Historian questioned on apartheid, oppression

Press, 7 December 1988, Page 14

Historian questioned on apartheid, oppression

By

Jane England,

Maori affairs reporter

Questions on apartheid and colonial oppression of Ngai Tahu tribespeople were directed at a Crown historian during a Waitangi Tribunal hearing in Christchurch yesterday.

The questions were raised by tribunal members during the sixteenth hering of inquiry into the tribe’s claim.

The members were tackling issues raised in evidence presented by a Crown historian, Dr Donald Loveridge. A tribunal member, Sir Desmond Sullivan, directed Dr Loveridge to a portion of evidence relating to statements made in 1845 by the leader of the New Edinburgh Association (for Scottish settlers), Captain William Cargill. “Had these people been more numerous it would have given the leaders of our enterprise the greatest pleasure ...” to have promoted the location under their own chiefs and amidst the examples of a civilised community,” Cargill had said. Cargill expanded on that theme: “It is strongly felt that in the present

instance any such reserves would not only be an unneccessary but absolute hindrance to the purpose of the settlers

Sir Desmond Sullivan: “He was practising apartheid wasn’t he? Pushing them out of the area.” Dr Loveridge said it appeared from the evidence that Ngai Tahu tribespeople were not wanted in the area because there were few of them.

Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, another tribunal member, reminded Dr Loveridge that Maori people in current times were often the victims of a power struggle between the Government and the Opposition. “I wonder how much Maori people suffered as the result of the power struggle between the New Zealand Company and the Government. “In the conflict were

the real victims Maori?”

Dr Loveridge: “There was a power struggle between the company and the Crown and certainly neither of them were losers in the exercise.”

Dr Loveridge was then questioned by the tribe’s senior Counsel, Mr Paul Temm Q.C. The questioning again highlighted the fine line between queries and cross-examination. The issue of crossexamination has plagued tribunal hearings on the Ngai Tahu claim. The Crown’s legal Counsel, Mrs Shonah Kenderdine objected after Mr Temm had spent half an hour working through the evidence with Dr Loveridge.

Mrs Kenderdine also objected to the introduction of new material through which Mr Temm sought to question the witness.

Mr Temm had focused

upon the issue of the “Otago tenths,” the tribe’s claim that one-tenth of the land sold was to be reserved for them. Dr Loveridge had accepted that the question of the “tenths” had been discussed until the signing of the deed.

Mr Temm: “This brings us again to what seems to be the primary issue. Is it reasonable to infer that the deed was drawn on the footing that the tenths was to be decided later by the Governor? Dr Loveridge: "Yes.” Mr Temm suggested that a reference in the evidence to a choice of reserves related to land other than that which Ngai Tahu did not want to sell.

Dr Loveridge said that the question of reserves would lie with the Governor.

Mr Temm: “You are sliding past my question. Is it not plain that when

Symonds (a Government official at the time) spoke of further reserves he was speaking of land other than that which Ngai Tahu did not want to sell?”

Dr Loveridge repeated that the issue had been the responsibility of the Governor.

Mr Temm: “Answer my question. Is the answer to the question ‘yes’?” Dr Loveridge: “You have my answer.”

Mr Temm: "It was not of course any part of the land Ngai Tahu reserved for themselves. When Symonds spoke of the reserves is it not clear that he meant Ngai Tahu were to be compensated further?”

Dr Loveridge: “It was up to the Government to decide.”

Sir Desmond Sullivan: “You have his answer.” Mr Temm: “I think that is the key to it sir.”