KEY POINTS:
Talk about history repeating itself. Back in 1840, when Governor Hobson sailed into the Waitemata Harbour seeking a site for a new capital, he found the Auckland isthmus pretty deserted. The Ngapuhi had swarmed down from the north in the 1820s, muskets blazing, and the locals had wisely headed for the hills.
Captain Hobson liked what he saw and, being an honest sort of chap, looked around for an estate agent. He came across some Ngati Whatua leaders who were more than happy to do business. The Governor got 1214ha of prime land in exchange for 50 blankets, £50, 20 trousers, 20 shirts, 10 waistcoats, 10 caps, four casks of tobacco, one box of pipes, 91m of gown pieces, 10 iron pots, one bag of sugar, one bag of flour and 20 hatchets.
It was only later that rivals popped up claiming the land wasn't Ngati Whatua o Orakei's to sell. But by then the deal had been done and the gown material long cut up.
Now, 167 years on, the Crown and Ngati Whatua are trying to push through a $90 million Treaty settlement which again leaves the rival tribes out in the cold.
But this time the rival tribes have a champion in the form of Judge Carrie Wainwright, acting chairwoman of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Judge Wainwright is not debating the merits of the proposed deal; her outrage is directed at the methods the Crown employed to stitch up the deal with Ngati Whatua. In particular, she is shocked by the secrecy involved, the exclusion of six rival claimants from the process and the refusal of the Crown to share documents.
"We consider that the Crown's provision of documents and evidence on matters central to this inquiry has been unsatisfactory, and the stance of the Crown Law Office in defending that performance is most unfortunate."
The settlement being proposed by the Crown in favour of Ngati Whatua is based on an "agreed historical account' arrived at between Ngati Whatua and the Crown. Amazingly, the Crown saw nothing amiss with adopting a historical account that took no account of the other claimants' versions of history.
Worse, Crown Law and the Office of Treaty Settlements tried to conceal from claimants, and Judge Wainwright, assorted historical documents, including a commentary by historian Don Loveridge claiming the authorised historical account was "highly partisan" and "highly selective".
Several years ago, when I was a freelance writer for hire, a huge Treaty claim research document ended up on my desk. A distinguished retired editor had been asked by some branch or other of the Treaty industry to prepare a summary document. Claiming a prior engagement, he'd recommended me for the job. I ploughed through chapters of incomprehensible verbiage and finally admitted defeat.
I rang Wellington and said there seemed little point in summarising the indecipherable. They seemed unsurprised, thanked me, and said to invoice them for my time. I did.
Needless to say, the experience has rather jaundiced my view of the Treaty gravy train, minor benefactor that I am.
That the Crown can back Ngati Whatua's refusal to release their historical documentation on the grounds of "commercial sensitivity" is both farcical and appalling. The only circumstances I could imagine a historical account of the ownership of land being commercially sensitive is if it was making claims that, if proven incorrect, meant the claimant would lose commercially.
Surely the Crown should be seeking the most accurate historical account possible, not the one that best fits the favoured claimant's interests. And if Ngati Whatua's claims are defensible, why the need to hide? Why not prove them publicly?
I don't envy those trying to heal the wounds caused by the 19th-century land confiscations. To identify the descendants of the true owners of parcels of Auckland land that changed hands in the opening decades of European settlement for less than a fair price is a fraught task. Particularly when the $90 million on offer has excited wide interest and great dreams within tribes, great and small.
Since the 1840s, the Crown has regarded Ngati Whatua as the main Auckland tribe. It stands to reason this is not about to change. But secrecy is not the way to settle the present claim. All it is doing is fuelling a new set of grievances.
