With the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act imminent, why is it up to East Coast Maori to prove their claim to the foreshore and seabed when their ancestors never ceded ownership to the Crown?

This was one of the key conclusions reached at a hui of people of Te Aitanga a Hauiti, Uepohatu, Ngati One One and Ruawaipu descent at Te Poho O Rawiri marae to look for ways Crown and iwi might “work collaboratively toward a fair, principled and robust solution”, while acknowledging that “the solution for the foreshore and seabed issue cannot be identified in isolation”.

An e-mail from an iwi leaders’ forum regarding a hui about Tairawhiti to be held in Napier prompted the meeting, said organiser and facilitator, Barney Tupara.

“With respect, iwi leaders have been in bed with the Government for a long time, and they’re continuing with that intimate relationship.”

East Coast Maori never ceded their sovereignty to the Crown, so discussing the issue on that basis was a mistake, said researcher and Treaty rights advocate Jason Koia.

“There’s only one treaty on the East Coast and it’s not the English version — it’s Te Tiriti, which is a different treaty.

“On the East Coast under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our aboriginal title is unextinguished, and it is very difficult for the Crown to try and prove it acquired as of 1840 unbroken Crown title. It can’t do it. It doesn’t have any evidence under our Tiriti o Waitangi that it owns one inch of the foreshore and seabed.”

The issue with the TRONP bill was that it agreed to divest the foreshore to the Crown, said Tamaki Legal’s principal lawyer Darryl Naden, who has acted for the claimants.

“Why should we give away the right to litigate? As you’re aware, there are a lot of oil and minerals in the seabed and if you ask us, that’s what the Foreshore and Seabed Act is all about. The TRONP bill has no compensation provision in it, and it purposefully ignores and fails to acknowledge the rights of Ruawaipu and Uepohatu.

“Our primary position is affirmation of ownership, but if we can’t get to that, compensation. The amount of resources out there would make the fisheries deals pale in comparison — we’re talking some fantastic amounts that would help with our economic salvation.”

Imposing Ngati Porou mana upon land that was not traditionally theirs had led to many grievances, said Jossie Ripia of Te Aitanga a Hauiti.

“Our disagreement arose from outsiders like the Ngati Porou runanga, who dispensed with Maori law and adhered to the Crown’s legislative Act, which trod over the rohe of Te Aitanga Hauti.

They had their office and Ngati Porou Fisheries in Kaiti, land Ngati One One owned.

A simple solution to any vacuum left by the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation was for the Government to ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said Mr Koia.

“It was ratified by 144 countries in the UN, except Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand.

“When you read that declaration, it gives those people the right to veto laws, the right to royalties over minerals. When you boil it down, it’s really just an extended version of Article 2 – Tino Rangatiratanga.

“If the Government binds itself to that declaration, it’s not law, but at least we can build some sort of regime that is similar to implementing our Article 2 rights.”

The Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill offered nothing new to protect Maori interests, said Mr Tupara.

“The Resource Management Act the fisheries legislation, the Historic Places Act — it offers nothing new on what any Maori can go down and organise themselves.

“It was really a political decision to establish the Ngati Porou manawhenua status over the rohe from Potikirua ki te Toka a Taiau to eliminate any intended development of the traditional tribes Ruawaipu, Uepohatu and Te Aitanga a Hauiti, and that’s why I object to the two bills.”

In order to be clear, any proposals should be in Maori as well as in English, because a concept like mana motuhake was not adequately described using English words like “sovereignty” said Tui Marino of Te Aitanga a Hauiti.

“If it’s going to be in English, do an English one, then Reo Maori. I support the principle there fully but I think the resolutions should go further than just speaking for us.

“What I’m suggesting is that the resolution be in Maori. Something that incorporates aspirations that are not only over here.”

 The Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Foreshore and Seabed Deed of Agreement was signed last October, and ratified by some hapu. Other traditional East Coast tribes or subtribes — Ngati One One, Uepohatu, Te Aitanga a Hauiti and Ruawaipu refused to ratify it, claiming among other things that there was not basis in whakapapa for them to come under the mana of Ngati Porou.

The Labour government and Te Runanga o Ngati Porou sought to clarify this through the introduction of the Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill, which was introduced in September last year, and is awaiting its first reading — although the landscape of the settlement process has altered with Prime Minister John Key’s announcement this month that the Foreshore and Seabed Act (2004) would be repealed as soon as a replacement could be agreed upon.