National want to double RSE workers and add residency pathways, Canterbury feral cat hunt called off after backlash and Kiwis spending $1,700 more on travel over the past year in the latest New Zealand Herald headlines. Video / NZ Herald
OPINION
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has finally called time on its claim of exclusive mana whenua over central Auckland, withdrawing its appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Ōrākei claimed victory in its press coverage, but any proper scrutiny shows otherwise.
On the same day, Waikato-Tainui leader Tukoroirangi Morgan publicly remonstrated withsome of the Ōrākei leadership for putting their exclusivity campaign ahead of history and whanaungatanga. This culminated in Ngāti Whātua elders apologising to the Kingitanga on the marae for the behaviour of Ōrākei speakers at the infamous Matatini festival pōwhiri.
Those tracking the mounting line of contrasting opinions may wonder at this forum of tribal debate. But, it’s nothing new – the ancestors of the current leadership of Marutūāhu, Tainui Waka and Ngāti Whātua were doing just that in the Auckland newspapers of the 1860s in response to some Ngāti Whātua trying to sell the few remaining Māori-owned (and contested) land parcels in central Auckland (no prize for guessing who the Pakehā elites sided with).
Did Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei ask the High Court to declare it was the only tribe with legal rights in terms of mana and tikanga, and a power of veto over any future Treaty settlements, in central Auckland? Yes, as repeated by its lawyers and witnesses during the hapū's seven-and-a-half-year legal campaign (estimated by some to have cost upwards of $15m).
Did any other tribe agree that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has exclusive mana in central Auckland? No, not even Ngāti Pāoa who holds a kawenata (covenant) with the hapū.
Was the bid for exclusive status successful and did the High Court grant Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei any of the declarations for exclusive legal rights specified in its application? No, none of them.
Was Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei happy with the court’s substantive decision? No, as reflected in the hapū lodging a wide-ranging appeal claiming the High Court made 37 separate errors of law (now withdrawn).
What about the High Court’s recent final decision that led to some reports claiming Ōrākei was vindicated? Again, no.
What the High Court said was Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has mana whenua/ahi ka status according to its tikanga, histories and traditions. But, significantly, the court made a companion declaration that other tribes do not recognise exclusive mana whenua/ahi ka status, as their tikanga, histories and traditions differ.
These declarations were opposed by Ōrākei when the court put them to the parties for comment ahead of the final decision as they reinforce Tāmaki is not a place that can be reduced to a simplistic “one tribe” narrative.
In this light, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s claim of victory is akin to that famous Monty Python knight skit – the fallen knight claiming mere flesh wounds when all his limbs lie severed on the ground. If politicians, officials and journalists only take one tribe’s word for it, they risk trading in illusions.
With Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei having retreated from the legal battlefield, can it and the many mana whenua iwi of Auckland work together again? As Tuku Morgan observes, it will need wise heads in Ōrākei to come to the fore and rebuild relationships.
He also observed the reason for the campaign was a bid for control over Auckland’s highly valuable CBD land. This is because at the heart of their failed court case, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei sought recognition of an exclusive “right of first refusal area” that includes Auckland’s CBD.
An abiding irony for Marutūāhu is that some of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s most lucrative blocks of land outside the area where it claims exclusivity – on the North Shore – were included in its 2012 settlement. The hapū received the public support of my Marutūāhu iwi and other tribes for receiving those areas as Treaty redress in the face of local community opposition (some blatantly racist).
After securing those lands, and in the face of our manaaki, Ōrākei opposed the Marutūāhu settlements.
For decades, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei has courted councillors, mayors, MPs and ministers and forged particularly close ties to Labour.
A draft Treaty settlement in the 2000s would have handed exclusive recognition to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. As a senior partner at a national law firm, I was tasked by my kaumātua to challenge the draft settlement to ensure the connections and interests of every tribe in Auckland would be recognised in Treaty settlement processes.
Paul Majurey. Photo / Supplied
We, and many other iwi, succeeded with the Waitangi Tribunal heavily criticising the draft agreement in its influential 2007 report.
Treaty settlements, as the Tribunal and Crown have rightly said, need to recognise various customary interests to be fair and treat all tribes reasonably, in the context of the unique history of Tāmaki Makaurau.
The 2012 Tāmaki Collective settlement that the 13 tribes all agreed, including Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, was the outcome. As Tuku Morgan rightly said, the tragedy in all this is that the overlapping settlement policy is not a zero-sum game. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei will continue to successfully grow its asset base. If other iwi do likewise, it is good for all.
It is time for the tikanga of whanaungatanga to prevail.
- Paul Majurey (Marutūāhu) is an iwi leader, senior lawyer and independent director, including chair of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and a range of large-scale iwi collectives.
