KEY POINTS:
If Aucklanders believe what has been written recently about Ngati Whatua o Orakei's Treaty claim they might accept that we should all throw away a decade of work and start again. Nothing could be further from reality.
Any Treaty settlement is going to involve claims and counter-claims, often involving hearsay evidence about what happened perhaps hundreds of years ago.
Those opposed or wanting to attach themselves to a claim can try many things to derail those involved in negotiating with the Crown.
In the case of the recent urgent hearing of the Waitangi Tribunal, however, the issue was about the Crown's Treaty settlement processes. None of this is unusual in Waitangi Tribunal hearings.
What makes the Ngati Whatua o Orakei settlement more intense is that it involves central Auckland. So there is more incentive for anyone who thinks they have even a tenuous connection to try to get what they perceive as a piece of the pie.
The irony is that the Crown's Agreement in Principle with Ngati Whatua o Orakei leaves specific areas in Auckland for other groups to include in their claims.
However, they are not yet available to them because they are focused on circular legal arguments rather than concentrating their resources to progress their own direct negotiations.
There is quite a difference between what Ngati Whatua o Orakei is doing, and what the people who have been given voice through the Herald's pages are doing.
For a decade Ngati Whatua o Orakei has steadily and tenaciously worked its way through an arduous process determined by the Crown as the way we must settle grievances. During that time we have done some things well and we have made some mistakes - we have learned a lot.
Treaty grievances are with the Crown. It is the Crown that sets the process not Ngati Whatua. We have followed the process, step by step.
First of all though we had to prove to the Crown we were a coherent group with the backing of its people to negotiate on their behalf, notwithstanding the fact we already had a statutorily recognised mandate within the Orakei Act of 1991.
That took time and work and money, but we achieved the required status of having a mandate in the eyes of the Crown.
Others you hear about are making noise and stamping their feet and having others stamp their feet for them, but that isn't where the real work is. The real work occurs when the noise stops and real negotiators go to work to get an agreement struck. Those are the hard yards.
Ngati Whatua o Orakei has been accused of damaging the relationships we have with our neighbours. No such thing is happening.
The Crown process for settling grievances is prescribed and is one pathway. The alternative is to have a case heard in the Waitangi Tribunal and then move on to direct negotiations with the Crown.
When one enters the Waitangi Tribunal it is adversarial, as in all court-like processes. Of course there will be drama choreographed for media consumption.
We have seen a lot of theatre over the past months aimed at applying pressure on the system. But just because someone says something, that doesn't make it real.
Historians will always debate and there will always be areas of conjecture. And while all of this has been going on, every week we are involved in some way with something where we deal harmoniously with our neighbours.
Ancient ties can never be broken. We will continue to find practical ways to foster those relationships. The drama is happening elsewhere.
Ngati Whatua o Orakei chose not to take its case through the Waitangi Tribunal to prove its history. We decided it was an honourable path to approach the Crown directly. It was a good decision.
Sir Hugh Kawharu used to say it was better to face the Crown and look them in the eye as equals and then sensibly and practically find a way forward.
We have approached our process with purpose and dignity. We are focused on moving our people forward. We want acknowledgement for those who were genuinely hurt by the treatment given to them by the Crown and then we want to move forward.
We were able to negotiate directly with the Crown because our history is known, recorded in oral histories and in documents, including court records from the 1800s. We are comfortable in our knowledge of our history.
In the mid-1700s Ngati Whatua achieved dominance over the Auckland isthmus through raupatu or conquest. Our ancestor Tuperiri had the leadership qualities to see that to cement that dominance he had to form alliances with the vanquished, which he did in a traditional way by marrying his sons to their daughters.
This amalgam of peoples then continued on together. Since the 1750s we have had our fires burning here in Auckland; what we call ahi kaa or occupation.
It has been difficult for me and our people to read things being said and written about Ngati Whatua o Orakei's Treaty settlement in the media and not be in a position to comment and clarify. We would very much like to, and we would like the people of Auckland and Aotearoa to understand the complexities of this process we have been involved in for over a decade.
But because we are the ones in negotiation we have less room to comment. No one is stopping us from commenting, but once we chose to enter the settlement process we learned that it is better to remain focused on the outcome and to show respect for our negotiating partner, the Crown.
The negotiations are carried out as they would be for any commercial negotiation. The parties focus on their positions and then tease out a solution piece by piece. It is important that is done in private so that both parties can speak frankly and openly.
Eventually, after many years of hard work, a proposed settlement was agreed upon, the details of which are contained in an Agreement in Principle.
In recent media pieces we have been criticised for reaching an agreement first and then talking to other groups who feel they may have a claim that crosses ours. The practicalities were that until we signed the Agreement, the redress we and the Crown were prepared to agree to was not in place.
It was provisional and still under negotiation. All we could talk about with our neighbours was what our claims were. We did that. We gave them a booklet about our grievances with the Crown and invited discussion.
We believed, and still believe, that it was better to be talking to people about the details of proposed redress once there was something solid to show them and discuss. We did that too, as soon as the draft Agreement in Principle was in print.
We have been criticised for many things in recent articles. As always it is easier to be outside a process throwing rocks in.
While the rock-throwing makes better copy for newspapers it is much harder and of less media interest to work slowly and tenaciously toward an outcome that will last and be of value to our people and to the wider community we are part of. That is the path we are on.
* Grant Hawke is chairman of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board.
