Tai Rāwhiti protest: A burning question on Ngāti Oneone's redress
Photo:
Zita Campbell / LDR
A fire signalling Tai Rāwhiti hapū Ngāti Oneone's
call for the return of their ancestral lands
has been burning for over six weeks.
The hapū said it will stoke the fire until the grievance is resolved, but after three generations of attempting to remedy it, does not want the redress to fall on them.
"It always falls on us to 'make the case'," Ngāti Oneone chairwoman Charlotte Gibson told Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) when the movement started on 5 May.
The Crown said any potential redress in this case is the responsibility of the landowner and the hapū.
As part of its protest, members of Ngāti Oneone have inhabited Te Pā Eketū Shed, a warehouse-sized property on Gisborne's Hirini St.
Rather than an "occupation", the hāpu calls the action "a reclamation of whenua".
The location is where Ngāti Oneone's marae and pā were originally established in 1852 before being removed for harbour development under the Private Works Act.
Eastland Port, of which Trust Tai Rāwhiti is the sole shareholder, owns the shed and others on the hapū's ancestral land on Hirini St and the Esplanade.
At the beginning of the protest movement, the hapū called on the trust, Eastland Port and Gisborne District Council to return land not used for "core business".
Council chief executive Nedine Thatcher Swann told LDR the council had started exploring how land could potentially be returned following formal requests from Ngāti Oneone in 2024.
This includes investigating the relevant legal processes, policy settings and the interests of other Treaty partners.
However, Trust Tai Rāwhiti, which has a funding partnership with the council and serves as the region's economic development and tourism organisation, earlier said addressing historical Treaty breaches was not its responsibility, but rather a matter for the Crown, after it sought independent legal advice.
"We support Ngāti Oneone in pursuing this with the Crown," chairman David Battin told LDR when the protest started.
Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka had a different view.
The 2010 Ngāti Porou settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims includes Ngāti Oneone, Potaka told LDR.
"The matter being raised ... is outside of the process for the settlement of historical Treaty claims.
"Any exploration of options to return and/or purchase the land is a matter for the landowner agency to undertake in discussion with Ngāti Oneone," he said.
Regarding Potaka's statement, a Trust Tai Rāwhiti spokesperson this week said trustees continued to "engage directly with Ngāti Oneone and remained focused on constructive resolutions".
Gibson confirmed the hapū had met with the landowner groups involved under Trust Tai Rāwhiti and would have a meeting with the council next week.
She was unsure whether the groups would respond individually or together.
The hapū has committed to maintaining the protest for two months and then will reassess depending on outcomes, she said.
"We'll keep the fire burning until we've had an acceptable response."
In addition to the return of land, the hapū has made other requests to the landowners through an online petition signed by over 1950 as of Friday.
The petition urges the Tai Rāwhiti leaders to take three actions: "Whakahokia Whenua Mai", which requests the return of land not used for core business, "Whakamana Tangata" and "Te Tiriti".
Whakamana Tangata requests that Trust Tai Rāwhiti financially compensate Ngāti Oneone for "the alienation" of their lands without conditions.
"Te Tiriti" requests that the leaders seek a pathway that treats Ngāti Oneone in the same vein as a "Treaty" partner, rather than "a community group".
Gibson said that after Eastland Port sold a shed on their ancestral land to the Gisborne Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club three years ago, they worried about what could happen to the rest of their ancestral land, so they started negotiations for the Te Pa Eketū Shed.
If the land were sold, it would be harder to reclaim, she said.
However, they then realised the port had other sheds in the area, not used for "core business".
"In my view, it's not an occupation, it's a reclamation of whenua," Gibson said, explaining that the shed had been leased while negotiating the sales and purchase agreement.
The port would send the hapū the bill, which they would send to Trust Tai Rāwhiti, who would pay Eastland Port (owned by the trust), she said.
Trust Tai Rāwhiti was going to give them $1.4 million to purchase the shed, but the hapū wanted to use the money to buy the lot.
When their request was denied, they understood and looked into other ways of obtaining the sheds, Gibson said.
However, when the hapū got the sales and purchase agreement, things shifted.
"There were four clauses within the sales and purchase agreement, which undermined Mana motuhake [self-determination], which made it untenable," said Gibson.
On 5 May the beginning of the hapū's "Reclamation of whenua", they were supposed to sign the sales and purchase agreement but decided to "reclaim" the land instead.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
36 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Conservation land use applications processed faster with help from AI
Conservation Minister Tama Potaka says processing applications quicker means businesses get certainty faster. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The government is celebrating faster processing of applications for the use of conservation land, including by using AI. In a statement, Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said the application backlog had dropped from 1300 last September, to 550 now - with processing times improved by 180 percent. He said AI had been used to help scan documents, and one-off drone permits now took just five working days, compared to the previous "weeks". "We're achieving these results through a data-driven approach and smarter, more efficient systems and processes, including new technology such as AI tools helping to scan statutory documents," he said. "Processing applications quicker means businesses get certainty faster. DOC is enabling a wide range of activities that connect people with nature and support local economies, while more quickly declining proposals where the effects on nature or heritage cannot be avoided, remedied, or mitigated. "Around a third of the applications DOC has processed since February are related to tourism, the country's second-largest export earner, where more than 380 tourism related applications in the last three months were processed, including guiding activities in Fiordland and Heli hunt and fish concessions for helicopter landings in the North Island." Most applications for use of conservation land are for tourism operations, but the Department of Conservation this month also approved Kokiri Lime's application to quarry 1ha of rock needed for critical roading and flood protection infrastructure projects in South Westland. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Watch live: Taxpayers Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
Day two of hearings for the Regulatory Standards Bill is underway at Parliament, with MPs from the Finance and Expenditure committee hearing arguments in opposition and support of what has been dubbed by some the Treaty Principles Bill 2.0 . Some have called it a "procedural" Bill that looks to introduce the concept of good lawmaking. Others have raised concerns around the failure to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A former ACT MP has given a scathing rebuke of the "economic dogma" it represents. Submissions continue on Tuesday afternoon and over the following two days. A small group has gathered outside parliament calling themselves 'The Peoples Committee' to provide a space for those who haven't received formal speaking slots to make their case. Retired judge David Harvey spoke in support of the bill, because it introduces the concept of "good lawmaking". Harvey said every piece of legislation involved some form of erosion or interference with "individual or corporate liberty." He argued that it wasn't a "constitutional" bill, an argument he claimed had been reported or published, and that it was in fact "procedural." "It can be amended. It can be repealed by subsequent governments, and it can, like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 be ignored in the legislative process. Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union was one of the submitters on Tuesday. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly "The only thing is that, if it is going to be ignored, those who are responsible for ignoring it are going to have to stand up and say, why." Harvey also said the bill should reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi because it involved elements of governance and of "equal application of the law." He didn't know how that should be done within the scope of the bill, but said there should be "some recognition of the Treaty." A leading Māori data scientist argued the bill "fundamentally fails to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi". Te Kahui Raraunga's Kirikowhai Mikaere told the committee it disregarded the collective rights and aspirations of iwi Māori and prioritised private property and corporate interests over public good, environmental protection and the wellbeing of iwi Māori. She said the privileging of individual and corporate rights would have a "negative and long term impact" when it came to the data landscape of the country. She also said it would risk the "very delicate social license" of trust the country had of its own data system. "Data is not only a strategic asset, and what we know to be probably the biggest commercial asset in the world, it is a national asset for New Zealand, and what we recognise is this bill puts at jeopardy that national asset." Mikaere argued the Bill had also failed to honour Te Tiriti principles of partnership and participation in its creation. "Even the way that the bill was crafted, was in isolation of Te Tiriti partners. "Going forward, it reflects the values of and priorities of a very small number of New Zealanders." The Taxpayers Union argued New Zealand's poor quality regulations was one thing holding back the country's economy. Executive director Jordan Williams said the Bill was a "litmus test" for whether the government was serious about getting New Zealand back into the "status of the first world economy and with first world living standards." Williams said the bill was primarily about transparency. "The bill is, in effect, an information disclosure regime. "It does not obviously tie the hands of Parliament, other than forcing lawmakers to turn their minds to cost trade offs and regulatory takings, among other things." Williams said it was an "encapsulation" of what used to be seen as "just good law making." He challenged the MPs listening, saying one of their key roles as an MP was to uphold the rule of law. "Frankly, if you vote against a bill that requires disclosure of the rule of law implications of proposed legislation, I'd put to you that that is a failing of what is traditionally a duty of being a public representative in Parliament." Ray Deacon, an economist for the group who also submitted, added the "economic cost of poor legislation is enormous." "There has been no plan to assess the quality of legislation. There has been no plan to improve the quality of legislation. Therefore, there has been no plan to reduce the economic cost of redundant, ineffective or poorly implemented regulation." He argued there had been an ad hoc approach to reviewing and amending legislation and only when it was impossible to ignore. "This bill provides the legal structure for assessing the quality of existing legislation. This has to be worth something." A former member of Parliament for the ACT party gave a scathing rebuke of historical legislation she said had ripped apart New Zealand's collective strength. In opposing the bill, Donna Awatere Huata referenced the State Sector Act which "turned our public service into a business." She said the Reserve Bank Act legislated that "inflation matters more than jobs, more than housing, more than food on the table, more than anything." Huata said the Public Finance Act "made our children invisible unless they could be turned into an output." She told the committee the Fiscal Responsibility Act "made caring a liability." "These laws have got to go. They are not neutral. They slash jobs without a single thought of the devastation to families pushed us into unsafe homes, or worse, into cars or the streets. "They gouged fairness and equality, tore the spirit from our public life, recreating the misery and hatred of the poor of 19th century Britain." Huata argued the Regulatory Standards Bill would take "the economic dogma that caused this harm" and elevate it into "constitutional doctrine." "It would make it almost impossible to rebuild, to fix the broken systems, to honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to re-weave tikanga into public life. "It would allow courts to override our voices, your voice, my voice, the voice of community, of collective care." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Unions, former MPs, lawyers speak at Regulatory Standards Bill hearings
The second day of hearings on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill has begun at Parliament. The first day saw a wave of opposition to the bill , but the Regulation Minister was dismissing concerns. While he had not watched all of the submissions from the first day, David Seymour said finding constructive criticism of the bill was like searching "for a needle in a haystack". Groups submitting on the second day of hearings will include Toitū te Tiriti, the Taxpayers' Union, the Council of Trade Unions, Business NZ and the Law Society. ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Individuals include former ACT MP Donna Awatere Huata, former Green MPs Kevin Hague and Eugenie Sage, lawyer Tania Waikato and retired judge David Harvey. Much of the criticism on the first day was on the principles in the bill, which critics said elevated ACT ideology above health or environmental concerns. The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. A new Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "This Regulatory Standards Bill does not prevent a government or a Parliament from making a law or regulation. What it does do is create transparency so that the people can actually watch and understand what their representatives are doing," Seymour said. But Sophie Bond, associate professor of geography from the University of Otago, said the principles would embed "libertarian ideology" at a constitutional level. "The bill would not withstand an evaluation under even its own narrow terms. It's ill conceived, poorly drafted and undemocratic," she said. Similarly, Kirsty Fong from Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga said it would "embed the ACT Party values and principles that are rooted in libertarian ideology that elevates individualism and profit at the expense of wellbeing". Criticism was also directed at what was not in the bill: there is no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This led Rahui Papa from Pou Tangata National Iwi Chairs Forum to compare it to the Treaty Principles Bill, which was voted down at its second reading earlier this year. "We think this is a relitigation of the Treaty Principles Bill under another korowai, under another cover. So we say the attacks keep on coming." Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill has more chance of success. National's coalition agreement with ACT contains a commitment to pass the bill through into law. Natalie Coates from the Māori Law Society said Te Tiriti could not be "unstitched" from lawmaking. "Its absence isn't, of course, a drafting oversight, but a deliberate omission that bucks a clear break from constitutional best practice and our treaty obligations." She doubted, however, whether adding a treaty clause would fix the rest of the "fundamental problems" she saw in the bill. Seymour said he was yet to hear an argument about why Te Tiriti should be included. "If you can find any person that would give me a practical example of how putting the Treaty into Regulatory Standards Bill would change the outcome in a way that's better for all New Zealanders, then I'm open minded. I have been the whole time," he said. "But so far, not a single person who's mindlessly said 'oh but it's our founding document, it should be there' can practically explain how it makes the boat go faster." He acknowledged there were existing tools like Regulatory Impact Statements and the Regulations Review Committee, but questioned whether they were effective. "What we're doing is taking things that the government already does in different ways, and we're putting them together in one black letter law that governments must follow so New Zealanders have some rights. There's nothing really new here," he said. While the majority of submitters were opposed to the legislation, Ananish Chaudhuri, professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland spoke in favour. "It puts ideas of effiency and a careful weighing of the costs and benefits of proposed regulation at the heart of the legislative process," he said. Former Prime Minister and constitutional lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer was among the first speakers on Monday - arguing it's a bizarre and strange piece of legislation. "It is absolutely the most curious bill I've ever seen, but it's got a long history, you have to remember that this is the fourth occasion that this bill has been before Parliament," he told Morning Report. "I first encountered it in 2010 when I was president of the Law Commission and chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee. "We opposed it then and it didn't go any further then ... the thing about it is it is very divisive, the number of submissions against it is extraordinary, it challenges the numbers that came out against the minister's Treaty Principles Bill." Palmer said the Regulatory Standards Bill is just as unsound as that was. He said the bill upsets the way Parliament currently operates and that is based on the ability to interfere with the present legislative process "by putting a supremo minister over the top of it". The bill takes away the capacity of portfolio ministers to be responsible for the regulatory features of bills that they design, introduce and administer, Palmer said. "That in turn, reduces the accountability of those ministers and splits it between them and this other supremo minister and it is going to be a complete shambles. "It is going to make the job of the Parliament much more difficult than it is now." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
