Mayor Wayne Brown's powers and undertakings re: the maunga trees and Tūpuna Maunga Authority
The Auckland Council election results have delivered increased hope for the maunga trees in terms of Wayne Brown’s election as Mayor, and also because more maunga tree-friendly ward councillors have been elected. It is an important time for the maunga trees because, until now, the Mayor, the Council and the local boards have largely taken a very hands-off approach when dealing with Tūpuna Maunga Authority. This is, in our view, a serious failure in Auckland Council’s co-governance role, which has served neither the maunga trees nor Aucklanders well.
How Auckland Council can safeguard the maunga trees
Firstly, it’s important to understand Tūpuna Maunga Authority is a statutory body. This constrains - but does not completely limit - the extent of Auckland Council’s - and the Mayor’s - powers over it. Furthermore, parts of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 also apply to the Authority, as do various other Acts and bylaws.
Auckland Council’s powers under the Collective Redress Act
The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act Act sets out the Authority’s functions and powers, stating it must have regard to “the spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary, and historical significance of the maunga to Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau”. Importantly, it also provides that the maunga are held “for the common benefit of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau and the other people of Auckland”. Chris Finlayson, the government Minister who oversaw the maunga treaty settlement, advised in a 2019 letter that “this phase was inserted to emphasise the legitimate ongoing interest of the broader community. It was accepted that the community generally loved the maunga and no-one had a monopoly on care for the maunga. Sensitivity to the broader community’s aspirations is relevant.”
Finlayson went on to point out the act requires the Authority and the Council to agree an annual operational plan and a can address matters such as restoration work and strategic projects.
He concludes by stating: “…the Council is not some nodding automaton. It needs to engage with the Authority on both current and future activities. It must have its say bearing in mind that the maunga are held for the common benefit of Manawhenua and the other people of Auckland. That is why I would expect the Council to have a view about, for example, removing crosses from Mount Roskill, removal of trees from Mount Albert and arrangements for the Pakuranga Tennis Club at Ohuiarangi/Pigeon Mountain. I would also have thought that the Council would be keen to consult with the Auckland community about their hopes for the maunga.”
The Act therefore provides the Council as a whole with a mandate at annual budget setting time to push back against proposed TMA activities and budgets that are counter to the Council’s environmental, climate and other policies.
Yet, to date, the Council has failed to make a single change to the Authority’s proposed annual budget, despite public submissions (including from Honour the Maunga) pointing out the irony of charging ratepayers a climate levy while at the same time voting the Authority funds to cut down thousands of healthy mature trees.
Tūpuna Maunga Authority overview
The Authority was established under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 to administer the maunga on behalf of the Tāmaki Collective iwi, which own the maunga. The maunga lands are held on trust for the benefit of the Collective and the "other people of Auckland".
The maunga lands vested in the 2014 Treaty settlement were:
* Rarotonga Mt Smart operates as a business unit (i.e. for the stadium) so operational control remains with Auckland Council rather than Tūpuna Maunga Authority.
You may have noticed that Te Pane o Mataoho Mangere Mountain is not in the list. That’s because Tainui cross-claims on that maunga have resulted in the Crown continuing to own it. However, Tūpuna Maunga Authority administers it.
The Authority is subject to some (but not all) requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
The Mayor’s powers
The Mayor may only have one vote, but they nevertheless exercise considerable power within Auckland Council. For example, they:
Appoint committee chairpeople
Chair committees of the entire governing body
Influence which Auckland Council and Local Board members get chosen to sit on the Authority
Significantly influence who is chosen as the TMA’s Deputy Chair
Are on the panel that selects the CCO Chairpeople and board members
Have significant influence over the Council’s budgetary process
Set the general tone for the Council as a whole and can play a key role in holding people to account
See here for an example of how the Mayor can misuse their powers - in this case, Phil Goff when he Chaired the meeting where Auckland Council’s Governing Body voted on the Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s 2022/23 annual budget.
Here’s what Wayne Brown had to say about the TMA and the maunga tree situation in a 20 September 2022 interview with Honour the Maunga
Anna: What is your view on the way the Tūpuna Maunga Authority has engaged with local communities over the last three years?
Wayne: Well I think the word I used was “distressing”. It has hasn’t been positive. It hasn’t been even handed. It seems to have come from a position where they have determined what they want before they have spoken to people and it’s an approach which doesn't seem to reflect what the people in the district want. And the people in the district are a mixture of people who are from all backgrounds and all ethnicities and the legislation actually stated that they have to consider all of the communities, not just a particular sector.
Anna: One of the incoming council’s first tasks will be to select its six representatives to sit on the authority for the coming three years. What qualities will you be looking for in those representatives, bearing in mind that the whole council gets to have a say, as do the local boards with maunga in them. But the Mayor’s obviously an important stake holder in this.
Wayne Brown talks about the maunga trees, Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the Western Springs tree clearance. Click the image to watch the video.
Wayne: The Mayor is probably going to be the leading decider in who gets there when shelling out bits and pieces. I will be looking for someone for candidates who balance their [the Authority’s] existing views, rather than reinforce them. And so we need to have a situation where there is vigorous debate on both sides so we get something that goes down the middle between the strong views of those proposing a single ethnic view of things, and those representing the whole community. It’s not just about trees either. The idea that driving sports clubs off very long held positions on some maunga is nasty I would have to say.
Anna: If elected as Mayor what action will you take to avoid the Authority’s Auckland Council membership being stacked to represent a particular political persuasion?
Wayne: We have a real choice this time as my only opponent is Efeso [Collins], who is backed by the Greens and Labour. So he won’t be able to question anything that comes down from above, so I’ll make absolutely sure that doesn't happen. I am in the unusual position of having been appointed by both John Key and Helen Clark to seats in the past, so I’m bang in the middle and you can expect a very middle of the road view that will balance what ever doctrinaire views already there.
Anna: What is your view on the maunga tree situation, particularly in relation to the proposal to fell the trees?
Wayne: During the lockdown when the streets were clear I got on my bicycle. My wife was in hospital at the time and I couldn’t see her, so I spent the days peddling to every maunga and climbed them, and the nicest part about it is going up through the trees and I think Mt Hobson is the best example of all those because it’s the trees that make it lovely, and they are a nice mixture. Amongst them were walnuts and things like that, which are definitely not indigenous trees, but they are lovely. We have some that are deciduous and some that are evergreen and we are one of the few countries in the world where native trees are not deciduous, but I think I like the colours and I like the peace, and I like the look of it. I know on my own subdivisions when I do subdivisions I always leave as many trees as I can because - I need to explain to people - you actually make more money if you leave the trees up because I honestly believe that even if you don't have an holistic view about trees, I can get them by saying you actually make more money by leaving the trees there. And they go “Oh really, I never thought about that”.
Anna: Yes, a few developers could take a leaf out of that book, certainly the ones in our local area anyway.
Wayne: I’m hoping to say to some of those guys and say “Hey mate, ya know, think about it from that point of view. Even if you don't have a green bone in your body, use your money making bones a bit more cleverly”.
Anna: In terms of the maunga trees, do you support them being felled or saved or something in-between?
Wayne: I think they should just be managed to maintain a nice cover and continually improve it if they can and notice that our lives are enriched by a mixture of deciduous as well as evergreen. And one of the nice things about some little towns, and I think in Kaeo, which is about 80% Maori population, and in Northland it is heavily planted out in deciduous trees and they have wonderful autumns and spring there and we don't kinda get that any more. And Auckland is becoming bleakly grey with buildings if we are not careful.
Anna: Auckland Council’s Governing body is responsible for reviewing and approving the Authority’s draft operational plan and budget every year, so how do you intend to vote if there is significant tree felling expenditure proposed in those future budgets?
Wayne: I can’t believe how much money they [Auckland Council] have spent cutting down trees. I mean, my last house looked over Western Springs before we moved to Karangahape Road and we quite liked those pine trees. They looked nice in the background. And then they managed to convince themselves that they shouldn't be there for various reasons and they managed to spend $800,000 cutting down some pine trees. In fact, any forestry contractor could have done that for $15,000, so even if you are going to cut them down, don't do it in such a stupid manner. But I think one of the best ways to prevent bad things happening is to starve organisations of money to do bad things.
Anna: So do I take it from that response that you wouldn't’ vote the Tūpuna Maunga Authority significant budget to fell trees?
Wayne: Oh, I would be culling that part of their budget.
Anna: Is there something else you would like to briefly add in relation to the maunga tree topic?
Wayne: The Maunga Authority is an example of co-governance and it should work better than it is. It has been given to us. And a lot of people are saying ‘I’m not part of co-governance”, but it’s part of the law so you've got to learn how to make sure it is “co-governance” not “mono-governance”. It’s not just trees, the distressing information we were given by the soccer club out at Mangere mountain [about how Tūpuna Maunga Authority has treated them] is just vindictive, nasty behaviour really. I don't play soccer, but those people have been there for a long time and have invested a lot. And using the leasehold arrangements to be vindictive about sports people is just not what I think the thing was set up for and I will make sure that we have enough people on there that we can oppose that sort of situation and I’ll have some influence on even who are supported on the actual Māori side of that too.
I am quite close to Ngāti Whātua having their battles with various other mana whenua invading the place and I am well aware that all is not well on both sides of this equation, so it does need to be redressed. It was set up with the best of intentions, but the road to perdition is paved with good intentions and so we need to correct it, and seriously correct that.
Wayne’s response to a question asked of all candidates at the Auckland RatePayer Alliance mayoral debate on 21 September 2022
Anna: Hi, I am Anna Radford. I head up one of the several community groups who are advocating to save thousands of trees from being felled on Auckland’s maunga (volcanic cones). We are in the midst of a climate emergency. Auckland Council this last year funded the felling of hundreds of mostly healthy mature pines at Western Springs and tens of thousands of native understory plants - and then replanted in natives! This has cost rate payers millions. Tūpuna Maunga Authority, which is a rate payer-funded body, wants to destroy around 2,500 trees on Auckland’s volcanic cones just because they are exotic, at a cost of millions to rate payers. We are in the midst of a climate emergency. Auckland Council has charged rate payers a climate levy, yet the council are willing to vote millions on felling trees. I’d like to know what each candidate’s position is on this matter.
Wayne: [You have taken a] good position on a good fight and I really support you for doing that because it can be depressing.
The Maunga Authority is one of the two co-governance ones that we have been given. We have allowed it to wander away from part of the legislation that they are required to take care of all residents and it’s got hijacked by a certain sector. Some of the things that are coming out of it, as well as chopping down trees, which is very depressing, is the moving to boot the soccer club off Mount Mangere, which is completely nuts, and wrong and unhelpful. So it’s got to be balanced with forceful characters representing the public to balance the forceful characters representing the alternative interests.
In terms of chopping down trees, which I oppose, I can’t also believe how unbelievably incompetently expensive they are. My last house overlooked the pines at Western Springs and hey, I loved them. They didn't need to be chopping down for a start, but if you were going to chop them down, how the hell they could spend $800,000 chopping them down is beyond me. There are logging gangs that could have done for ten grand so they not only did the wrong things, they managed to do them incompetently and expensively, which is a heinous crime.