Return of land a strong possibility?

Press, 8 December 1988, Page 14

Return of land a strong possibility?

Extensive evidence on Maori reserves in Otago, Southland and Rakiura, were yesterday presented to the Waitangi Tribunal by a Crown witness. Mr David Alexander, a consultant town and country planner, said he would have been unable to present the “fresh” evidence without the aid of tribal researchers, Mr Trevor Howse, Mr Syd Cormack, and Mr Simon Hadfield. Mr Alexander suggested that there were strong possibilities that Otago land at Harrington Point could be returned to the tribe. Earlier evidence showed that compensation had been paid to the tribe.

He upheld grievances relating to Lake Tatawai, on the Taieri Plains.

The fact that Ngai Tahu pursuance of the grievance relating to fishing rights had weakened during the 1920 s was no excuse for the “cavalier” manner in which those rights were extinguished, he said.

“Compensation in my opinion was an entitlement and should have been provided,” said Mr Alexander.

Mr Sydney Cormack had outlined grievances relating to Taieri land not allocated. under the HalfCaste and Landless Natives Act.

However, neither Maori Land Court or Bruce District Council records suggested that the land had been taken by the council. There was some indication that the Crown had sought permission from Maori owners before taking land in Marunuku for a scenic reserve. But the Crown did not request the signed consent of owners.

Land in the same area had been taken for a recreation area at the “urging” and financial support of the Clutha County Council.

“I have found no evidence of any identification of the owners by the Crown, nor any consultation or negotiation by the Crown with the owners.”

If logging occurred on the reserve it was an arrangement made without the safeguards which could have been provided by the Maori Land Court. He presented further

evidence on the Waimumu reserve, which became the source of a grievance as the site of the Mount Hedgehope television transmitter. He found that Maori Land Court records were not complete in recording the attitude of Maori owners when it gave the Maori Trustee authority to sell amalgamated land in Invercargill. The Invercargill City Council and Southland Council had been seeking instead a naming by the Court of someone they could talk to about weeds on the seven amalgamated sections. “I am unable to explain why the Court went further than it seemed to need to,” said Mr Alexander.

Further evidence was presented on eight grievances relating to reserves at Aparima, Southland. Mrs Eva Wilson, Mrs Jane Davis, and Mr Wiremu Davis had represented tribal dissatisfaction at a council refusal to construct a Maori pa on the pilot reserve. Mr Alexander said he found the council’s reasoning fair in terms of planning case law. Mr Cormack had claimed that 28 acres of the Aparima reserve had been taken for a rifle range — never used for that purpose — and was later claimed as Crown land.

“Because of legislation and policy no consideration was given to contacting the previous owners or their descendants and offering the rifle range back to them,” said Mr Alexander.

He could find nothing in the Crown agent’s report relating to the sale of land in Southland to establish why the full Maori burial area was not reserved at Aparima.

Only two sections of the Riverton reserve had not been willingly sold by Maori owners, he said. Of the two sections taken under the Public Works Act one was formerly part of a Maori roadway. The other had been taken under the act when attempts to call a meeting of owners proved unsuccessful. Mrs Davis had claimed that a recognised landing

place had been taken for industrial use. The industrial fishing zone changed the value of the land, said Mr Alexander.

Mr Alexander upheld claims by Mrs Naomi Bryan that her property had been devalued by the use of adjoining land for oxidation ponds. However, Mrs Bryan and other owners had not taken earlier opportunities to object.

Her obection to the water right for oxidation pond effluent discharge into the ground had been withdrawn. Mr Alexander found that Mrs Bryan’s family property had not faced restrictions or disadvantages under recreational zoning. The section had adequate road access for a house site, he said. A complaint that part of Carrol Street was widened to encompass part of the Aparima reserve, was upheld. A grievance relating to leasehold title at Oraka was dismissed by Mr Alexander. He said the land had been leased to the claimant.

The legislation relating to roads behind the cemetery in the Oraka area and matter of compensation represented “unfinished business.” The Wallace County Council was attempting to resolve the matter.

Mr Alexander found that an alternative section of land had been awarded to the Maori owners of land now used for the Colac Bay School.

He found that 26 acres of land in Merrivale should still be regarded as Maori land “unless determined otherwise in the future.”

Mr Cormack had claimed that the land had become defined for European use without a sale being recorded. The Matariki Pa and Pahia Kainga sites became Crown lands under the terms of purchase in the Murihiku deed, said Mr Alexander.

He upheld a grievance in Te Waewae Bay reserve that the Crown appeared to have failed to protect the owners of land awarded under the HalfCaste and Landless Natives Act.