Moriori Challenge Crown Over 'Tino Rangatiratanga'
In 1870, the Native Land Court and colonial government gave 97.3% of all land on the Chatham Islands to NMOW (who arrived on an English sailing ship in only 1835), completely disregarding Moriori custom and the ancient, peaceful occupation of the islands. Instead, they applied the New Zealand Māori custom of take raupatu (claim by conquest).
The Waitangi Tribunal found in 2001 that Moriori should have received 'at least 50% of the land' on Rēkohu and that 'redress by far was due to Moriori' (Tribunal recommends compensation for Moriori). Despite this, NMOW have continued to claim exclusive mana whenua and tino rangatiratanga over Rēkohu. Now, the Crown appears ready to repeat these past injustices.
When Moriori settled their historic Treaty claims with the Crown in 2020, the Crown gave clear and repeated assurances that it would remain strictly neutral between imi and iwi on matters of mana whenua and tino rangatiratanga over Rēkohu. For this reason, those terms do not appear in the Moriori Deed of Settlement.
Moriori Claims Settlement Act 2021: https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2021/0049/latest/LMS238051.html
However, in 2022, MIST was formally advised that the Crown intended to include in the NMOW Deed of Settlement an explicit acknowledgement of NMOW's tino rangatiratanga over Rēkohu. This contradicts prior commitments made to Moriori and represents a serious breach of trust and the terms of our own Deed. The Crown maintains this does not amount to recognition of mana whenua —a position strongly rejected by MIST and supported by respected Māori legal and tikanga experts. In their view, tino rangatiratanga clearly implies exclusive chiefly authority over land.
Moriori (MIST & HMT) consider the Crown's position not only disingenuous—but outrageous. Tino rangatiratanga is not a term the Crown has the right to define, limit, or politically reinterpret to suit its convenience.
The implications of this recognition are profound. It would undermine the integrity and intent of the Moriori Treaty settlement—an outcome Moriori worked toward for generations. It would also risk legitimising the 1835 invasion, where two mainland tribes used violence to kill, enslave, and displace the peaceful Moriori. Under tikane Moriori, land was never taken through warfare. Even under tikanga Māori, NMOW's claims to take raupatu were not found valid by the Waitangi Tribunal.
This situation raises an unsettling question: Why is this happening at all? Why would the Crown give such clear assurances to Moriori, only to reverse course and grant the very recognition it swore it would withhold? This contradiction cuts to the core of the Crown's integrity and the trust that should underpin the Treaty settlement process.
This legal challenge is not intended to delay or block NMOW's redress. Moriori supports their right to a settlement— provided it does not impinge upon or undermine Moriori rights. We offered a solution: remove the offending phrase from NMOW's Deed. The Crown refused.
Moriori are now calling on the Crown to honour its promise of neutrality and refrain from taking any steps that would undermine the Treaty settlement signed with us just five years ago. Anything less risks eroding trust in the Crown's commitments.
With all other avenues exhausted, Moriori will now seek to be heard in the court of law. We do so reluctantly, but with a firm commitment to uphold the dignity of our karapuna (ancestors) and protect the legacy we leave for future generations of our imi (people).
Me rongo
(In peace)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
‘Deeply regret': Winston Peters' writes to United Nations after David Seymour letter
'We ... understand that you did not directly receive the letter to you by my colleague [REDACTED - likely to be David Seymour], but rather that you learned about its existence from reports in the media. 'We deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate this opportunity to put the record straight,' Peters said. It is not clear why Seymour's letter did not reach Barume. Peters went on to say that he understood Barume's letter to the Government did not convey his or the UN's official views, but merely sought the Government's response to concerns that had been raised by others with the United Nations, implying that Seymour's initial letter misunderstood this. The letter sets out the Government's position on the Regulatory Standards Bill and the Treaty settlement process and notes that the Government was 'committed to improving outcomes for all New Zealanders'. 'We are focused on reaching targets to improve outcomes in health, education, law and order, work and housing and on providing public services to all New Zealanders including working with iwi (tribes) and Māori to accelerate Māori economic growth and enable targeted investment in Maori social development.' Seymour was meant to be consulted on the new letter. The Herald understands he was consulted and wanted the contents of his original letter to be sent again, this time through Peter's' letter. Seymour did not see the final copy of the letter before it was sent, which did not include any of his earlier remarks. Peters included three appendices to his letter. One detailed New Zealand's relevant constitutional arrangements, including a section on MMP and the realities of coalition government. It also detailed the status of the Māori seats, the Bill of Rights Act, and the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Spinoff
7 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Bye bye, Rongotai – but why?
Out of 50,000-plus registered electors in Rongotai, just three proposed changing the electorate's name. One of those who didn't, former race relations commissioner Joris de Bres, is baffled by the decision to ditch a te reo name for Wellington Bays. When the new electoral boundaries were announced by the Representation Commission last Friday, there was one that took me completely by surprise. Although the changes to the boundaries of my electorate were relatively minor, the commission has decided to change the name from Rongotai to Wellington Bays. From a Māori name to a Pākehā name. I didn't see it coming because when the proposed changes were published in March they didn't include a name change for Rongotai. By the time submissions closed a month later, however, three people had lodged objections, not to a name change, but to the lack of a name change. Three people out of 50,000-plus registered electors in the area. If anyone noticed when the submissions were published in May, they could be forgiven for thinking that this was a ridiculously small number of objections. Only one of the three actually suggested the name 'Wellington Bays'. It was Neale Jones, well known Wellington political lobbyist and broadcaster, former chief of staff to Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little. He said 'the name of Rongotai does not reflect the geography or identity of the area. As a suburb, Rongotai only has 40 people. As the electorate's boundaries grow the link becomes even less evident.' That argument is a little disingenuous, as the Rongotai isthmus is largely occupied by Wellington airport. But it is the bridge between the south coast, the Miramar Peninsula and Wellington Harbour, in other words all the bays that Neale Jones goes on to list in his submission. The local boys' secondary school is called Rongotai College and it proudly proclaims: Ko te Moana Raukawa ki te tonga (Cook Strait to the south) Ko te Motukairangi ki te rāwhiti (Miramar to the east) Ki te uru, ko Whataitai taniwha (to the west, Whataitai) Ko te Whanganui-a-Tara ki te raki (Wellington to the north) Kei waenganui ko te Kura Taitama ko Rongotai ( Rongotai in the middle) Jones said 'I am open to the idea of another te reo Māori name but do not pretend to be expert enough to suggest one. However, one thing that does connect much of the electorate is that it is near the coast or has a view of the coast… Therefore I suggest the name Wellington Bays.' Funny that, because Rongotai translates as the sound of the sea, or for that matter the coast. You can hear it in the bays. He says there is a precedent for the name with the Auckland electorate of East Coast Bays. But unlike Wellington Bays, East Coast Bays is an actual and well-known name for that part of Auckland's North Shore. The second objector, John Jamieson, imaginatively proposed that Rongotai and its central neighbour be renamed North Wellington and South Wellington. Unlike Jones, the third objector, Craig Spanhake, had no reservations about suggesting Māori names. In addition to Wellington South and Wellington Suburbs, he put forward 'Te Waha o te Ika a Maui (means the mouth of Maui fish), Taputeranga (the centrally located island in Island Bay), Te Raukawa Moana (Cook Strait), and Paekawakawa-Motukairangi'. In its report, the Representation Commission said that it adopted the names Wellington North and Wellington Bays 'to more accurately reflect their current disposition and likely direction of future growth'. Name changes for a number of other electorates were rejected 'for reasons including lack of public awareness of the proposed name, lack of public feedback through the objections and counter-objections process' . So, on the strength of one name suggestion by a Pākehā man, and objections to the current name by two other men who are quite likely Pākehā, a commission comprising seven Pākehā men made the decision to discard the Māori name and replace it with a Pākehā one. The majority of commissioners are heads of government agencies, the chair is Judge Kevin Kelly and the government and opposition nominees are former MPs Roger Sowry and Andrew Little. There would have been one Pākehā woman, the government statistician, but she delegated the role to her deputy. Andrew Little lives in the Rongotai electorate and is a candidate for the Wellington mayoralty. The present members for Rongotai and Wellington Central, Green Party MPs Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul, have launched a petition against the change and are looking for legal avenues to challenge it. The current mayor of Wellington, Tory Whanau, has endorsed the petition. Is it too late? I hope not. I'm a Pākehā male too, but it's bye bye Bays from me.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Greens Launch Petition To Restore Te Reo Electorate Names In Capital
Green Party Wellington MPs Julie Anne Genter and Tamatha Paul have launched a petition calling for Māori place names to be restored to Wellington electorates. This comes after the Rongotai electorate was changed to an English name with minimal community consultation and zero engagement with mana whenua. 'Rongotai means 'sound of the sea,' it has been the Te Reo name of our electorate for almost three decades and has been taken away with next to no consultation,' says Green Party MP for Rongotai Julie Anne Genter. 'Our communities deserve to have a say on the name of their electorate. This was a decision based on the feedback of three people. This is not good enough, and this must change. ''Rongotai' accurately and beautifully captured the geography and spirit of our electorate,' says Julie Anne Genter. 'This is yet another attack on Te Reo, we have seen it with road signs, passports and now the name of an electorate,' says Green Party MP for Wellington Central Tamatha Paul. 'We are calling for the Representation Committee to reverse its decision to strip an electorate of a Te Reo name it has had for 30 years. 'It is absolutely ridiculous three people were able to erase and whitewash such an iconic part of Pōneke. Seeing Wellington Central go from one English name to another adds insult to injury,' says Tamatha Paul. Notes: Wording of the petition: We're calling on the Representation Committee to restore the Māori place names for our Pōneke electorates. RESTORE OUR MĀORI NAMES - PŌNEKE [Petition text] The Representation Commission announced on Friday 8 August that the reo Māori names of two Wellington electorates, Rongotai and Ōhāriu will be gone from the election in 2026. Rongotai is being renamed 'Wellington Bays' and Ōhāriu will be split between the new 'Wellington North' and 'Kenepuru' electorates. Ultimately, these naming decisions were made following a limited public consultation, with only five people submitting on the name changes. Only two people supported changing the name of Wellington Central, and only three people supported erasing the name of Rongotai, with just one submission suggesting Wellington Bays. Cultural visibility is one of the most important aspects of language revitalisation. Some say that 'The namer of things is the claimer of things'. There were no specific submissions on the name changes from Te Reo Māori experts or mana whenua. It appears that there were no Māori involved in making these decisions for general electorates. Half of all Māori are on the General Roll so these decisions impact Māori. We are concerned that Wellington Mayoral Candidate Andrew Little, who is on the Representation Commission, didn't have the foresight to ensure the Commission engaged with local representatives on this issue, and hope that this isn't indicative of his approach to local governance. We call on the Representation Committee to reverse these decisions, and take seriously the wishes of the communities of Te Whanganui a Tara on the names of their electorates.
