Crown’s hand glimpsed

Press, 24 February 1988, Page 3

Crown’s hand glimpsed

By

JANE ENGLAND

A first glimpse of the Crown’s case in the Ngai Tahu land claim was revealed before the Waitangi Tribunal yesterday. Counsel for the Crown, Mrs Shona Kenderdine, challenged Dr Ann Parsonson’s contention that the Crown’s failure to .secure the Princes Street reserve represented a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Mrs Kenderdine said history revealed many instances where Crown promises to Maoris or Europeans had not been honoured. “What we have here is a sovereign Government dealing with sovereign citizens. The fact that in this case the citizens happened to be Maori traders appears to the point. “Is it not a fact that unfulfilled non-contrac-tual promises cannot be considered a breach of the treaty?”

Mrs Kenderdine asked Dr Parsonson whether she could prove that the Ngai Tahu tribe had used the original site of the reserve for a landing base before European settlement. Dr Parsonson said the book, “Maori Dunedin,” by Maarire Goodall and George Griffiths, referred to the site’s use as a landing base but did not prove perpetual use before settlement. Dr Parsonson said the case did not rest on perpetual use. Mrs Kenderdine firmly maintained that the site was not sought until after European settlement. “The question of settlement can hardly be considered a breach of the treaty.” The proceedings were interrupted by counsel for the claimants, Mr Paul Temm, Q.C. Mrs Kender-

dine had begun an exposition on the Crown’s argument, he said. “I have no objection to questions but I object to the raising of legal arguments which can be dealt with later,” he said. After a brief adjournment for lunch, the hearing continued with an elder, Mr George Ellison, submitting that the disputed site had been a landing place for hundreds of years.

Mr Temm later said that the European perspective of the dispute was valid: “That the payment was made, and that was that.” Hostility towards the tribunal had arisen through that European perspective, he said. “The tribunal must grapple with it. We cannot ignore it,” he said. However, the claim should not be explored through a European perspective — “which has long been the perspective through which it has been looked at.” Nor should it be explored through a Maori perspective — “through which it has not been looked at.” Instead, the claim should be perceived in the “way of the future, a way where the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are observed. Where the principles protecting the Ngai Tahu were not complied with. The second hearing of the Otago section of the claim finished at the Tamatea marae yesterday. The tribunal will however, continue to hear further evidence on the Banks Peninsula and Kaikoura sections of the claim during a hearing to be held today and tomorrow .