KEY POINTS:
Aucklanders have recently had a glimpse of the deep cross-currents between the various tangata whenua of Auckland.
This is nothing new. When the Crown purchased the 100,000 acre (40,469ha) Mahurangi Block (covering the North Shore and Mahurangi) in April 1841 from the four Marutuahu iwi, Ngati Whatua were not long in making complaints to protect their customary interests. This type of inter-iwi encounter occurred throughout Auckland over the following decades of the 19th century.
As is its way, history has repeated. At stake this time is the offer of exclusive rights to Ngati Whatua over the Crown's iconic reserves (eg, Maungawhau [Mt Eden]), commercial assets in central Auckland and the entire North Shore naval housing portfolio.
Intensive media coverage has followed the decision of the Waitangi Tribunal to scrutinise this deal amid claims the Crown has prejudiced other tangata whenua of Auckland by elevating Ngati Whatua above all others.
In recent weeks, both Ngati Whatua and the Crown have ended nearly four years of silence to have their say. And their responses are deceptive in their simplicity.
Collectively they say the claims of other tangata whenua of Auckland are speculative, they have been "choreographed for media consumption" and that the Crown-Ngati Whatua negotiations have followed proper procedures.
Many debates gravitate to a "he said - they said" conclusion. One tangible consequence of the oversight achieved by the Waitangi Tribunal is the release of documents that would otherwise have been withheld by the Crown.
So what does the official record reveal about the Crown-Ngati Whatua deal and the process behind it? The following Q & A shows it is not the prosaic, "equitable settlement" portrayed by either group.
Are the Treaty claims against the Ngati Whatua deal a publicity stunt?
In deciding in November 2006 to hold an urgent hearing into the Ngati Whatua deal, the Waitangi Tribunal was: "satisfied that the claimants have demonstrated that they are likely to suffer irreversible prejudice because the process for dealing with overlapping claimants outlined by the Crown is unlikely to be able to deal fully and fairly with their concerns".
"There also appear to be real problems in this case with respect to openness and transparency. Even now, at the commencement of what the Crown has called its 'substantive consultation' with overlapping claimants, parties cannot access research apparently relied upon for the content of the settlement."
Did Ngati Whatua follow the Crown's process step by step?
The Crown had real misgivings with the conduct of Ngati Whatua during the negotiation process (as revealed in officials' reports):
"Orakei [Ngati Whatua] are reluctant to engage with cross-claimants, and deny that groups cross-claiming into central Auckland have legitimate claims. At the last two meetings the Crown has clearly outlined its policy approach to cross-claims, and has encouraged Orakei to meet with cross-claimants at an early stage in the process." (March 3, 2003)
"The ultimate risk is if Ngati Whatua do not engage with cross-claimants, the likelihood of a successful challenge to a settlement package in the Tribunal is high." (July 25, 2003)
"Ngati Whatua's lack of commitment to conferring with cross-claimants is a concern. This is because it runs counter to Crown cross-claims policy and Tribunal findings may involve considerable legal risk to both parties (ie, a successful cross-claims challenge), and would set an undesirable precedent for cross-claim policy in relation to future negotiations with other groups. (November 24, 2003)
Ngati Whatua's "early consultation" was to invite other tangata whenua for a 30-minute meeting at the end of 2004.
Did Ngati Whatua seek a deal over Auckland for itself?
Crown officials' reports show how much of Auckland Ngati Whatua wanted for itself:
"The crux of the problem is manawhenua: the [Ngati Whatua] Trust Board don't want to meet with cross-claimants because (a) they claim manawhenua over Auckland (T amaki, North Shore, West Auckland) and deny the manawhenua claims of others (except perhaps for certain 'contested areas' on the margins of the claim area) and (b) for the Trust Board to meet with cross-claimants could be seen as tantamount to acknowledging the legitimacy of cross-claims." (November 24, 2003)
Are the other tangata whenua of Auckland protected under the Ngati Whatua deal?
The officials' reports make it clear they expect challenges to the Ngati Whatua deal:
"We consider that there is a substantial likelihood of cross-claim challenges to a settlement concluded between the Crown and Ngati Whatua in Auckland. Waikato-Tainui and Hauraki-affiliated hapu claim historical and contemporary interests in the Tamaki Isthmus and North Shore. Te Kawerau a Maki claim interests in West Auckland." (January 17, 2005)
"The Crown and Ngati Whatua recognise there are overlapping interests from Hauraki in the North Shore." (June 6, 2006)
Has the Ngati Whatua deal affected tribal relationships in Auckland?
Te Warena Taua of Ngai Tai and Te Kawerau a Maki finds it difficult to understand how Government could side with only one group.
At the Tribunal hearing, he said "I despise being called a cross-claimant - I despise being pitted against my own whanaunga."
Tensions between the tangata whenua of Auckland have resurfaced in much the same way as occurred soon after the signing of the Treaty. This time, it is the Waitangi Tribunal who will stamp its imprimatur on the report card on the Crown's attempt to reshape Auckland's tribal landscape.
* Paul F. Majurey is a lawyer who belongs to the Marutuahu tribes (Ngati Paoa, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga and Ngati Tamatera) and represents them in the Tamaki Makaurau Inquiry.
