Editorial: Hapu's shaky hand was played with finesse

It is a credit to the small Ngati Whatua hapu of Orakei, and their trust board chairman, Sir Hugh Kawharu, that their Auckland-wide land claim has proceeded now to the point of settlement with so little public acrimony. The deal now done with the Government covers central Auckland, the North Shore, most of Waitakere and a slice of Manukau, an outrageous claim on the face of it.

Bastion Pt aside, the claim never looked very strong. Despite the attractions of two harbours and fertile volcanic soil the region seems to have been lightly populated when Logan-Campbell and Brown came into the Waitemata and established their farms. A sub-tribe of Ngati Whatua had moved down from the Kaipara just 100 years before and the hapu's claim to some parts of the region is contested by Tainui to this day.

But it was the Ngati Whatua who invited Hobson to establish the colonial capital on the Tamaki isthmus and they must have been glad they did, at first. Maori were drawn to the district in greater numbers to trade with the rapidly growing town or work in it. Auckland was a colonial creation, greatly helped by the goodwill of hapu who provisioned the settlement and provided labour and land for its expansion.

Ngati Whatua who sold land saw it resold by the Crown at vastly higher prices and that seems to be the main source of the grievance behind the Treaty claim. That and the fact that a proportion of the Crown's profits was not put aside for Maori purposes as British colonial policy intended. It is the sort of claim that evokes much less sympathy than the confiscations and flagrant breaches of contracts elsewhere. The trust board has probably been wise to keep its negotiations low-key. But it cannot be blamed for pursuing the interests of its members and the deal it has done shows that its interest was always more in mana than money.

The agreement, signed in principle last Friday, recognises the colonial government's failure to prevent the sub-tribe's loss of culturally important places such as One Tree Hill, Mt Eden and Mt Roskill, which will now be returned to Ngati Whatua's nominal ownership and "co-management" with the Auckland City Council. That arrangement seems to be working amicably at Bastion Pt under the deal done in 1991 and there is probably no reason it will not work for One Tree Hill Domain. It might permit agreement at last on a replacement tree.

The wider Auckland settlement offers the hapu $10 million in cash, a modest sum when set beside the value of the lost real estate today, and not significantly higher than the amount that was scorned by some of the 2000 beneficiaries when word of it got around a few months ago.The sum includes $2 million already paid as part of Ngati Whatua's railway land acquisition in 1993.

The hapu's most lucrative element in the latest deal may turn out to be a right to buy $80 million of residential land at the Devonport Naval base. Ngati Whatua could pay that sum to the Crown not in cash but by waiving rent for the naval housing for 35 years. Doubtless the lease-back transfer is a device to keep the settlement within the Crown's $1 billion fiscal envelope and it represents recognition of the claim to other harbourside suburbs (St Heliers, Mission Bay, Takapuna) that being largely in private ownership are beyond the reach of Treaty settlements.

But 35 years is a long time to wait for full value from the naval land and it may be too much to hope that the deal will deliver a "full and final" settlement of claims to Auckland. The case might not be as strong as some but the potential prize is greater than most, and probably always will be.

The beneficiaries could conclude for now that their trust board has played its limited hand with skill and goodwill, and improved their place in Auckland's life.