011 15. Stephen Oliver ‘Te Wherowhero, Potatau’ & RT Mahuta ‘Tawhiao, Tukaroto Matutaera Potatau Te Wherowhero’ Dictionary of New Zealand Biography See www.TeAra.govt.nz

23 | P a g e

1.9 Image Gallery

Fig. 12. Edmund Norman Onehunga Beach, 1852?. Alexander Turnbull Library, A-050-024.

Fig. 13. Native Hostelry, Mechanics Bay, Auckland. c.1858-59. Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, 4-1117. Hostelry in the foreground provides some idea of the size and scale of the Onehunga hostelry.

24 | P a g e

Fig. 14. Joseph Osbertus Hamley Onehunga, near Auckland 1863. Alexander Turnbull Library. Native hostelry site and wharf can be seen middle left.

Fig. 15. Looking west from the foot of Princes Street, Onehunga along the beach towards Normans Hill, 1864. Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, 7-A3523. Viewpoint along beach is from the native hostelry / mill site.

25 | P a g e

Fig. 16. Showing the Kauri Point Sawmill which was owned by Matthew Henry Roe, on the corner of Beachcroft Avenue and Princes Street [Native Hostelry site], Onehunga with Mr Roe in the foreground. c.1882. Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, 4-844.

Fig. 17. Detail of aerial photograph of Onehunga, Auckland, 11 November 1947, showing Native Hostelry site at centre. Whites Aviation Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library, WA-10547-G.

26 | P a g e

Fig. 18. Detail of aerial photograph of Onehunga, Auckland, 13 July 1965. Whites Aviation Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library, WA-64872-G.

Fig. 19. Detail of aerial photograph of Onehunga, Auckland, 9 February 1973. Whites Aviation Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library, WA-71261-G.

27 | P a g e

Fig. 20. Onehunga Bay Reserve, looking towards the section of Beachcroft Avenue, between Church Street and Princes Street. A McEwan 4 October 2011.

Fig. 21. View of Beachcroft Avenue, at western end of Onehunga Bay Reserve. Road generally follows the original shoreline. A McEwan 4 October 2011.

28 | P a g e

Stormwater Authorship: Lucie Rutherfurd (Certification in Making Good Decisions: Ministry of Environment and Local Government, New Zealand). 2.0 Executive Summary 2.0.1 In 1975, the Ministry of Works (MoW) decided to extend the Mt Roskill to Wiri Motorway (now known as SH20) across Onehunga Bay. The proposal extended the motorway from Hillsborough to the old Mangere Bridge. This work resulted in the construction of SH20, Orpheus Drive, and the creation of Onehunga Lagoon. 2.0.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment at the time of the roading extension provided a drawing of what the future public open space and pedestrian access to the foreshore might look like. 2.0.3 In early 2009, the (former) Auckland City Council Local Board and the NZTA confirmed a total of $28 million for a project to restore the Onehunga foreshore to how it was prior to the construction of SH20. 2.0.4 The development of this vision was a culmination of thirty years of advocacy by the community to restore the Onehunga foreshore to a seaside park, and the recognition by local and central government agencies that the project would provide significant positive benefits to the community of Onehunga and the wider Auckland region. 2.0.5 Funding was secured for the project with 1 million being secured from Auckland Council, and a further 1.8 million from NZTA. This money is specific to this project and is not available if the project does not proceed. 2.0.6 The proposal however is for the reclamation only, and does not deal with prior land use effects. As a result of the proposed reclamation the residents and wider users of Onehunga will gain a new foreshore for recreation purposes, but the reclamation does not intend to address any of the other current issues, such as water quality, sediment and high ecoli count within the existing lagoon and surrounds.

29 | P a g e

2.0.7 The local community has waited for over 30 years for Auckland council to progress on this community promise’ of restoration, however iwi are still waiting for over a 100 years later for their redress of having the Manukau Harbour restored to a state of cleanliness and health. 2.0.8 Council seems to be ignoring its responsibility to the environment and focusing on the benefits of the reclamation to the public, and not on the health of the receiving environment. 2.0.9 It is totally unacceptable to iwi that Auckland Council is prepared to spend 28 million dollars to reclaim 6.8ha of the Onehunga foreshore as a ‘legacy and beautification’ project promised to the local residents 30 years ago, while the existing Onehunga lagoon and foreshore water quality fails all guideline tests for human health, is polluted with faecal matter and stormwater pollutants. 2.0.10 It is unacceptable and beyond belief that the water quality is not being solved prior to any type of ‘restoration’ project. 2.1 Backdrop 2.1.0 Maori through their traditional tribal belief, link ancestral names and events to Landscapes, often associating these (names and events) with the gods themselves and the very body of our earth parent – Papatuanuku. Maori share a strong belief, in God the Father (Ranginui) and Earth, the mother (Papatuanuku). 2.1.1 The mother is the nurturer, the giver of life. Therefore everything born of the mother is alive and has its own life force (mauri). All elements of the natural environment possess mauri and all life is related. Mauri is a critical aspect of the spiritual relationship of Māori with their environment and specific features (such as maunga and waterways) within it. The condition of these reflects our ability as kaitiaki and predicts our own wellbeing. 2.1.2 We (the human race) are all inter-connected with nature, and therefore have a duty to protect and enhance our natural surroundings, not only for ourselves, but our future generations.

30 | P a g e

2.13 The arrival of Europeans (Pakeha) has seen not only the loss of Maori land, but also the pollution of our waterways (streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and harbours). The Pakeha brought with them an old system which had caused many diseases and illness regarding their waste. It was common English practise to dispose of ‘waste’ into moats surrounding castles, and into streams, rivers and harbours. These practises were continued in the ‘new lands’ they inhabited. 2.1.4 Unfortunately towns were built with the mind set of disposing waste to water. Maori living on the Manukau despaired at the despoiling of their harbour, long treasured for its fisheries. 2.15 Estuaries were favoured for food gathering and provided safe, sheltered waters with an abundance of fish, shellfish, and birds for eating. Estuaries also gave access to the interior of the country and its wealth of resources-tall timbered rain forests, abundant bird life, flax swamps and rivers full of eels. 2.1.6 Because estuaries were viewed by many European settlers as unproductive wastelands, estuarine land was reclaimed for harbours, and filled in for pasture, sewerage schemes and stormwater discharge. Many are still under threat from; � excess silt � pollution from sewerage, industrial / agricultural runoff and stormwater � invasion by introduced species (plant and animal) � reclamation � extraction of sand and gravel 2.1.7 Public concern over this environment mess grew. But the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Manukau Claim in 1985 was the catalyst for major change. It laid the basis for new relationships between Maori living near the harbour, local government bodies, businesses and the wider community. 2.1.8 The Waitangi Tribunal’s Manukau Report of 1985 found that the Crown had failed to recognise Treaty rights to land and traditional seafood resources and had not provided the protection promised.

31 | P a g e

2.1.9 Maori have been and continue to be part of the development of our towns and cities. Developments of the landscape are a part of Maori history now also; roading, grazing, reserves, buildings, reservoirs, construction, quarrying, wastewater/stormwater disposal. Some and such developments have not always been supported by tangata whenua. In many cases these developments have damaged or destroyed significant sites and failed to recognise the values held by their kaitiaki. Mana whenua have never ceased visiting these places or appreciating their cultural significance. Maori still share an interest in the on-going sustainable management. 2.2 Background 2.2.0 Auckland Council (Parks, Sport and Recreation) are progressing a project following the construction of State Highway 20 (SH20) in 1975. This project is known as the Onehunga Fore shore Restoration Project (OFRP), and has been developed over many years, with significant input and consultation with the local Onehunga Community. 2.2.1 The vision for the OFRP is to restore the natural character of the foreshore, reminiscent of the old Onehunga Bay, returning the connections, uses and values that once existed there. 2.2.2 The project proposes to: a) Create 6.8 ha of new park land; b) Construct a pedestrian and cycle bridge over SH20 to connect Onehunga Bay Reserve to the foreshore; c) Create four new sandy beaches; d) Nourish the existing beaches in Onehunga Lagoon; e) Create five gravel / shell beaches; f) Construct a new boat ramp; g) Construct a pedestrian and cycle path; and h) Construct park amenities including: a toilet, park furniture and the upgrade of Orpheus Drive car-park.

32 | P a g e

2.2.3 Historically the Manukau Harbour has been used as a ‘dumping ground’ and as the ‘back door’ to Auckland city. Local Councils have made very little effort in the past to clean up this harbour environment. It has been used as a dumping ground for raw sewerage, animal/abattoir waste, municipal/local rubbish dumps and untreated stormwater disposal. Now the council reclaims, through the guise of ‘restores’ more of the harbour in an effort to ‘right’ past wrongs. 2.2.4 There are many old landfills sited in inlets, at the harbour edge, near rivers and streams. There are sewerage outfalls, power corridors and roading all within the harbour environment. The Manukau has been abused since the arrival of Europeans and to merely beautify [restore] a part of it by means of reclamation without addressing the current water quality and pollution problems is unacceptable to iwi. 2.2.5 Attached below is just one example of rubbish dumping leading to massive reclamation in the Manukau Harbour. This example (below) is of reclamation at Onehunga in the Manukau Harbour. A map showing the extent of reclaimed land from Onehunga in the Manukau Harbour.

33 | P a g e

2.2.6 Onehunga in the Manukau Harbour was once a bustling port and critical for transportation from Waiuku to Onehunga/ Auckland as a means of travel and of transporting food to the new residents of Auckland. Prior to roads by boat was the only way of travel. But sadly as Auckland grew in numbers, so did the desecration and despoliation of the harbour, and in particular the port of Onehunga [as can be seen in this photo]. 2.2.7 The photo while showing the extent of reclamation from council and the city of Auckland during a 30 year period does not show the extent of stormwater outflows, leaching from existing old land fill or the current poor health of the harbour. 2.3 Stormwater 2.3.0 The present stormwater system is piped and collects stormwater from the roads and catchments upstream of the lagoon and discharges most of the runoff into Onehunga Bay. 2.3.1 Some of the piped runoff is discharged into the lagoon which also receives overland flow from the upstream catchments. 2.3.2 The lagoon is a tidal basin. 2.3.3 Residential houses and commercial developments in the Royal Oak and Onehunga suburbs make up a large proportion of this sub-catchment. 2.3.4 The stormwater system in this sub-catchment discharges into Onehunga Bay on the south side of SH20 via a pipe passing under the road. This pipe also discharges tidal water to and from the lagoon. 2.3.5 There is a secondary overland flow path along Church Street and other streets north of Beachcroft Ave, into the lagoon. 2.3.6 Onehunga Bay Reserve and lagoon do not have a formal stormwater system within them.

34 | P a g e

2.3.7 At the western extent of the lagoon there is a minor collection system to drain a local low point from a small wetland within the reserve. There are three discharge locations within the lagoon its self. These discharge pipes appear to be overflows from the public stormwater system draining the northern and eastern upper catchments. The pipes are small and contribute relatively small flows to the lagoon. 2.3.8 There are two outflow pipes both which are controlled with gates to trap tidal water within the lagoon for recreational purposes. Most of the time however, the lagoon is allowed to fill and empty with the tide. 2.3.9 Overland flow from the reserve discharges into the lagoon. 2.3.10 Stormwater runoff from the SH20 and Orpheus Drive areas are treated via sand filters before being discharged into the lagoon outlet pipes and finally into Onehunga Bay. 2.3.11 Runoff from the SH20 eastbound carriageway is treated via swales before discharging into pipes crossing the motorway. 2.3.12 Stormwater runoff from Orpheus Drive and Orpheus Reserve car park discharges as sheet flow into Onehunga Bay after passing over a rock seawall. 2.3.13 Stormwater runoff from the Western Headland includes runoff from roofs, driveways, open hard surfaced areas and vegetated areas of Seacliffe Road properties and is discharged via pipes on the cliff face or overland flow path into Onehunga Bay. 2.3.14 The proposed stormwater works within the new ‘park’ reclamation, comprise of: a) Extension of six existing stormwater discharge pipes, five of which cross the SH20 and Orpheus Drive b) Relocation of three existing outfalls to suit the above extensions c) Provision of other new stormwater drainage works d) Provision of stormwater treatment measures

35 | P a g e

e) Creation of secondary overland flow paths to preserve pre-developed overland flow paths and to service the reclamation works 2.3.15 Outfall C also includes extension of the existing Watercare sewer overflow pipe which, in addition to being the sewer overflow, collects and discharges stormwater from the widened SH20 motorway east of the Neilson Street off ramp. 2.3.16 The outfall structure will be a twin pipe headwall concrete structure and will be constructed at the toe of the new beach and sufficiently seaward to ensure that the outfall flows to not scour and remove beach sand. 2.3.17 The outfall pipes will be covered in rock as they emerge at the toe of the beach profile so they have the appearance of an extended rock headland adjacent to the Manukau Cruising Club car park seawall. 2.3.18 The extended sewer overflow pipe will include steel bars to prevent ac cess up the pipe, as the existing pipe does. 2.3.19 The majority of runoff from the proposed reclamation areas will discharge directly to the sea. The aim of the management strategy is to minimise the impact the runoff has on the proposed environment as it travels from its point of origin to its discharge point. 2.3.20 The three discharge mechanisms to be used are; � Swale drains � Discharge onto the rock headlands � Discharge onto the shell/gravel beaches where other options are unavailable. 2.3.21 There will be approximately 7,000m2 of new impermeable discharge.

36 | P a g e

2.4 Water Quality 2.4.0 During public consultation open days to discuss the reclamation project there was concern regarding the quality of water both in the lagoon and the Onehunga Bay. 2.4.1 Water quality monitoring from within the lagoon shows guidelines for recreational use generally exceed the ANZECC guidelines. The results are high particularly for nitrates and phosphorous. Auckland council is unaware of why this is and is currently undertaking further tests. The results are of those tests are not known yet. 2.4.2 Water quality samples were collected at four sites in April 2011 over one tidal cycle. The surface water monitoring data is summarised as follows: a) Dissolved oxygen values varied between sites with some values falling outside of the ac-ceptable range of values in the ANZECC guidelines for estuarine systems. Dissolved oxygen values were lower at all sites on the ebb tide and greater on the flood tide. b) Total nitrogen values exceeded ANZECC guidelines at all sites sampled. c) Total phosphorus values exceeded ANZECC guidelines at all sites sampled. d) Enterococci [faecal] values exceeded the Ministry of Health and Ministry for the Environment guidelines. e) Auckland Council is currently investigating the potential sources of the faecal contamination within the area of the project site. 2.4.3 Auckland Council monitoring data at the nearby Mangere Bridge indicates similar water quality issues, but many of the water quality results have improved since the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade in 2002. 2.4.4 Data collected within Onehunga Lagoon in the present study generally follows the observed monitoring trends from the Onehunga Bay [pollution and faecal counts exceeding ANZECC guidelines]. 2.4.5 Overall the water quality results indicate that the project site has pollution issues.

37 | P a g e

2.5 Stormwater Detention Devices 2.5.0 There are a number of ways to effectively treat stormwater prior to discharge to a natural water body, listed below are three options preferred by iwi that are not disposal to land (land disposal being most preferred, but due to land cost often unachievable). 2.5.1 Option 1: The stormwater pond. Each stormwater pond needs to be ‘relevant’ to the size of the catchment to treat and clean the polluted inflow. This option works by having different ground levels to the pond. These are underwater and not able to be seen. They work by collecting heavy particles as they drop/settle out of the water into the underground ‘bays’. The stormwater then gets to settle out over two or three of these bays prior to discharge to the natural water body. It is preferable to iwi that there are at least two ponds for each treatment and that they are ‘separate’ or ‘off- line’ to the natural stream/waterway they discharge into. The stormwater pond often attracts ducks and other exotic bird species which contribute to water pollution through their faeces, but are an ‘attractive’ amenity to some public. 2.5.2 Option 2: The stormwater wetland This option works similar to a stormwater pond, but doesn’t necessarily have the same underwater ‘bays’. It is planted in native water wetland plants that help to filter out pollutants prior to discharge to the natural environment. As with the option 1, stormwater pond, two wet lands or a combination of a pond and a wetland is preferred by iwi as the most effective method of cleansing polluted stormwater inflows prior to discharge to a natural water body. This option is most preferable as it works the best, however usually costs more than the ordinary stormwater pond. 2.5.3 Options 1 and 2 are often ‘on-line’ meaning that any overflows are directly into the receiving environment.

38 | P a g e

2.5.4 A preferred option for iwi and best practice stormwater detention is for at least two ‘off-line’ wetlands/detention ponds (preferably a mix of both) prior to being able to enter a receiving environment. 2.5.5 Option 3: The Coarse Sediment Trap (CST) This option is a series of baffles device designed to be incorporated into stormwater conveyance systems for pre-treatment of stormwater and primarily to filter sediment, oil and grease prior to discharge or final treatment. They are designed to help reduce the pollutant load prior to entering wetland or detention ponds. 2.5.6 While CST’s are easier to clean than a wetland or detention pond, maintenance is required regularly. If not maintained they can act as a source of contaminants. 2.5.7 Many devices have limited flow capacity and must be inspected regularly during storms and high rainfall periods. Accumulated sediment must be removed (usually by truck) and need to be maintained/inspected at least biannually. 2.5.8 Monitoring may be warranted if discharge is directly to surface or ground water. 2.5.9 In the instance of the Onehunga pollution problem, we see the best solution being a combination of option 3 (CST device) and option 2 (wetland). 2.6 Earthworks 2.6.0 In order to create the new public space/park, of 6.8ha and create a safe boat launch area, dredging and fill will have to take place within the coastal marine area. 2.6.1 Approximately 3,250m2 of dredging will need to take place. The dredging’s will have some contaminants present from past land use practise and depending on the quality may be either dried on land for reuse as fill or removed to an appropriate land fill.

39 | P a g e

2.6.2 An outer sea bund will be created and used to contain the clean fill, shape the beach foreshore and provide access route around work areas. The sea bund will be constructed of base fill [most likely imported sandstone], and constructed during low tides. The final height of the bund is expected to be 1mtr above mean high tide level. 2.6.3 Any foreshore mud in the bund area will be removed and replaced with base fill. This mud will then be mixed with concrete and used as ‘mud crete’ fill. 2.6.4 Once the bunds are built the rocky headlands and beach placement can commence. A total of approximately 290,000m3 of cleanfill will be required to be imported for the reclamation of 6.8ha. 2.6.5 Clean fill standards in New Zealand allow for contaminant levels higher than found in true ‘cleanfill’. 2.6.6 The rock headlands will be constructed using material from existing seawall rock along Orpheus Drive and supplemented with similar imported rock. 2.6.7 Once the headlands are completed, beach sands, gravels and shells will be imported and placed on new proposed beaches. 2.6.8 At the end of the reclamation topsoil will be imported and spread ready for regressing. 2.6.9 The four existing stormwater out falls currently discharging along Orpheus Drive will need to be extended through the proposed works. The extension will be installed as each area is being constructed. 2.7 Auckland Council (ARC) TP Standards 2.7.0 There are two ARC standards to be complied with regards to most developments.

40 | P a g e

2.7.1 ARC TP10 standard is a guideline set by the ARC for levels of pollutants/suspended solids al-lowed when discharging to a receiving environment. This standard states that 75% of all Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are to be removed prior to discharge. 2.7.2 Effectively this means that only 75% of all pollutants/suspended solids are to be removed, allow ing for a compliant 25% of all pollution from each new development to enter into a receiving environment. 2.7.3 ARC TP90 standard. This standard refers to the amount of silt to be retained onsite with any one development; in this case its 90% of all silt is to be retained on site, allowing for 10% reaching the receiving environment as of right. 2.7.4 Where this standard cannot be achieved successfully on a small site, where stormwater detention ponds are difficult to use because of the land they need in order to operate successfully, then often the use of flocculants is encouraged. 2.7.5 A flocculent is a chemical used to coagulate or bind together soil particles, to achieve the compliant discharge limit (90%). To date there is unsatisfactory data available regarding the long term use of flocculants on the receiving environment, particularly where the discharge is to a stream or harbour, where it becomes dispersed into the wider water mass. 2.7.6 Auckland Council (ARC) iwi overview regarding water (wai): ARC stormwater seminar in July 2009 gives a Maori perspective of water (wai); “Water is the life giver of all things From the source to the mouth of the sea all things are joined as one” “From sky father (Ranginui) To the earth mother (Papatuanuku) From the earth mother to the oceans From the oceans back to sky father” 2.7.7 The tupuna (ancestors) recognised various states of water, they are: � Waiora ~ waters of life, rain, springs/healthy water.

41 | P a g e

� Waimate ~ dead water, has no mauri, and cannot support life. � Waikino ~ bad water, polluted water, either physically or spiritually. The mauri is ‘sick’, or changed’, but can ‘change’ back. � Waipiro ~ slack or slow moving water, as in estuary or swamp. � Waitapu ~ are tapu due to loss or restrictive use. 2.7.8 Auckland Council Current Stormwater Overview (September - October 2011): Stormwater Activity Workshop presented by Council and outlining the regional context within which local board priorities for stormwater management sit. a) The sustainable Management of rainwater and the water cycle; delivering resilient communi-ties, and healthy built natural environments.

� Protection and enhancement of our waterways � Work with natural systems not against them � Avoid mistakes of the past, it is costly and difficult to mitigate stormwater impacts retro-spectively � Focus retrospective effort where we need to and can make a difference � Stormwater management is a partnership b) Key Regional Issues include; � Prevention at source is significantly cheaper and more effective than fixing the problem at the end of a pipe � Natural assets are a critical component of our stormwater network and provide for im-portant functions. � However looking after these assets was not always included in asset management plans and LTPs.

42 | P a g e

c) Strategic Approach; � Use redevelopment and other opportunities to improve stormwater management and its effects. � Address environmental effects in priority areas and catchments; which include � Growth areas, � Ecological priorities � Environmental impacts � Local board priorities/community interest. 2.7.9 The Auckland Council is now responsible for all stormwater priorities, projects and quality of discharge within the Auckland Region. More importantly their standards of water quality discharge are adopted by other regions i.e. Waikato and have to be adhered to by developers and other agencies throughout most of the whole of the North Island. 2.7.10 While it is generally accepted throughout New Zealand that our streams, rivers, lakes, estuary’s and harbours are of poor water quality, until the ARC TP10 and ARC TP90 standards are reviewed and strengthened there is not going to be a change in water quality to our receiving environments. 2.7.11 There always has been a strong argument within our society for economic gain versus environmental and cultural gain. Because money talks, the gains more often than not are weighted on behalf of and in favour of the economic argument.

2.8 The Onehunga Lagoon 2.8.0 The Onehunga lagoon was created in 1975 when the new State highway 20 was built. 2.8.1 It used to be kept full of water so it could be used for recreation purposes, however over the years as the levels of pollution within the lagoon rose, [making it an unhealthy environment for

43 | P a g e

recreational use], gates were built to allow the lagoon to ‘flush’ itself as the tide went out to al-low for a cleaner environment with better water quality. 2.8.2 At present it is left to flush with the tide during the week and the gates closed to retain the water during the weekends for recreational use by the public for a range of water sport activities. 2.8.3 The Onehunga Bay lagoon reserve has open space area, walkways, beaches on the lagoon and a playground. It is well used, particularly in the summer, with good vehicular and pedestrian connections. 2.8.4 Water quality monitoring within Onehunga Lagoon has been carried out under commission from Auckland Council and shows faecal coliform numbers from five monitoring sites within the lagoon and one outside it. 2.8.5 These show that Ministry of Health and Ministry for the Environment guidelines are exceeded at times. 2.8.6 The causes of these high values are not fully understood. However, City Design (2005) in their report on stormwater quality in Onehunga Lagoon suggested that an undersized cross connection between wastewater networks could be the potential source. 2.8.7 All three, nitrate, nitrite and phosphorus levels were variable but generally exceeded ANZECC guidelines. The reasons for the high levels are complex and are not fully understood. 2.8.8 Following a site visit to the lagoon on October 4th 2011 it was noted that there are large areas of open space, currently mowed which are natural ‘low’ areas within the reserve, these areas could be utilized as stormwater wetland detention ponds.

44 | P a g e

Showing existing lagoon and proposed reclamation - note the large open space either side of the Lagoon Showing the large open space on the western side of the Lagoon and containing a small natural wet area

45 | P a g e

2.9 Conclusions 2.9.0 The Manukau Harbour has historically been used as a dumping ground for rubbish disposal, sewerage and industrial waste, untreated stormwater discharge, and a utility corridor for gas, electricity, sewerage and motorways. 2.9.1 Many hectares of harbour have been reclaimed for past historic land use. None of it benefiting the environment or Maori beliefs and practices. 2.9.2 Auckland Councils have historically used the Manukau Harbour and in particular the Onehunga Bay areas as a rubbish dump then a discharge point for stormwater for over 60 years. The council has never had to rectify this past land use. 2.9.3 Maori have a strong connection to the Manukau Harbour and its surrounds. Over the years Maori have lost their right to be kaitiaki over their land as more and more has been ‘reclaimed’, ‘rehabilitated’, and ‘confiscated’ to satisfy Councils past land use practices. 2.9.4 Maori have a holistic view of the environment and natural landscape, seeing everything in harmony and as one. When our waters are sick, so are our bodies. Water is, as our blood is. 2.9.5 The Onehunga inlet has a pollution problem which needs to be addressed. 2.9.6 The Manukau Harbour is an important part of our ecosystems and food sources. 2.9.7 The Auckland Council has provided stormwater ‘overviews’ addressing iwi values and a strategic approach for moving forward and addressing stormwater issues. 2.9.8 The Auckland Council is pushing ahead with a ‘reclamation’ project that is purely for amenity and beautification. There is NO consideration in an entire 28 million dollar project for the environment.

46 | P a g e

2.9.9 There does not appear to be any cultural consideration given to the sourcing of the materials for the reclamation. 2.9.10 The harbour is already polluted and council is looking at further pollution in the form of imported ‘cleanfill’ and the re-use of the contaminated dredging on site, which will eventually end up leaching into the harbour. 2.9.11 Auckland Council has produced documentation that states in its policies and objectives what needs to be done to improve the health of our water, yet continues to ignore its own policy statements. 2.9.12 There is enough room within the existing lagoon area to provide for CTS devices and wetlands which will treat all stormwater discharge prior to it entering the harbour 2.10 Recommendations 2.10.0 That Auckland Council remedy the current pollution problems within both the Onehunga Lagoon and Onehunga Bay area by installing CST devices into all current outfalls and re-diverting the semi treated outflow into two wetlands either side of the lagoon. This will ensure a high quality of treated water will be discharged into the Manukau harbour. 2.10.1 That Auckland Council uses a portion of the funding for the proposed restoration to achieve recommendation 2.10.0 2.10.2 That the remainder of the money set aside for the project then be reassessed by the council, iwi, the local community and ATA as to how to best spend the remainder of the funds. 2.10.3 That Auckland Council refers to its own policies regarding iwi and stormwater within the region and puts into action its own policy statements and takes responsibility for its past bad/lazy land use practices.

47 | P a g e

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Authorship: Berenize Peita BA(Hons), LLB(Hons) 3.0 Purpose 3.0.1 To provide a legal opinion in relation to: What impact the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project (OFRP) will have on Iwi Rights to Seek a Customary Title? In responding to your enquiry I have posed several questions in order to highlight the various impacts and to be able to fully answer the original question you posed. The answers to these questions derive from the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. a) What are Iwi Customary Rights today? b) What does Iwi have to do to establish Protected Customary Rights and or Protected Cus-tomary Title? c) What is the effect of “Reclaimed Land” on Iwi? 3.1 Background 3.1.0 Auckland Council (AC) proposes to restore by way of reclamation the coastal edge contiguous to Orpheus Drive in Onehunga. The project area will cover the coastal marine area from Seacliffe Road to the Manukau Cruising Club and will include modifications in the Onehunga Bay Reserve and the lagoon. 3.1.1 The key elements of the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration project that will impact on Iwi are: a) The creation of 6.8 Hectares of new park land; b) The creation of 4 new sandy beaches; c) The creation of 5 gravel/shell pocket beaches; d) The construction of a boat ramp; e) The construction of amenities including a toilet, park furniture and a new carpark.

48 | P a g e

3.2 The Law 3.2.0 The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Preamble (4) states that; This Act takes account of the intrinsic, inherited rights of iwi, hapū, and whānau, derived in the accordance with tikanga and based on their connection with the foreshore and seabed and on the principle of manaakitanga. It translates those inherited rights into legal rights and interests that are inalienable, enduring, and able to be exercised so as to sustain all the people of New Zealand and the coastal marine environment for future generations: 3.2.1 Section 9 of the Takutai Moana Act provides for the interpretation of the marine and coastal area; (a) means the area that is bounded,— (i) on the landward side, by the line of mean high-water springs; and (ii) on the seaward side, by the outer limits of the territorial sea; and (b) includes the beds of rivers that are part of the coastal marine area (within the meaning of the Resource Management Act 1991); and (c) includes the airspace above, and the water space (but not the water) above, the areas described in paragraphs (a) and (b); and (d) includes the subsoil, bedrock, and other matter under the areas described in paragraphs (a) and (b) 3.3 Iwi Customary Rights today 3.3.0 Iwi customary rights today of their Marine and Coastal area are: a) That Iwi have intrinsic, inherited rights derived in accordance with tikanga and based on their connection with the foreshore and seabed and on the principle of manaakitanga.

49 | P a g e

b) The Takutai Moana Act recognises those inherent rights and translates those rights into legal inalienable and enduring rights. c) In doing so The Takutai Moana Act also places a burden of responsibility on Iwi in that the use of their legal rights and interests are “to be exercised so as to sustain all the people of New Zealand and the coastal marine environment for future generations.” d) Iwi customary rights are also recognised as being “mana tuku iho” and the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 takes into account the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Wai-tangi). 3.3.1 Section 51 of the Takutai Moana Act 2011 provides the requirements to establish protected customary rights (1) A protected customary right is a right that— (a) has been exercised since 1840; and (b) continues to be exercised in a particular part of the common marine and coastal area in accordance with tikanga by the applicant group, whether it continues to be exercised in exactly the same or a similar way, or evolves over time; and (c) is not extinguished as a matter of law. (3) An applicant group does not need to have an interest in land in or abutting the speci-fied part of the common and marine and coastal are in order to establish protected cus-tomary rights. 3.3.2 Section 58 of the Takutai Moana Act 2011 provides the requirements to establish customary marine title (1) Customary marine title exists in a specified area of the common marine and coastal ar-ea if the applicant group— (a) holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and

50 | P a g e

(b) has, in relation to the specified area,— (i) exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption; or (ii) received it, at any time after 1840, through a customary transfer in ac-cordance with subsection (3). 3.3.3 Iwi could establish their protected customary right and or a customary marine title by way of A Recognition Agreement (Section 95) (a) Iwi has 6 years from the commencement of the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (1st April 2011) to enter into an Agreement with the Crown. (b) Whether the Crown chooses to enter into negotiations with Iwi is completely at their discretion. (c) If the Crown decides to enter into negotiations with Iwi they must be satisfied that Iwi meets the requirements of Section 51 and or Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. A Recognition Order (Section 98) (a) Iwi has 6 years from the commencement of the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (1 April 2011) to apply to the Court for a Recognition Order. (b) The Court must be satisfied that Iwi meets the requirements of section 51 (1) and or sec-tion 58 of the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. 3.3.4 Subpart 3 (s)(29) defines reclaimed land: means permanent land formed from land that formerly was below the line of mean high-water springs and that, as a result of a reclamation, is located above the line of mean high-water springs, but does not include— (a) land that has arisen above the line of mean high-water springs as a result of natural processes, including accretion; or

51 | P a g e

(b) structures such as breakwaters, moles, groynes, or sea walls 3.3.5 Section 30 of the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 states that the ownership of legally reclaimed land vests in the Crown absolutely. 3.3.6 The Minister can then grant and dispose of interests in reclaimed land. The Minister has the ability to grant a freehold interest or a lesser interest. A developer such as the Auckland Council would be considered an “eligible applicant” and could apply for an interest in the reclaimed land. (s (35)(1) Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. 3.3.7 The Minister could also grant a lesser interest in the reclaimed land to a network utility operator if they can demonstrate that the lesser interest is “required for the purposes of the network utili-ty operation undertaken by the network utility operator.” (s (35)(2) Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011). 3.3.8 Iwi could be considered as an “eligible applicant” if there are no interests granted in the land and if there are no current applications for a grant of interest. s (35)(3) and s(35)(4) Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011). 3.3.9 In determining whether an eligible applicant should be granted an interest the Minister would have to take into consideration a number of matters. Matters such as the public interest in the reclaimed land and the public benefit from the proposed use of the land as well as whether there are any historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. 3.4 The Effect of Reclaimed Land on Iwi 3.4.0 The effect of “Reclaimed Land” on Iwi is that their actual Marine and Coastal area will be rede fined. The reclamation of 6.8 Hectares by definition of the Takutai Moana Act will include that airspace above, and the water space above the marine and coastal area from Seacliff Road to the Manukau Cruising Club, by the line of mean high-water springs; and will also include the

52 | P a g e

subsoil, bedrock, and other matter under the areas described in Subpart 3 (s) (29) paragraphs (a) and (b). Iwi will lose the ability to establish a customary marine title over 6.4 hectares of their current marine and coastal area. 3.4.1 Any type of reclamation without the consent of whanau, hapu, iwi that have “intrinsic inherited rights derived in accordance with tikanga and based on their connection with the foreshore and seabed” is contrary to the purpose of the Takutai Moana Act. 3.5 Opinion 3.5.0 If the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project (OFRP) proceeds Iwi will still be able to seek a customary marine title. 3.5.1 The Crown could grant a freehold interest in the reclaimed land to Auckland Council and this would still not alter Iwi’s ability to seek a customary marine title in that area. 3.5.2 The law is very clear in that “An applicant group does not need to have an interest in land in or abutting the specified part of the common and marine and coastal area in order to establish protected customary rights.” (s(51)(3) Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. 3.5.3 The Preamble of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 recognises Iwi “intrinsic, inherited rights” and translates those rights into legal rights that “are inalienable”. Land Reclamation by its very nature “alienates” as it separates Iwi from their traditional coastal and marine area. 3.5.4 The reality for Iwi is that the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project (OFRP) will take away the traditional coastal and marine area by way of land reclamation. The air space, the water space, the subsoil and the bedrock that currently make up the coastal and marine area from Seacliffe Road to the Manukau Cruising Club will be permanently altered by the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project (OFRP).

53 | P a g e

3.6 Other Matters 3.6.0 It is in my view that if Iwi met the conditions for “eligible applicant” to apply for interests in the reclaimed land then there is still no guarantee (or certainty) that they would in fact be granted a freehold interest in the reclaimed land. The current political climate is such that public interest and the public benefit in the proposed Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project (OFRP) would outweigh any Iwi interests. 3.6.1 If Iwi were to seek to prevent the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project their only Legal Ave-nue of redress would be via the Resource Management Act 1991. Part 3 s 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991defines the restrictions on use of coastal marine area: No person may, in the coastal marine area,— (a) reclaim or drain any foreshore or seabed; or (b) erect, reconstruct, place, alter, extend, remove, or demolish any structure or any part of a structure that is fixed in, on, under, or over any foreshore or seabed; or (c) disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal); or (d) deposit in, on, or under any foreshore or seabed any substance in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed; or (e) destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of law-fully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on plants or animals or their habitat; or (f) introduce or plant any exotic or introduced plant in, on, or under the foreshore or sea-bed; or (g) destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of law-fully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on historic heritage—

54 | P a g e

unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional coastal plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent. 3.6.2 I raise the following point in reference to two separate matters that Ngati Te Ata are involved with, that being Maioro (sand mining) and Rio Tinto (deep sea mining proposal). Section 83 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 refers to the ownership of minerals. “A customary marine title group has and may exercise, ownership of minerals (other than petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium existing in their natural condition) that are within in the customary marine title area of that group.

55 | P a g e

4.0 Appendix 1

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

58 | P a g e

PRELIMINARY IWI ASSESSMENT October 2011

Applicant: Auckland Council Project: Onehunga Foreshore Restoration

Activity: Resource Consent/ Coastal Permit

Authors: Te Warena Taua, Wayne Knox

Copyright Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Not to be reproduced without express permission

Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority

PO Box 59-243 bus. 09 973 0898 Mangere Bridge fax. 09 973 0899 2/3 Airpark Dr www.tekawerau.iwi.nz Airport Oaks admin@tekawerau.iwi.nz

Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Kawerau Iwi - Kawerau Mana - Kawerau Tangata

Report Title Page 2 of 5

PO Box 59-243 bus. 09 973 0898 Mangere Bridge fax. 09 973 0899 2/3 Airpark Dr www.tekawerau.iwi.nz Airport Oaks admin@tekawerau.iwi.nz

1.0 Introduction Te Kawerau a Maki were consulted at the concept design development stage of this project. As an outcome of this consultation, Te Kawerau a Maki requested the opportunity to prepare a cultural impact assessment. The assessment includes: 1. A description of Te Kawerau a Maki and our associations with the subject area 2. Identification of cultural, heritage and envirionmental values associated with the subject area 3. Assessment of the impacts of the proposed activity on these values 4. Recommendations to avoid, remedy or mitigate such impacts 5. Recommended conditions of consent should the application be granted 6. Consideration of the process subsequent to submission of the Cultural Impact Assessment

2.0 Description of Te Kawerau a Maki and our Associations with the subject area Te Kawerau a Maki are the oldest of the Tamaki tribes still in existence. We are descendants of the first people to settle Tamaki, and thus are related to all the tribes that now have mana whenua (customary authority) within the area. Te Kawerau a Maki have close ancestral associations with areas across the region, such as Manurewa, Mangere, North Shore, Kaipara, Mahurangi and the Tamaki isthmus. Our strongest ancestral interests are in Waitakere, the area referred to traditionally by us as Hikurangi. A more comprehensive overview of Te Kawerau a Maki is attached at Appendix One. The map attached at Appendix Two indicates the rohe (tribal domain) of Te Kawerau a Maki. It encompasses both areas of exclusive customary interests and areas where our customary interests overlap with those of other iwi and hapu. Te Kawerau a Maki regards the subject area as being an area of shared customary interest. 3.0 Te Kawerau a Maki Associations with the Subject Area Onehunga its surrounding districts and foreshore are all part of a wider area that had been occupied by Te Kawerau a Maki and other related groups since time immemorial. Our mana extends back to the Tainui canoe and from both Hoturoa, the captain of the waka, and Rakataura, the senior tohunga. As descendants of the Tainui waka, Te Kawerau a Maki are kaitiaki of the ancient Tainui traditions and mana whenua throughout Tamaki. As a distinct tribal entity, Te Kawerau a Maki have close ancestral associations with Waitakere, the Tamaki isthmus, Southern Kaipara and North Shore up to Mahurangi. As such, we have a very strong association with the Manukau Harbour The Manukau Harbour is a taonga to all the tribes located around it, which include Te Kawerau a Maki, and other Tainui iwi of Tamaki such as Te Waiohua and Ngai Tai and many lower Waikato hapu. There are numerous ancestral associations with the harbour, including the famous passage of the Tainui waka. The harbour’s full name is Te Manukanuka a Hoturoa, which describes the anxiety of Tainui’s captain, Hoturoa when crossing the harbour.

Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Kawerau Iwi - Kawerau Mana - Kawerau Tangata

Report Title Page 3 of 5

PO Box 59-243 bus. 09 973 0898 Mangere Bridge fax. 09 973 0899 2/3 Airpark Dr www.tekawerau.iwi.nz Airport Oaks admin@tekawerau.iwi.nz

Tamaki Makaurau has been occupied by descendants of the Tainui crew ever since its arrival in Aotearoa. The Manukau Harbour is an extremely significant part of the crucible of original Tainui occupation of the area. Tamaki is described in the whakatauki (proverb) below as the northernmost boundary of the Tainui waka:

Mokau ki runga Tamaki ki raro

Mangatoatoa ki waenganui Pare Hauraki, Pare Waikato

Te Kaokaoroa o Patetere

Mokau is above Tamaki is below

Mangatoatoa is within Hauraki to one side, Waikato the other

Culminating in the long flank of Patetere Sites of particular cultural significance to Te Kawerau a Maki in the immediate vicinity of the site subject to the current proposal include: Otahuhu – Originally named Te Tahuhu o Tainui after the portage of this waka from Te Wai o

Taiki (Tamaki River) to Te Manukanuka a Hoturoa (Manukau Harbour). Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island) – Named after Hiaroa, who is the sister of Rakataura,

navigator of the Tainui. Te Motu a Hiaroa is an important cultural icon of the Tamaki and moreover of the Tainui peoples.

Te Totara i Ahua (One Tree Hill) – An ancient pa site of significance to Te Kawerau, Te Waiohua and other Tainui iwi.

Te Pane o Mataoho (Mangere Mountain) – Another ancient pa site of significance to Te Kawerau, Te Waiohua and other Tainui iwi. Mangere was occupied by Potatau Te Wherowhero along with a number of other pa around Auckland City, such as Te Tiki at Te Ihu a Mataoho (Ihumatao), Pukekawa (Auckland Domain) and Remuera.

Whakarongo – a point opposite the Onehunga Foreshore, along Kiwi Esplanade in Mangere Bridge, where Rakataura positioned himself to survey the Manukau Harbour.

Te Puketapapatanga a Hape (Puketapapa) – The oldest Papakainga still in occupation in Tamaki Makaurau, this kainga was first settled by Hape (another name for the Tainui navigator, Rakataura) and other members of the Tainui crew.

Nga Mara a Te Tahuri: Te Tahuri was a Waikato chieftainess and the mother of the famed Te Waiohua rangatira, Kiwi Tamaki. Her gardens were expansive, and encompassed the fertile volcanic soils surrounding Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill).

This overview provides an important context to the multiple layers of association and significance that the specific site has to tangata whenua. With brief reference to the archaeological assessment prepared by Russell Foster and Associates for this project:

States that a kainga of Ngaoho and Te Uringutu was located at Onehunga and that Apihai Te Kawau lived there;

Also states that the land surrounding the current site was sold by Ngati Whatua; Infers that Ngaoho and Te Uringutu are solely Ngati Whatua hapu.

Nga Oho is in fact the original tribal name for the descendants of early Tainui tupuna that occupied Tamaki. In recent times, Ngati Whatua o Orakei have emphasised their status as a Ngati Whatua hapu. However, Ngati Whatua o Orakei have clear Tainui ancestry. The hapu of Ngaoho and Te Uringutu are actually of shared Te Waiohua, Kawerau and Ngati Whatua (particularly Te Taou via

Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Kawerau Iwi - Kawerau Mana - Kawerau Tangata

Report Title Page 4 of 5

PO Box 59-243 bus. 09 973 0898 Mangere Bridge fax. 09 973 0899 2/3 Airpark Dr www.tekawerau.iwi.nz Airport Oaks admin@tekawerau.iwi.nz

marriages with rangatatira such as Tuperiri and Te Wahaakiaki) descent. Furthermore, the fact that the site in question was sold by Ngati Whatua rangatira does not indicate their sole mana whenua within this area. According to Te Kawerau a Maki traditional histories, Onehunga was occupied for a time by Waikato ariki (paramount chief), Potatau Te Wherowhero, and a puna (freshwater spring) known to have been used by the ariki is in a location known to kaumatua near the site in question. It is well known that during the inter-tribal conflicts of the 1830’s, particularly those precipitated by the Ngapuhi musket raids, Waikato sheltered many Tamaki tribes. Those iwi, including Te Kawerau a Maki and various Ngati Whatua hapu, were eventually restored to their original homes under the leadership of Potatau Te Wherowhero, and were able to remain there with his protection. Though Potatau, prior to being made the first Maori King in 1858, was very much a Waikato leader, his mana also extended into Tamaki. Potatau resided for a long period in the Auckland District, and is well known to have had an important role in protecting the developing district from the threat of attack from northern tribes, hence his famous whakatauki:

Kia tupato ki te remu o taku kahu Beware the hem of my cloak This was a direct warning to northern tribes not to tread upon the figurative hem of Potatau’s cloak, being Tamaki, the northern boundary of the Tainui waka and hence encompassed by Potatau’s mana. Like many areas surrounding the Manukau Harbour the Onehunga foreshore was a seasonal kainga, important for accessing the many resources of the harbour. This area is strategically located along the Otahuhu portage route, and is also close to the Whau River portage route. It is also close to fortified settlements such as Maungakiekie, Mangere and Te Motua a Hiaroa. According to Te Kawerau a Maki tradition, the name Onehunga is a contraction of the words one (foreshore), nehu (bury) and hunga (large group of people). The place name commemorates a conflict between warring tribes. The Tamaki isthmus is well known for inspiring intertribal conflict, hence sayings such as:

Te pai me te whai rawa o Tamaki Tamaki makau rau

The wealth and prosperity of Tamaki Tamaki, desired by the multitudes

According to tradition, following a particular battle, the bodies of fallen warriors were buried directly on the shoreline, which is not an uncommon practice for Maori. Therefore, Te Kawerau a Maki consider specific locations along the Onehunga foreshore to be wahi tapu. This obviously is a matter of major significance that greatly influences our consideration of cultural impacts of the current project. Te Kawerau a Maki are not willing to disclose the location of this wahi tapu, but confirm that this area will be impacted according to the current proposal.

Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Kawerau Iwi - Kawerau Mana - Kawerau Tangata

Report Title Page 5 of 5

PO Box 59-243 bus. 09 973 0898 Mangere Bridge fax. 09 973 0899 2/3 Airpark Dr www.tekawerau.iwi.nz Airport Oaks admin@tekawerau.iwi.nz

3.0 Assessment of Impacts on Relevant Cultural, Heritage and Environmental Values

Value Impacts Mitigation Strategies Protection of wahi tapu Potential adverse impacts on

known wahi tapu through physical site works, particularly earth works

Redesign layout with tangata whenua input to avoid negative impact on wahi tapu.

Protection of sites of significance Potential adverse impacts on known sites of significance through physical site works, particularly earth works

Redesign layout with tangata whenua input to avoid negative impact on sites of significance.

Protection of iwi associations with site

Reclamation will further permanently alter existing shoreline

Potential ownership, Treaty Claim and Foreshore and Seabed Act customary issues

Develop interpretation strategy for the project in conjunction with tangata whenua;

Further discussion on potential impacts of Treat Claims etc. with tangata whenua.

Protection of the mauri of the Manukau Harbour, waterways and foreshore

Potential impacts on marine life

Detrimental effect on natural resources, including water quality, kaimoana (sea food) and mahinga mataitai (fishing areas)

Further engagement with tangata whenua around opportunities for enhancement of environmental outcomes.

4.0 Conclusion In conclusion, Te Kawerau a Maki do not oppose the concept of redevelopment of the Onehunga Foreshore. However, our support or otherwise will be largely dictated by whether our concerns can be accommodated within the design. It is recommended that there is opportunity for the current concept design to be amended with tangata whenua input to accommodate our concerns. It is recommended that tangata whenua are engaged at appropriate stages throughout the project, and that our input is able to be robust and detailed enough to ensure all concerns can be adequately addressed.