| The Waitangi Tribunal's finding on "The Claim" Ngai Tahu signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 at Akaroa (May 30), Stewart Island (June 9, 10), and Otago (June 13). Ngai Tahu is today, and was at the time of the signing of the Treaty, the predominant tribe within the South Island. In the years following the signing of the Treaty, the Crown, through its representatives and agents, sought the transfer of land from the Ngai Tahu people to the Crown. This was achieved through ten major purchases: Otago 1844, Canterbury (Kemp�s) 1848, Port Cooper 1849, Port Levy 1849, Murihiku (Southland) 1853, Akaroa 1856, North Canterbury 1857, Kaikoura 1859, Arahura (West Coast) 1860, and Rakiura (Stewart Island) 1864. Ngai Tahu have long sought to have their grievances redressed Because of Ngai Tahu petitions and protests, some dating back to the 1840s, Ngai Tahu�s grievances have been considered by a number of Government inquiries. Some dismissed them after cursory investigation, but those, which investigated in detail generally, found validity in Ngai Tahu�s complaints. However, the Crown accepted that Ngai Tahu�s grievances were not remedied. In particular, the Ngaitahu Claim Settlement Act 1944 was enacted without prior consultation with the tribe and did not debar the tribe from further pursuing its claim. Claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 Through enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985, the Crown made it possible for Maori to bring claims before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of historic grievances arising after 6 February 1840. On 26 August 1986, a claim was submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal. That claim was subsequently elaborated upon by way of several amendments. The Ngai Tahu claim, registered with the Waitangi Tribunal as Wai 27, was investigated in hearings before the Tribunal over the years 1987 to 1989. On 1 February 1991, the Waitangi Tribunal reported on the main elements of the Ngai Tahu claim, described collectively as the �Nine Tall Trees� of Ngai Tahu�s grievances, and on 6 September 1991 issued a supplementary report recommending the creation by statute of a representative tribal body for Ngai Tahu. On 6 August 1992, the Waitangi Tribunal reported on the Ngai Tahu Sea Fisheries claim, finding that �Ngai Tahu has for more than a century been seriously prejudiced by long-standing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi culminating in the enactment and implementation of the Quota Management System�. Those claims were subsequently settled through the settlement embodied in the Maori Fisheries Act 1989, the Deed of Settlement dated 23 September 1992 between the Crown and Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. The Waitangi Tribunal made a further report on 27 April 1995 in respect of Ngai Tahu�s Ancillary Claims. Findings of the Waitangi Tribunal: the �Nine Tall Trees� After considering the elements of the Ngai Tahu claim, the Waitangi Tribunal found substantially in Ngai Tahu�s favour, both in relation to the elements referred to as the �Nine Tall Trees�, and to the Ancillary Claims. In particular, the Tribunal could not reconcile the Crown�s enduring failure to meet its obligations to Ngai Tahu with its duty to act towards its Treaty partner reasonably and with the utmost good faith. The Tribunal also emphasised that, in acquiring some 34.5 million acres of land from Ngai Tahu for �14,750, the Crown acted unconscionably and in repeated breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal considered that the Crown�s actions left Ngai Tahu with insufficient land to maintain its way of life, and to enable the tribe�s full participation in subsequent economic development. The Tribunal indicated in general terms the nature and scope of the redress that Ngai Tahu ought properly to receive. The Tribunal considered that the Crown ought to have restored to Ngai Tahu sufficient land to provide for the future economic, social and cultural development of the tribe. Otago The Tribunal found that the Crown was under a residual obligation to make further provision for Ngai Tahu, in addition to the reserves agreed upon during the purchase of the Otago Block, and that the Crown failed to satisfy this obligation. The Tribunal considered that the Crown�s obligation might have been satisfied by the creation of �Tenths�, or by other adequate provision. Canterbury (click for more detail) The Tribunal found that the Crown, in acquiring the Canterbury Block, failed to negotiate fairly, failed to meet its undertaking to reserve sufficient food resources for Ngai Tahu, and failed to meet its obligation to provide ample reserves for the existing and future needs of Ngai Tahu. The Crown did not set aside the area defined by the Waimakariri and Kawari Rivers, as requested by Ngai Tahu. The Tribunal found that, in so acting, and in its subsequent failure to remedy these faults, the Crown breached its duty to act with the utmost good faith towards Ngai Tahu Banks Peninsula The Tribunal found that the Crown granted the Nanto-Bordelaise Company an interest in 30,000 acres of land on Banks Peninsula, that Ngai Tahu had not agreed to relinquish most of this land and were not compensated for its loss, and that the Crown used high-handed and unfair methods in its dealings with Ngai Tahu over the Port Cooper and Port Levy Blocks. Significant to the Tribunal�s findings on the Port Levy Purchase was the Crown�s refusal to make reserves, as requested by Ngai Tahu, at Okains Bay, Kaituna Valley and Pigeon Bay. The Tribunal further found that the Crown had dealt with land on Banks Peninsula before it had been lawfully acquired from Ngai Tahu and that the Crown failed to meet its obligation to provide ample reserves for the existing and future needs of Ngai Tahu. Murihiku (click for more detail) The Tribunal found that the Crown, in purchasing the Murihiku Block, failed to set aside reserves that were requested by Ngai Tahu, failed to preserve for Ngai Tahu reasonable access to food resources, and failed to ensure that Ngai Tahu retained sufficient land for its existing and future needs. The Tribunal found that, in so acting, and in its subsequent failure to remedy these faults through the Middle Island Half-Caste Crown Grants Act 1877 and South Island Landless Natives Act 1906, the Crown breached its duty to act with the utmost good faith towards Ngai Tahu. North Canterbury and Kaikoura The Tribunal found that Ngai Tahu�s interests and rangatiratanga in the North Canterbury and Kaikoura Blocks were gravely prejudiced by the Crown�s transactions with other tribes, particularly in the Wairau Purchase of 1847, and by the Crown�s disposal of land without Ngai Tahu�s consent. It found that the Crown failed both to act fairly and honourably in negotiating for the subsequent purchase of Ngai Tahu�s interests, and to provide sufficient reserves in the North Canterbury and Kaikoura Blocks for the existing and future needs of Ngai Tahu. Arahura - click for more detail The Tribunal found that the Crown did not act fairly in its negotiations for the Arahura Block, and that the Crown failed both to set aside certain areas that Ngai Tahu wished to retain, and to preserve for Ngai Tahu reasonable access to food resources. It found that the Crown failed to protect the right of Ngai Tahu to retain possession and control of all pounamu. The Tribunal also found that the Crown failed to respect Ngai Tahu�s interests and wishes when enacting a system of perpetual leases over Ngai Tahu reserves. Rakiura The Tribunal found that Ngai Tahu was disadvantaged by the delay in implementing the terms of the Rakiura purchase, the Crown having failed in its duty actively to protect Maori interests. Mahinga Kai The Tribunal found that, when purchasing Ngai Tahu lands, the Crown failed to ensure that Ngai Tahu retained reasonable access to places where the tribe produced or procured food, and especially unimpeded access to Lakes Waihora and Wairewa. Schools and Hospitals The Tribunal found that the expectation of being provided with schools and hospitals was an inducement to Ngai Tahu in selling the Kemp and Murihiku Blocks, that the Crown failed to act promptly to provide these benefits, and that Ngai Tahu was disadvantaged by the delay in meeting its expectations. |