Treaty Negotiations in Te Whanganui a Tara: The KhKahawai and the Shark Selwyn Katene Ngati Toa, Ngati Tama, Ngaruahine BACKGROUND Te Upoko o te Ika a Maui or ‘head of Maui's fish’ Kupe 1000 years ago Tara son of Whatonga - Te Whanganui a Tara From 1820s Taranaki & Kawhia tribes through rights of conquest, continuous occupation, ohaki (gifting) tangata whenua KEY ISSUES Effectiveness of small iwi ggpgroup, Ngati Tama (NT) struggling to assert its identity, mana, and tino rangatiratanga Role of the Crown, and others, in attempts to re-establish autonomous iwi-specific voice & focus for advancement of NT interests CLAIMS Tw o N gati Tama claims: Wai 735 claim Ngati Tama ki teUpokooteIka Wai 377 claim Ngati TamaTe Kaeaea Main claim number Wai 145 Wellington Tenths Trust & Palmerston North Maori Reserves ◦ The 8 gene ra l cla ims merge into large r natura l grouping of iwi, hapu, whanau, and marae interests – Port Nicholson Block Claim (PNBC) – to negotiate and settle on behalf of all TkiTaranaki clilaimants CLAIM AREA Some 209, 000 acres covering the greater Wellington area: 17,,py900 acres NZ Company claimed to have purchased from Taranaki tribes ◦ 137,242 acres of ‘wasteland’ Crown gave itself title to on assumption tha t no-one hdhad title because not occupied or cultivated by Maori CROWN BREACHES Accepting as valid purchases by the NZ Company, which could not possibly have constituted a legal sale or provided valid title to the land CROWN BREACHES (cont) Disposing of wrongfully acquired land by sale to the private sector, grants to local authorities, and statutory organisations and committing it to use for public reserves and public purposes CROWN BREACHES (cont) Dispossessing Maori of their homes, cultivations, lands, water-ways & sea resources Implementing Reserved Land laws affecting Maori landowners’ ability to manage their own resources on fa ir and equal terms, and to participate in development of region and local economy TRIBUNAL REPORT Ngati Tama had: ahi ka rights within Port Nicholson block, Kaiwharawhara and environs and parts of southwest coast; take raupatu over remainder lands Te Whanganui a Tara Me Ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District (Waitangi Tribunal, 2003) TWO NGATI TAMA GROUPS Ngati Tama ki te Upoko o te Ika: ◦ Established 28 March 2002 to manage Wai 735 claim & interests of NT, with support from Ngati Toa & NT (Taranaki & Te Tau Ihu) & 700 member register NiNgati WWiai o NNigati Tama ◦ Wanganui-based hapu of NT representing interests of Te Kaeaea, paramount chief TRIBUNAL FINDING It will be for the two NT groups to agree on who is to represent them in their negotiations with the Crown in resp ect of variou s Treaty breaches which affected NT, along with Te Atiawa, Taranaki and Ngati Ruanui (pg 490) A specific breach unique to NT also occurred PNBC Most claimants set up PNBC to negotiate settlement on behalf of Te Atiawa, Ngati Mutunga, Taranaki, Ngati Ruanui & Ngati Tama, with support from local Tenths Trusts Some Ngati Tama preferred separate process and representation of NT on PNBC Agreed not to be part of PNBC deliberations PNBC Deed of Mandate response NT SUPPORT Support - Ngati Toa, Ngati Tama (Taranaki / Te Tau Ihu) & 700 reg members that NT: ◦ manages the Wai 735 claim, ◦ is an Iwi in its own right and, ◦ represents NT interests in Wellington Concern from PNBC, Te Atiawa & Tenths Trust ◦ that a NT split claim would encourage others ◦ preference for one set of negotiations only PNBC DEED OF MANDATE Eventuallyyg, recognised by the Crown ◦ “subject to the condition that there’s provision for two permanent seats on PNBCT for the two Ngati Tama groups of equal standing to all other seats” (28 Jan 2004) 5 weeks later.....Crown weakens its resolve ◦ “The Crown cannot compel the PNBCT to agree to guaranteeing full membership ◦ rihtights” (8 Marc h 2004) CROWN AWARE OF RISKS “There is a high likelihood that PNBCT’s mandate and/or the proposed settlement will be challenged by Ngati Tama individuals, either in the Court s or the Tr ibuna l” “The Crown will not be in a strong position to defend itself”. (MICOTOWN, 8 March 2004) PNBC’ S RESPONSE “Unable to provide Ngati Tama a role as a mandated representative... Instead Ngati Tama can sit on a PNBC subcommittee... Occasionally, there may be an opportunity to meet the full PNBC mandate team”. (2 July 2004) NGATI TAMA REPLIES “The effect of being barred from participation on the mandate team is that we have not been included in its meetings and decision-making” “We take very seriously the intransigent views of the PNBC mandate team; these views are not consistent with the advice officials provided us” (10 Ju ly 2004) PNBC ADVICE TO CROWN PNBC not prepared to fulfil the outstanding Crown conditions to Deed of Mandate regarding NT’s representation on PNBCT It cannot confer PNBCT member riihtghts on those not mandated through their process Anyyy,way, NT is ade quatel ypy represented as 8 of the 11 PNBCT members affiliate to NT (20 July 2004) CROWN FAVOUR PNBC “Ministers have not yet made a formal decision regarding the outstanding Ngati Tama representation issues” “However, both Ministers have expressed sympathy with the PNBCT’s views on this matter” (MICOTOWN and MMA, 20 July 2004) MEETING WITH MINISTER 26 July 2004 two NT groups met with MICOTOWN to express concerns, supported by Ngati Toa & others Landmark ministerial decision: ◦ “To exclude from the PNBC negotiati ons the hist ori cal clai ms of those Ngati Tama people who did not consider themselves appropriately represented by the PNBC” NGATI TAMA RESPONSE Hold firm to our view that PNBCT is not representative of NT in Wellington Acceppgpyt that this agreement provides way forward for separate negotiations Expect Crown to honour Minister’s intentions Noted that PNBCT Deed of Negotiation addressed the issue of mandate for NT (26 July 2004) TERMS OF NEGOTIATION Next day...Crown and PNBC agree to: ◦ Affirm previous day’s undertakings ◦ Discuss with NT the extent to which their claims will be covered by negotiations ◦ Seek to involve NT in negotiations with the Crown when those negotiations directly relate to those entities (27 July 2004) Ngati Tama never consulldted MINISTER CONFIRMS “I acknowledge that there are some Ngati Tama individuals who do not feel that they are represented by the PNBCT” “Based on this and in an effort to move forward, I proposed at our meeting that those Ngati Tama individuals who do not consider themselves to be represented by the PNBCT could have their claims excluded from PNBC negotiations with the Crown” ((g19 August 2004) TRY AND RESOLVE IT Minister Wilson further advises (19 August 2004) “preference for one set of negotiations, but if not resolved those Ngati Tama individuals who did not consider themselves to be represented by the PNBC team could then choose to have their historical claims excluded from the PNBC negotiations” FACILITATION Independent facilitated claimant meetings & lawyers’ meetings NT advises Crown that lawyers’ discussions not successful and asks that Minister’s undertaking to exclude Ngati Tama from PNBC negotiations be honoured (14 June 2005) Crown acknowledges that NT had chosen to have their claims excluded from PNBC negotiations (2 September 2005) PNBC SETTLEMENT Crown and PNBCT sign Agreement in Principle (13 Decem ber 2007) ◦ Reconciliation – apology, forgiveness ◦ Cultural redress – 17 properties transferred ◦ Financial redress - $25m, Shelly Bay, right of refusal ((y)100 years) of Crown ppproperties Deed of Settlement Legislation DEED OF SETTLEMENT All Ngati Tama persons fall within definition of Tarana ki Whanu i ki Te Upok o o Te Ika unless they choose to have their historical claims settled by another group with a Crown recognised mandate. Should a settlement negotiated by that other group become unconditional, those persons will be excluded from the Taranaki Whanui definition in the Deed of Settlement, legislation & governance entity (Clause 8.2.3, DoS, 25 Aug 08) POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Early-mid 2008, Dr Michael Cullen brought a sense of urgency to negotiate and settle claims Crown made a genuine attempt to negotiate a way forward for NT with several options NT fail to reach agreement among themselves and with the Crown: ◦ Divided over settlement provisions ◦ Expectations unrealistic, inflexible, and complicated ◦ UblUnable to keep to tight timeframe NEW LEADER The intention given by former MICOTOWN, Hon Margaret Wilson, to negotiate with those NT who do not consider themselves represente d by PNBCT will be possible if: 1. Two NT groups negotiate under one entity 2. Reconfirm their Crown approved mandate WAY FORWARD Crown recognised mandate almost achieved Next steps: ◦ Enter direct negotiations with Crown ◦ Confirm Agreement in Principle ◦ Deed of Settlement drafted on confirmation ◦ New governance entity created to receive settlement ◦ Legislation to give effect to the settlement OUTCOMES Re-established tribal organisational structure Recognised by the Crown, Iwi, and others Asserting Iwi identity, mana, tino rangatiratanga Providing an independent voice, and focus for advancement of NT interests in Wellington Mutual co-existence and mutual co-operation Valuable insights into the workings of Govt. and the wider state & private sector LESSONS LEARNT Vision and singular focus on key issues Committed individuals & Iwi members Iwi support / Inter-iwi dynamics Crown policy/Govt. officials and key politicians .