The Ngati Maniapoto/Ngati Tama Cross-Claims Settlement Report (2001) is a report on two Ngati Maniapoto claims (Wai 788 and Wai 800) about the proposed settlement of Ngati Tama’s historical Treaty claims relating to Taranaki. An urgent hearing to consider these claims was held in Wellington from 26 to 28 February 2001 by a Tribunal consisting of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), the Honourable Dr Michael Bassett, and Professor Wharehuia Milroy.
Wai 788 was lodged in July 1999 by Atiria Takiari and others, while Wai 800 was submitted by Harold Maniapoto and Roy Haar in November 1999. The two sets of claimants worked together, Wai 788 representing Ngati Maniapoto hapu of the Mokau region and Wai 800 representing wider Ngati Maniapoto interests. These claims were prompted by settlement negotiations between Ngati Tama and the Crown, which in turn were a response to the Tribunal’s Taranaki Report. As a result of these negotiations, a heads of agreement for a proposed settlement of Ngati Tama’s claims was signed in September 1999. This agreement proposed, among other things, to transfer various properties to Ngati Tama and to provide other forms of recognition of Ngati Tama’s interests in the North Taranaki/Mokau area.
The Ngati Maniapoto claimants stated that they had interests in part of the area covered by the Ngati Tama settlement, and that they would be prejudiced by the provision of redress to Ngati Tama within that area before Ngati Maniapoto’s claims had been heard by the Tribunal, or before Ngati Maniapoto had entered into settlement negotiations with the Crown for its Treaty claims.
In evidence to the Tribunal, the Crown submitted details of revisions to the Ngati Tama settlement which had been agreed to by Ngati Tama and the Crown. The Tribunal considered that, by revising the settlement and by giving a number of undertakings intended to allay Ngati Maniapoto’s concerns about the possible effects of this settlement on their interests, the Crown had conscientiously endeavoured to meet its obligations as a Treaty partner to both Ngati Tama and Ngati Maniapoto.
‘There are serious precedent implications arising from the Wai 788 and Wai 800 claims. If the Tribunal were to take the view that the Crown ought not to deliver redress to any claimant where there are overlapping or cross-claims, the repercussions for the Crown’s settlement policy would be very serious. It would thwart the desire on the part of both the Crown and Maori claimants to achieve closure in respect of their historical Treaty grievances. Indefinite delay to the conclusion of Treaty settlements all around the country is an outcome that this Tribunal seeks to avoid.’
The Waitangi Tribunal
The Tribunal made clear that Crown has a responsibility to ensure that negative inferences about Ngati Maniapoto’s interests are not drawn from the Crown’s recognition of Ngati Tama’s interests in the settlement. In the Tribunal’s view, the Crown had taken, or had promised to take, appropriate steps to meet this responsibility. The Tribunal was also convinced that, if the revised settlement with Ngati Tama were to go ahead, the Crown would retain the capacity to provide adequate and appropriate redress to Ngati Maniapoto when its settlement came to be negotiated.
For these reasons, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not breach Treaty principles by going ahead with the Ngati Tama settlement on the basis of the revised settlement package. It also made a recommendation in relation to one particular site, Te Kawau Pa, which is on the coast south of Mokau. This site was originally to have been vested in Ngati Tama as part of its settlement, but the Crown subsequently recognised that, because both Ngati Tama and Ngati Maniapoto had strong interests in the site, it would be inappropriate to vest title exclusively in either group. The Tribunal recommended that the status of Te Kawau Pa should remain unchanged for the time being, but that the Crown should take an active role in trying to find a way of recognising the interests of both parties.
‘We further recommend that the Crown facilitate hui involving Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Tama to discuss the future management and ownership of Te Kawau Pa. If no agreement about the future ownership and management of this site results from such hui, we recommend that the matter be reconsidered when Ngati Maniapoto negotiate their settlement with the Crown, at which time another attempt should be made to find a way of recognising the interests of both Ngati Tama and Ngati Maniapoto in the site, and of including both groups in its ownership and management.’
The Waitangi Tribunal |
