A Motiti Island resident has placed an unflattering perspective on Maori opinion about the Rena resource consent hearing.

In her evidence, Ngarima Chapman has described how a rash of Maori groups claiming to be Patuwai hapu appeared when mitigation and money became telling factors.

Photo: File.

'I am disappointed with the unethical behaviour of some of the submitters,” says Ngarima. 'I acknowledge some are my own. But shame on all of us to allow this to happen through this process. It cannot continue.

'The whole process has not been mana enhancing. Groups used unethical methods to gain recognition to further advance a few rather than a whole.

'Groups began jostling for position. One of our own group, through this process, invited non Te Patuwai to join them, and then lodged a submission without consulting the hapu beforehand.”

Another group used their status on the Motiti Marae Committee to create a new entity without informing the rest of the hapu of their intentions, says Ngarima.

They also submitted an application to the Office of Treaty Settlements for a grievance, but the day the Rena hearings began, they withdrew that submission.

'The hapu has not seen hide nor hair of them since they set up their structure, and today have no idea what their intentions are,” she adds.

'The hapu also does not have knowledge of what agreement has been reached between the group and the applicant to make the group change its position.

'The saddest thing is, a few kaumatua pulled away from the hapu because they couldn't get their way, elected onto the Tribal, and used their position as ‘elders' to push their case. You even took a representative of the applicant to gather signatures of landowners.

'You forgot about the rest of us. You left us, abandoned just like the wreck at the bottom of the reef is being abandoned, which no one is talking about, and avoiding. That's your uri down there, Te Patuwai. Shame on you.”

Patuwai stopped participating in the applicant's process, believing the mitigation and money discussion were not appropriate.

'We weren't interested in that. We were still hurting and they were offering us money to rescind our opposition,” says Ngarima.

'Our well-being is adversely effected. We felt that they were driving a wedge between our people, and inviting others into our space, our Island where we had not seen these people before coming with offers of gold. To us that would not make it right. Even some of our own sided with them.”

She opposes giving the Rena owners and insures consent to leave the wreck on the reef, and would rather the panel gave the owners and insurers a period of time in which to remove it.

'I don't know if that's possible,” she adds, 'but I have heard from sitting here every day for the past two weeks that there are salvage experts who say that the wreck can be removed. Given more time I am sure they can remove a lot more, if not all of the wreck.”