KEY POINTS:
The Government is giving no indication that it will follow the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendation to suspend negotiations between Ngati Whatua o Orakei and the Crown, saying it could hold up the iwi's claim for years.
The tribunal took the unprecedented course of cautioning the Government to halt its negotiations until it has begun negotiations with other iwi in the Auckland area.
The Crown has proposed a deal which would give Ngati Whatua stewardship of One Tree Hill, Mt Roskill and part of Mt Eden, $80 million worth of real estate and $10 million cash.
Treaty Negotiations Minister Mark Burton said yesterday he would consider the Waitangi Tribunal report, but any suggestion that the Government deal first with the other groups in Auckland raised questions.
Of concern was whether all the groups were equally prepared and organised and how their claims outside Auckland should be handled.
He also dismissed a suggestion by the tribunal that negotiations with such groups take priority in the negotiating pecking order.
That would be a shift away from the current Crown approach, he said, and would lead to delays in settling claims where claimants were ready and willing to proceed to settlement.
It could also mean delaying the Ngati Whatua claims for years.
Mr Burton said he would explore approaches that could address some of the tribunal's concerns, "but in a timely way".
The Weekend Herald has learned that the Crown tried to stop the tribunal report going out on time yesterday morning, fearing the damning judgment made it look like one of its staff had lied.
But the judge who presided over the urgent inquiry into Ngati Whatua's draft settlement of its Auckland claim with the Office of Treaty Settlements is standing by the report.
Judge Carrie Wainwright told Crown lawyers the tribunal had said exactly what it wished to say in the report about the nature of the evidence given at the hearing.
The report criticises the way the Crown gave documentary evidence - "late, reluctantly and piecemeal" - to the tribunal in March.
Comparing that with what was said in evidence led the tribunal to believe that the Crown had decided not to be candid about some matters.
"While it would be going too far to say witnesses lied to us, a review of the recordings of the hearing in the light of the documents now before us reveals that witnesses definitely chose to provide partial answers to questions that ought to have elicited more information," said the report.
"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the office has been less than open in its dealings with the tribunal.
"This impression is confirmed by the fact that it appears from the content of documents filed late that the sole official who gave evidence for the office answered some questions in ways that were misleading."
The Crown's only witness during the March inquiry was Rachel Houlbrooke, the Office of Treaty Settlement's manager of the policy, strategy and legal team.
Crown lawyer Virginia Hardy was concerned the claim of misleading answers was open to a reading that the witness lied to the tribunal, but was at odds with the earlier statement that made it clear the tribunal did not consider the witness lied.
As a result the Crown asked the tribunal to clarify its commentary.
Judge Wainwright replied that by the time she received the memorandum the 6am embargo had expired.
"In any event, the tribunal said exactly what it wished to say about the nature of the evidence given at the hearing."
