Iwi plan title claim on northern jewels

Cape Reinga and Ninety Mile Beach are high on the list for iwi seeking customary title to coastal areas of Northland. Photo / Supplied

Ninety Mile Beach and Cape Reinga could be early targets for iwi pushing for customary title after the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Five Far North iwi leaders say they will work together to pursue title to the landmarks.

In the case of the beach it's not the first time Te Aupouri and Te Rarawa have tried to gain title to the coast - their legal battles go back to the 1950s.

Ngati Kuri has the closest links to Te Rerenga Wairua, or Cape Reinga, but all tribal leaders say they would be willing to combine forces to pursue title in the Far North from the Mangonui Harbour north to the Cape and then down the west coast to north of the Hokianga Harbour heads.

What chances the tribes, which also include Ngati Kahu and Ngai Takoto, would have of gaining customary title after the Government repeals the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed act is uncertain.

But that will not stop Te Runanga o Te Rarawa from trying, chairman Haami Piripi said.

"We fully expect to establish a case for customary title. We're going to go through the hoops and the processes."

Mr Piripi noted the five iwi had signed a treaty deal this year which recognised Ninety Mile Beach's name as Te Oneroa a Tohe as well and created a statutory Crown-Maori co-management board.

He believed the settlement and the fact iwi had been in and out of court during the 1950s and 1960s for ownership would help build a case for customary title.

But it was an issue the five iwi - known as known as Te Hiku o Te Ika or Muriwhenua tribes - would probably work together on.

"Other places like Te Rerenga Wairua ... you would think there would have to be customary title for that," Mr Piripi said.

"If we can't get it for our spiritual places - oh well, we've had it."

The iwi say their push for customary title would not affect access by non-Maori to the coast..

Te Aupouri's Arthur Kapa said Pakeha people in the district had been supporting iwi since the 1950s when his tribe and Te Rarawa first applied for ownership in the courts.

"One thing I need to say is that there was never any intention of barring any of the people. That includes Pakeha - they've been with us for many years and they regard that application as their own.

"Our people always believed it [the foreshore] always belonged to us, that is we and our friends. They never ever said it was for Aupouri only."

Professor Margaret Mutu, of Ngati Kahu, said a conciliatory approach was needed. She believed customary title could apply to the whole Te Hiku o Te Ika region.

Protection of the coastal region from degradation was at the heart of customary title.

That should give the public comfort as to the tribe's intentions, she said.

"We are mana whenua and we own it, but in a Maori sense - we will never sell it and it is our job to look after it."

Legislation has yet to go before before Parliament but it is likely customary title will be linked to exclusive use and occupation since 1840.

Customary title is a limited form of ownership under which Maori cannot stop public access to the land, or sell it.

Mr Piripi accepted the proposed threshold for customary title - the exclusive and continuous tests - could pose problems for the iwi. But the 2004 test which required iwi to hold land contiguous to the foreshore was worse.

Professor Richard Boast of Victoria University, an authority on foreshore issues and the legal history of Ninety Mile Beach, yesterday said he agreed that much would depend on the tests for customary title.

"What is meant by exclusivity? Does that mean every time somebody came down to Ninety Mile Beach and did a bit of surfcasting then [iwi] are no longer in exclusive occupation? That means they're not going to have a hope. It can't mean that."

A spokesman for Attorney General Christopher Finlayson said the Crown would not want to pre-empt any customary title applications until all relevant facts were investigated.

Last week, Mr Finlayson defined exclusivity as a common-law concept which required a group to show that their interest in an area "is generally akin to ownership in that they are able to exclude non-members of the customary title-holder group".

"Exclusivity must have been continuous without substantial interruption since 1840."