Tūpuna Maunga Authority has misled the public about the maunga tree issue from the outset by spinning and manipulating the truth and, at times, outright lying. Most journalists have taken the Authority’s statements at face value, with few bothering to check the facts and even fewer asking probing questions.

Here are some of the many questions that Tūpuna Maunga Authority has never publicly answered, along with an invitation to journalists to get digging! We’re making it easy for you by not only posing the questions, but providing supplementary questions for some of the misleading answers you are likely to be given in response.

The main question themes are as follows:

1. Why are the trees really being felled?
2. TMA’s lack of alignment with customary Māori cultural and spiritual beliefs and practices
3. Contrived ‘consultations’ and the refusal to genuinely engage (2-way) with communities
4. Why has TMA spent so much time making an ecological case when a 2019 presentation stated “this is a cultural restoration, not an ecological one”?
5. What purpose does Auckland Council actually serve in the TMA co-governance arrangement?
6. What kind of relationship does Ngā Mana Whenua (as defined in the Collective Redress Act) want to have with the people of Auckland?
7. Why is the Authority not adhering to its own values and pathways in its tree-felling actions and the way it is treating communities?

1.1           Supplementary questions to the likely response that Tree Council / Forest & Bird support TMA’s plans

1.1.1.     Tree Council has publicly stated on several occasions that its support is for cultural not ecological reasons. Furthermore, its support of the TMA’s mass felling actions directly contradicts its approach to saving trees in other places. What is your response to this?

1.1.2.     Forest & Bird has been virtually silent on this issue. No arborists or environmental experts have spoken out publicly in support of this being best environmental or arborculture practise. The maunga tree protection groups report having been contacted by many arborists and environmentalists who are concerned about your proposed methodology. They haven’t spoken publicly because many rely on Auckland Council and/or TMA for work. What is your response to this?

1.1.3.     Your approach appears to be an untested methodology that runs counter to the normal natural process whereby the overstorey trees provide for vulnerable succession plants. This is particularly so for hostile environments such as maunga, which are exposed and have thin soils. Where else has TMA’s methodology been tried? And who advised that this was the best approach to ensure the new plantings’ survival?

1.2           Supplementary question to the response that the exotic trees are coming down because they are blocking views to the (sacred) tihi / summit

1.2.1       Many native trees are also blocking views to the tihi. For example, at Ōwairaka / Mt Albert the tihi views are obstructed by pohutukawa. Does the Authority intend to fell natives that are obscuring sightlines to the tihi on Auckland’s maunga? If not, then why not?

1.3           Supplementary question to the response that they are health & safety risks

1.3.1       Are you saying that all 2500 exotic trees on Auckland’s maunga are health and safety risks so they all need to be felled, yet none of the native trees pose any risk?

1.3.2       Please provide documentary evidence that the maunga trees have been individually assessed for health and safety risk.

1.4           Supplementary question to the response that they are pests

1.4.1       Are you saying that all 2500 exotic trees on Auckland’s maunga are registered pest species, or are you saying that they are pests because they are not natives?

1.5           Additional supplementary question

1.5.1       There are countless examples of self-sown native trees such as totara growing up under the protective canopy of the mature exotic trees. Are you comfortable with them being destroyed in the process of felling the exotics?

Back to top of page

2.1.          Supplementary question to the response that the Authority has followed / mātauranga Māori and tikanga

2.1.1.     As an example, tikanga would usually involve meeting with local communities to have two-way conversations around major decisions that affect them (e.g. felling thousands of trees, restricting alcohol licenses in sports clubs, restricting maunga access, etc.). Please explain exactly how the Authority has followed tikanga in these respects.

2.1.2.     Mātauranga Māori determines that everything held by Papatūānuku has mana and mauri, including exotic trees because they are also her children. Are you saying that this traditional concept is wrong?

Back to top of page

 3.1.          Supplementary question to the response “we have consulted”

3.1.1.     Where and when has the TMA consulted around its specific intention to fell all of the exotic trees on Auckland’s maunga?

3.1.2.     If the Authority claims it did consult around this, then why did the Chair Paul Majurey admit to a Māori TV reporter that there was no consultation around the specific intention to get rid of the trees. And why did lawyers representing the TMA and Auckland Council also admit the same during the recent Judicial Review Appeal hearing?

3.2.          Supplementary question to the response “holding a public meeting would put our people at undue risk given the threats we have received over this issue”

3.2.1.     If there was a security and police presence, then would TMA be prepared to hold a public meeting? If not, then why not?

Back to top of page

4.1.          Supplementary questions

4.1.1.     Is there any intention to completely ‘cloak’ Auckland’s maunga in trees?

4.1.2.     Is the intended end effect to be largely bare looking maunga like Mt Wellington / Maungarei, with mostly low-growing plantings that are largely confined to the lower slopes?

4.1.3.     Does cultural and ecological restoration necessarily require destroying other cultures and ecologies in order to succeed?