Commissioner ‘deceived’ Ngai Tahu

Press, 29 June 1988, Page 4

Commissioner ‘deceived’ Ngai Tahu

A land purchase commissioner deliberately deceived the Ngai Tahu tribe to buy the area which now encompasses the Fiordland National Park, the Waitangi Tribunal was told. The area formed part of a claim presented to the tribunal in February. National parks in other areas claimed by the tribe during the last year included the Mount Cook (Aoraki) and Mount Aspiring National Parks. Many of the South Island’s most scenic lakes including those encompassing hydro-electric dams are covered in the claim. The tribe has claimed its right to all inshore and offshore fisheries in the tribal area which covers a third of the South Island.

The question of remedies sought in the claim has not yet been tackled specifically by the tribe.

During the current hearing, a member of the Waitangi Tribunal, Mr Gordon Orr, suggested a Christchurch historian, Mr James McAloon, was deliberately “blackening” the character of the land purchase commissioner for the disputed Fiordland area.

Mr McAloon said he believed, on the basis of evidence pre' that the commiss oner, Mr Walter Mantell, engaged in deliberate deception to

acquire the land West of the Waiau River.

During his evidence Mr McAloon referred to the naming of a rock in the Colac Bay area as “Te Upoko a Matara,” the head of Mantell. Mr McAloon said the insulting implications were obvious. He referred to the explanation of a kaumatua, Poko Cameron, as recorded by an historian, Herris Beattie. “The idea had been to kill Mantell and put his head on the kn 011... he was not a truthful man,” the kaumatua had said. “Do you expect us to believe that you are not making a serious attack on the man’s character?” said Mr Orr. Mr McAloon said he was not attempting to “blacken” Mr Mantell’s character. He wished, instead, for the tribunal gauge the man by his actions, he said. "Whether Mantell acted deliberately to deceive or was merely very careless the effect was the same. “Kai Tahu—Kati Mamoe were deprived of the land west of the Waiau and Of the other areas included in the Murihiku block, without the clear and open agreement of all who had rights to the land.” Mr McAloon modified some of the conclusions drawn at an earlier hearing. Corrected translations

were presented on some evidence from the SmithNaim Royal Commission in 1880. Mr McAloon said the witnesses before the commission, Matiaha Tiramorehu and Wiremu Potiki understood that the land negotiated adjoined the Otago block.

There was no evidence that the area included Fiordland and “some that it did not." Matiaha’s testimony revealed that the word “Murihiku” did not refer to the land beyond the Waiau River. Other witnesses to the sale, Topi Patuki, Horomona Patu and Horomona Pohio, explicity said that Mantell was told the land west of the Waiau was not for sale.

Mr McAloon refuted a theory that reserves claimed at Piopiotahi indicated that the disputed area had been sold. The case of reserves did not necessarily imply the sale of adjoining land or bind others who refused to sell the land. Mr McAloon said the further presentation of evidence followed the “unearthing” of oral traditional evidence and documents from the SmithNairn Commission.

“It reinforces my submission to the tribunal last February, that the land west of the Waiau was never properly acquired by the Crown.”