KEY POINTS:
A proposed Treaty settlement covering Greater Auckland has led to "enormous tension" between formerly close, often related tribal groups, the Waitangi Tribunal heard yesterday.
The tribunal is holding an urgent hearing into claims by six iwi and hapu who believe the Crown dealt unfairly with them in its handling of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei claim covering the Auckland region.
The current case centres on whether the Crown acted fairly in its dealings with iwi and subtribes who have overlapping claims in the Auckland region.
Roimata Minhinnick, spokesman for the Port Waikato-based iwi Ngati Te Ata, said the proposal had soured a formerly strong relationship between his people and the Ngati Whatua o Orakei.
"The relationship used to be strong ... Now there is enormous tension."
Mr Minhinnick said the Crown had shown inconsistency in its stance offering greater rights to Ngati Whatua o Orakei than to other groups.
Te Warena Taua, spokesman for West Auckland-based Te Kawerau a Maki, said it was difficult to understand how the Government could side with one group when genealogical links showed all those with claims to the area shared a common ancestry.
He said the proposal had led to whanau members and former friends "now walking past one another in the street".
Central to the claim is whether Ngati Whatua should get $80 million of naval housing land in Devonport and first right of refusal on a further $90 million of naval land elsewhere on the North Shore.
The iwi groups also question whether Ngati Whatua should get exclusive first right of refusal to all Crown properties that come up for sale on the Auckland isthmus and guardianship of all the mountains there.
The Crown has urged cross claimants to work together to resolve issues.
Crown counsel Peter Andrew said the proposal did not extinguish others' claims in the area.
However, Mr Taua said the proposal removed the right for claimants to seek first right of refusal on excess Crown land within cross-claimant areas.
He also said it was likely that local councils and government departments would view the settlement as acknowledgment of Ngati Whatua o Orakei's tangata whenua status for the region, excluding other groups from consultation and involvement in cultural and protocol issues.
Massey University historian Professor Michael Belgrave also raised concerns around historical accuracy of the research that formed the basis for the proposal.
He questioned the depth of the research, which he did not believe took into account a wide enough range of Maori sources, and Maori concepts.
"Whilst a historical exercise can be helpful, in the end the decision may be a case of interpreting mana."
The hearing runs until tomorrow.
