One-year anniversary of Moringai occupation on Ahipara foreshore
Leader says issue symbolic of Ma¯ ori land losses locally
Hundreds turned out recently to mark the one-year anniversary of the land occupation of an Ahipara coastal section.
A market day as well as other activities were held in honour of the Moringai occupation on Wharo Way, triggered last October after a pōhutukawa was partially felled at the site.
Prior to the anniversary event, occupation leader Rueben Taipari told NZME that while the tree was significant, issues pertaining to the site went beyond the actions associated with the tree.
He said his concerns were also about how hapū had lost the land in the first place and the subsequent actions by developers and the Far North District Council.
Taipari added that he saw the land, known historically as Moringai, as a stake in the ground and symbolic of Māori land losses in the area.
“All Māori reserve land possessed or managed by Far North District Council should be returned to its rightful Māori owners immediately,” Taipari said at the event.
“Everyone present at the hui unanimously agreed.”
According to Taipari, in 2005, FNDC and Moringai developers had gone to the Environment Court and removed the significance of the Māori reserve and changed it to a council reserve.
He claimed they had also removed the significance status of the pō hutukawa that grew on the same section.
“Removal of the tree’s significance meant that no one would be legally liable if they damaged the tree,” Taipari claimed.
Since the pōhutukawa incident, an occupation had been present to protect the tree from further damage.
“The status of the land must also be restored back to significant and be reverted back to a Mā ori reserve,” Taipari said.
“The history of this reserve
The question stands around how many Ma¯ ori reserves have been changed into
council reserve status without the knowledge of the local Ma¯ ori residents, who have a connection and potential rights of ownership to that reserve?
Reuben Taipari
is significant to local hapū and iwi and those in attendance at the hui all agreed to continue to occupy the section until the council decision was legally reversed.
“In hindsight, this should never have happened and the question stands around how many Māori reserves have been changed into council reserve status without the knowledge of the local Māori residents, who have a connection and potential rights of ownership to that reserve?”
Taipari explained that legal advice was being sought regarding the matter.
Despite Taipari being issued with a trespass notice just days before the anniversary event, commemorations appear to have gone ahead without a hitch.
The notice, delivered by police on behalf of property owner Cecil Williams, prohibits Taipari from setting foot on 1 Wharo Way.
Williams abandoned his plans to build a house on the section soon after the outcry over the pōhutukawa.
Now he just wants to sell the section, ideally to local iwi Te Rarawa, and recover his money.
Williams, a long-serving Kaitaia GP, said he had been “extremely tolerant” of the occupation.
Initially, he didn’t want the occupiers trespassed. Later it was a struggle to get the council or police to take action.
He eventually lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority, which he believed had prompted the trespass order.
It was “extremely arrogant” of the occupiers to organise a one-year celebration as if it was their own land, he said.
Williams said he had planned to build his retirement home on the section, which had cost him around $500,000 once later expenses were included. Now he wanted out but his savings were tied up in land he couldn’t sell.
He had hoped Te Rarawa, the local iwi, would buy it using Treaty settlement funds but the iwi had said it wasn’t a good investment.
Williams said it didn’t make sense to say on one hand that the land was culturally significant and on the other to say it was too pricey. The occupation was a case of “expropriation of land without compensation ... But no one wants to do anything about it.”
Regarding the pōhutukawa, Williams said it was slowly dying — reportedly due to previous earthworks in the area — when he had half of it cut down to make way for a building site. Council staff had told him it was not protected and he did not intend to remove the entire tree.
The past year had had a detrimental effect on himself and his wife. He had been “bullied and victimised” and wanted to leave the area.
Taipari said he understood Williams’ need to recover his money, “But, hey, we have the same issue. We, as whānau and hapū, have lost a hell of a lot more than Cecil Williams. We are both innocent in this predicament.”
Taipari said those who needed to be held to account were the earlier land owners, the Catholic Church to which the land was gifted, the developers, the FNDC and the Government.
Williams’ message for the occupiers was simple: “Convince your people to buy the land and we can part ways without any grievances. Then I can get my money and get out.”
Te Rarawa chairman Haami Piripi said the iwi had been assured after the 2011 occupation that the culturally significant area at the bottom of the subdivision would be made into a public reserve.
He was shocked to discover just last year that the Environment Court had later allowed the land to be sold with a much smaller area further up the hill designated as a historic reserve. The iwi did not know about the change to the agreement at the time, Piripi said.
Senior Sergeant Dan Williams, of Kaitaia police, said Taipari had been informed of the consequences of breaching a trespass notice. It could be enforced if needed at the time or at a later date.