Motiti Islanders – until now united in their opposition to leaving any part of the Rena wreck on Astrolabe Reef – appear to be dividing, with some voicing support to leave a remainder of cargo ship where it is.

Two hapu – Ngai Te Hapu and Te Patuwai – both claim mana whenua (territorial rights) and both live on the island. Until recently they were united in their call for the entire wreck of the Rena to be removed from the reef.

Motiti islanders are shifting their views on the Rena wreck.

But Te Patuwai are shifting their view, issuing a letter last week arguing support for leaving the remainder of the wreck submerged on the north-eastern face of the reef, says Ngai Te Hapu spokesman Buddy Mikaere.

Te Patuwai has not ruled out talks on compensation with the Rena owners and insurers, and now says in its letter the Rena should stay where it is because it's too dangerous to move and could cost lives, says Buddy.

For Ngai Te Hapu, it's not about the money, it's about the integrity and restoration of the marine environment, says Buddy.

'The owners were offering incentives to people, things they might do on the island. But the quid pro quo [something for something] for that would be withdrawing their opposition to leaving the Rena on the reef,” says Buddy.

When the owners and insurers set up a fund to compensate people, including local businesses, for losses suffered after the containership struck the reef on October 5, 2011 spilling oil and cargo onto local beaches – all the iwi claims were struck out.

'There was no compensation for iwi, no compensation for people like surf lifesaving clubs. No compensation to real estate people, who suffered from loss of sales because of the images all over the television and internet,” says Buddy.

'It's just part of that whole general retraction by the owners and insurers, as to what they are willing to shell out for. So if you wanted infrastructure projects to happen on Motiti Island, you had to withdraw your opposition to them.”

The other issue about Motiti is Maori live on the northern end, and Pakeha on the southern end.

'The infrastructure proposals that the Rena owners were putting up were all at the southern end,” says Buddy.

The two hapu on Motiti share common ancestry, says Buddy.

'They are both the same people, except one referred to themselves after the ancestor who first went to the island. Patuwai was an incident where there was a fight on the water involving these same people. They took a new name after that event.”

Te Patuwai kaumatua Graeme Hoete says the letter is calling for another hui on the island with the owners and insurers and the people who live on the island, next to the ship.

'My thoughts are, we must move on, we must move ahead. We can't just go on gobbling about the Rena on the rock. And how long is it going to take them to get it off, we don't know.

'They are the experts. They know how much they can do, how much they can't do. Some of the hapu is just trying to tell them to move the whole lot.

'But that's a big issue. How long will it take? We don't know. I'm the kaumatua on Motiti and I'm getting a bit tired of going on and on and on, you know?”

The people who are making the noise about removing the Rena from the reef, live on the mainland, says Graeme.

Maritime NZ media advisor Steve Rendle says MNZ has two statutory notices in place securing removal of the MV Rena wreck, issued under the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

One notice issued under section 248 of the MTA, determining the MV Rena to be a hazardous ship; and the other under section 100A of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, determining the Rena and its cargo to be a hazard to navigation.

The owners/insurers are currently engaged in the latest stage of wreck removal involving the accommodation block.

Elaine Butler, on behalf of the Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated Society (known as the Wai 2393 Claimant), brought a Treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 on May 28, 2013. That matter is presently before the Waitangi Tribunal, with aspects of the proceedings the subject of confidentiality restrictions.

The confidential documents referred to are the deeds executed in October 2012 settling the Crown's claims and the claims of specific agencies. The deeds contain a clause providing they are confidential between the parties to the deeds.

These deeds are the subject of further consideration by the Waitangi Tribunal. It is not appropriate or possible to comment further at this point, in light of those ongoing proceedings.

The media release covering the signing of settlement (including a reference to a further payment related to a resource consent) is here: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/media-releases-2012/20121002a.asp