Buddy Mikaere addresses the panel at yesterday's Rena hearings. Photo / John Borren.
Buddy Mikaere addresses the panel at yesterday's Rena hearings. Photo / John Borren.
A Motiti Island hapu say their views on the fate of the Rena should have first consideration due to their proximity to the wreck and their close ties to the reef.
Ngai Te Hapu's Buddy Mikaere yesterday addressed concerns that the voices of other iwi more removed from the effectsof the Rena were claiming kaitiakitanga (guardianship) over Otaiti (Astrolabe Reef).
Mr Mikaere said the views of Motiti Island ahi kaa (those who have continuously occupied the land) should be considered before those of other people with ties to the reef.
"The first priority should be those who live on Motiti. The second priority should be those who whakapapa [have ancestral ties] to Motiti. Then everyone else ..."
Mr Mikaere said as kaitiaki (guardians) of Otaiti, Ngai Te Hapu's responsibility was clear.
"We inherited a pristine reef and we have an obligation to pass that same pristine reef on to our children and our children's children and beyond."
The wreck had created feelings of "overwhelming helplessness" for Ngai Te Hapu as the hapu had kaitiaki responsibilities for Otaiti and surrounding waters.
"The presence of the wreck and the debris that still washes up on our beaches and coastline is a constant reminder that we are in fact powerless to discharge those responsibilities.
"Those that have the ability to remove the wreck will not do so despite knowing full well this is what we want."
Mr Mikaere showed mock-up images of the Rena wreck superimposed on the shore of Mauao.
"I believe that any suggestion to dump the wreck at any of these sites would be met with outrage, not just by Maori, but by everyone else in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. This is what is being asked of us as far as Otaiti is concerned."
Mr Mikaere said the Rena wreck was a marine dump that would be "lightly monitored at best".
He said the recognition of mauri was one of the key differences between the Maori and Pakeha world views.
"It is why we find the sacrifice of cultural integrity by other hapu and iwi groups through taking the Rena payoff to be so very disappointing because it strikes a blow at the very conceptual foundations of Te Ao Maori.
"The idea of a large, modern steel ship forever despoiling our pristine reef is as deeply upsetting as, say, commercial incursions into national parks would be for many Pakeha.
"It has happened too often that we are called upon to subordinate our culture for what is perceived by some as the common good."
Tom Bennion, counsel for Ngai Te Hapu, said there was extensive hapu and iwi support for full wreck removal across the Bay of Plenty. The main supporters for abandonment were limited Te Arawa-affiliated groups.
Mr Bennion said if the Rena had been a smaller vessel, an application to abandon it would be "readily rejected". Therefore, the scale of the pollution worked in favour of the polluter.
Costa Concordia was six times the size of the Rena. Photo / John Borren.
The Costa Concordia was larger than the Rena but removed far quicker "to New Zealand's shame", says affected businessman Nevan Lancaster.
Mr Lancaster was the chairman of Business Action Group - Rena, which has since been wound up.
He addressed the resource consent hearings at Whakaue Marae in Maketu on Wednesday with his view that the failure to remove the Rena wreck affected New Zealand's reputation.
Mr Lancaster said the Costa Concordia was six times the size of the Rena and a cruise ship, making it "the most difficult salvage".
The estimated cost of removal was put at US$1.2 billion but the actual cost was more than US$2 billion because of the Italian government's insistence it was removed in one piece, Mr Lancaster said.
"The first estimates to remove the Rena were about $350 million, so you can see the cost of the Rena is minuscule in comparison.
"However, much to New Zealand's shame, the Rena remains in place while the island of Giglio is back to how it was."
Mr Lancaster said this was because the Italian government was concerned with getting the right outcome while the New Zealand government was concerned with saving the insurers' money.
"New Zealand has no financial liabilities when it comes to removing the wreck," he said. "The responsibility of our authorities is to do what's best for New Zealand, not the bank balance of the ship owners."
