Land loss and river contamination
Surrounded by paintings of their ancestors, Nga¯ti Pikiahu has told the Waitangi Tribunal how the laziness of local government had eroded the life force of its river and, thus, its people.
A hapu¯ of Nga¯ Iwi o Te Reureu, Nga¯ti Pikiahu spoke about how it had lost parts of its Te Reureu area, which borders the Rangitı¯kei River, north of Halcombe, as part of the Nga¯ti Raukawa iwi confederations treaty claim.
The fifth week of the 12-week hearing started at Te Tikanga Marae at Tokorangi, north of Halcombe, on Monday. The case relates to the historical purchase of the Rangitı¯kei-manawatu¯ block, about 130,000 hectares of land, between Manawatu¯ and Ka¯piti.
Standing before the Crown’s representatives yesterday, Rochelle Paranihi spoke of how the sliver of land given to Nga¯ Iwi o Te Reureu in return was never going to be enough to sustain its wha¯nau.
‘‘They were only allocated a meagre 2546 acres [1030ha] of land out of 4510 [1825] that was afforded to all four hapu¯ of Te Reure. Additionally, this land was to be shared with Nga¯ti Waewae, a very small piece of land for so many people to reside and try to make a living.
‘‘As a result, many of our people moved out of the area to seek better opportunities, jobs and lifestyles for their wha¯nau.
‘‘Concerning the Rangitı¯kei block, the Crown has undermined the right of Nga¯ti Pikiahu and other hapu¯ at Te Reureu, leaving them without sufficient land for present and future needs.
‘‘This is something we still suffer from today as we still face difficulties in making our lands prosperous due to their size and location.’’
By Paranihi’s calculations, in Te Reureu there would be more than 30,000 living descendants who whakapapa to the rohe (area). If all were to return the lack of land would not be enough to sustain them.
Crown lawyer Tim Stephens questioned how Paranihi came to that conclusion, given the 300 per cent jump in affiliation from Nga¯ti Raukawa.
Her sister Paula Mckenzie told the hui correct registered affiliation was aspirational, but for someone to have a connection to their marae all they needed was whakapapa.
It is the hapu¯’s job to provide opportunities for wha¯nau to reconnect and prosper on their whenua, something that had been impeded significantly by the actions of the Crown through the land sales and the lack of consultation regarding its awa, the Rangitı¯kei River.
Extraction of gravel had eroded the awa and pollution from farmers had led to such as degree of contamination that hapu¯ were unable to survive of the awa, as they once did, Mckenzie said.
‘‘Town sewage systems that run off into the awa also adds to this problem.
‘‘We do not know how safe it is to consume mahinga kai (gathered food). We are also hesitant to practice our rongoa¯ (natural medicines).’’
Jessica Kereama told Stephens statutory obligations towards Ma¯ori were in place to protect the awa, however, local government had failed to engage with hapu¯ from Te Reureu, due to laziness and Treaty of Waitangi settlements with other iwi.
‘‘Well-intended settlements that we celebrate other iwi getting have diminished our treaty rights, so it provides a rationale for people to slip past us and tick a box.
‘‘That’s the lazy application by Crown agencies. It’s consistent, and it’s at a regional, local and national level.’’
The tribunal continues today.