We are basically supportive of the settlement. Our cones, particularly in Puketapapa/Mt Roskill have been terribly neglected under sole Council stewardship and we are hopeful that working together with iwi there will be impetus to undertake much needed restoration.
The main concern that we have is that local communities and Local Boards don't get much of a look in under the proposed structure and legislation. We have raised this repeatedly within Auckland Council, but have not received much of a hearing. To try and advance these points we have therefore submitted to the Parliamentary committee considering the Bill. Our main proposals are:
- Guarantee Local Board representation on the Maunga Authority that will govern the cones.
- Require the Maunga Authority to establish localised consultation structures
- Allow groups and people to submit views directly to the Maunga Authority
12 September 2013
Submission to the Maori Affairs
Select Committee:
Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau
Collective Redress Bill
Submitter Michael Wood, Puketapapa Local Board Member
Organisation Roskill Community Voice
Contact
Details 80 Albrecht Ave, Mt Roskill
South, Auckland 1041
09
620 9257 or 022 659 6360
Submission:
1.
I wish to appear before the
committee to present my submission, assuming that the committee will conduct
hearings in Tamaki Makaurau.
2.
Roskill Community Voice is a
community based organisation and political grouping based in the Mt Roskill
area. We are supported by Labour, Greens, and community-based independents. We
are currently represented on the Puketapapa Local Board by Julie Fairey and
Michael Wood.
3.
The Bill is of major interest
to the Mt Roskill community. Two maunga from the Mt Roskill area are included
in the Bill; Puketapapa/Pukewiwi (Mt Roskill), and Te Tatua-a-Riukiuta (Big
King). Both are extremely important in terms of local community identity and
recreation, but they have also both been terribly abused over the years.
4.
We broadly support the Bill in
its current form. It is appropriate that iwi’s cultural and historic connection
to the maunga is recognised through co-governance. We also believe that
co-governance could provide the impetus to undertake much need restoration work
on our badly degraded maunga.
5.
Both as a matter of good
governance, and to ensure that there is widespread community support for
co-governance we believe that there should be provisions in the Bill to ensure
that community engagement and transparency are embedded in the operation of the
Maunga Authority. This could be achieved through some fairly minor changes to
the Bill.
6.
In the first instance we
believe that it is important to ensure that there is representation from local
communities on the Maunga Authority. If the Authority is perceived to be
distant from local communities vis-à-vis its membership this is likely to
create community concern. It would also result in important local
considerations not being clearly heard in the decision making process. The
Auckland Council’s structure includes Local Boards, which are broadly empowered
to represent local community interests. We believe that a simple way of
ensuring a local voice on the Manuga Authority would be for the legislation to
require that at least half of Auckland Council’s membership of the Maunga
Authority be made up of Local Board members from Local Board areas that include
maunga overseen by the Maunga Authority. Proposed wording follows:
106 Membership
·
(1) The
Maunga Authority comprises—
·
(a) 2
members appointed by the Marutūāhu rōpū entity; and
·
(b) 2
members appointed by the Ngāti Whātua rōpū entity; and
·
(c) 2
members appointed by the Waiohua Tāmaki rōpū entity; and
·
(d) 6
members appointed by the Auckland Council, no
less than three of whom must be members of Local Boards from Local Board areas
that include maunga under the jurisdiction of the Maunga Authority; and
7.
We believe that the role of the Maunga Authority will
be large and complex. It will be dealing with policy issues at a high level,
and will find it difficult to engage directly around site-specific issues. We
also believe that the credibility of the Manuga Authority will be enhanced by
strong mechanisms that enable it to connect with local communities. At this
stage however, the Bill provides no such direction or framework.
8.
In response to the issues raised in (7) we propose the
insertion of a new section in Schedule 4, after the current section 9. Proposed
text follows:
10) Local
Engagement and Consultation
(1) The Maunga Authority will ensure that local
communities are consulted with prior to the development of plans or initiatives
relating to specific maunga.
(2) The Maunga Authority will establish a process to
enable groups and individuals with an interest in the business of the Authority
and maunga-related issues, to make direct representations to the Authority of
their own volition.
(3) The Maunga Authority will establish localised
structures that enable it to engage with local communities about issues
relating to specific maunga. These structures will be on the basis of Local
Board boundaries and must include Local Board representation.
9.
In conclusion, we are supportive of the main
objectives and structures of the Bill. Its main area of deficiency relates to a
lack of provisions that will ensure engagement with local communities. It is
important to include such measures in order that the legitimate interests of
local communities receive a hearing in relation to local maunga, and also to
ensure wide-spread community acceptance of co-governance.
Specifically, we propose that Local Board
representation on the Maunga Authority be enshrined, and that it be a statutory
requirement that the Maunga Authority engage with local communities. Specific
and simple measures are proposed to achieve this.
10.
We thank the committee for the opportunity to submit
and for considering the issues we have raised.
