Student 4: High Achieved
History Report
New Zealand is a land that was left relatively untouched, at least by the human hand, for millions of years. It was
settled in around 1250 - 1300AD, by migrants from other Pacific islands, and would soon become a country heavily
associated with territorial warfare, and later on with the bitter results of european colonisation. The native Māori
people have historically has a strong spiritual connection to the land, with the knowledge that respect and good
treatment of it are fundamental. So much so, that many of them directly identified the land with their various
gods. These strong spiritual bonds with their surroundings led to them not having a sense of "ownership" of the
land in a european sense, but that land was something that you lived on, and off, and could never be the
possession of a mere human. These beliefs directly conflict with the european mentality towards land ownership,
so naturally when europeans arrived in New Zealand and attempted to colonise it there quickly arose numerous
grievances towards the native people in terms of land, resources and power.
On February 6th, 1840, a treaty was signed between Pakeha officials and Māori leaders, and this gave all Māori the
rights of British citizens, as well as granting the Queen of England sovereignty over New Zealand. It did not take
long for the miscommunications and misunderstandings surrounding the treaty to become a hotbed for fiery
debate and hundreds of disputes lasting until this very day.
Ngāi Tahu are the iwi that claim the majority of the south island of New Zealand as their ancestral and spiritual
homeland. They migrated south from the east coast down to Wellington due to struggles within the tribe, and led
by Pūraho they moved further south later on for similar reasons. Ngāi Tahu intermarried with the tribe Waitaha
who were already in the south, and adopted their customs concerning the land and its relation to their ancestors.
4
5
Ngāi Tahu signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, one year after they had signed a treaty with the rival tribe Ngati
Toa. They believed that the treaty would bring financial benefits to the tribe, as well as strengthening their
community by having the same rights as British citizens. However, one reason for the treaty, from the point of
view of the British, was to facilitate the ability of the Crown to purchase land from Māori. This seems fair enough,
if Māori were to be treated as British citizens then they should have the ability to buy and sell land that they
possess just as the British, but unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The Crown did not have the interests of the
native people as their reason for making the treaty, they wanted to be able to purchase land to then sell on to
settlers for financial gain. As already stated, in Māori culture they hold distinctly different views towards what land
ownership is, and how it should be dealt with. From 1844-1863, Ngāi Tahu sold their lands in a series of purchases
with the understanding that they would retain the right to access their areas used for food gathering and that
there would schools would be set up for their children where they lived. This side of the deal was not held up by
the crown, something that they would later be forced to apologise for over a century later. It took until 1998 for
Ngāi Tahu to be compensated for their losses, and a settlement of $170,000,000 was eventually settled upon. The
settlement also gave "opportunities for cultural redress", something that was much deserved and allowed Ngāi
Tahu to be seen as equal and respected in New Zealand.
1
The Ngāi Tahu claim process, the claim for the rights and entitlements that they were promised when selling their
land, begun soon after the treaty was signed, the first formal statement being made by Matiaha Tiamorehu in
1849. In the 1870's, Hōri Karei Taiaroa began the claim process in Parliament. The treaty was historically not
considered important in New Zealand. It was seen by most as a formality that did not hold any particular power. In
saying this, there have been a number of government investigations that have held the Ngāi Tahu claims as
legitimate. In 1906 the government gave Ngāi Tahu 142,000 acres of land in Stewart Island and Fiordland to south
island Māori. This land, however, was unusable and unable to be developed. In the early 1920's it was suggested
by a commission of inquiry that Ngāi Tahu should be paid 354,000 pounds in compensation, and in 1944
parliament decided to give Ngāi Tahu 10,000 pounds annually for an indefinite period of time with no tribal
consultation. This underlines the lack of priority that was placed on compensating Ngāi Tahu historically, 10,000
pounds per year in an insult was an insult, and was turned down by Ngāi Tahu.
2
As well as the financial side of things, there were a multitude of other reasons why many Pakeha were against the
idea of a treaty settlement for Ngāi Tahu. The main, and most prevalent concern that many held was that they
would potentially lose their land (this view was mostly held by farmers) to Ngāi Tahu. Many New Zealanders are
descended from early settlers who purchased land in breach of the treaty, and did not want to lose their
livelihood. This concern was unwarranted, and there was no threat of losing their land, especially later on towards
the time of the settlement when New Zealand had become a fully established colony. Before the settlement,
many Ngāi Tahu felt that they were "invisible" in the wider New Zealand community, and one of the main reasons
for pursuing the claim was to attain a level standing with Pakeha in society, not to take land off people who's
ancestors had bought it. It is important that this stage of the claim process not be overlooked, as the widely held
6
7
3
belief that Ngāi Tahu were out to take away peoples land was the source of much controversy, and brings some of
the reasons that many people were opposed to the settlement to light.
The way that the treaty settlement affected society in New Zealand is still a very relevant topic, and can be used as
a way of analysing society at the time. The settlement can be seen as showing the results of a new stage of
development in New Zealand society, "a host of inherited administrative injustices were our overwhelming
concern. In the late 1960s, however, there was a political shift taking place which was driven largely by
demography and Maori urbanisation (sic) Blended with an increasing number of Maori graduates emerging from
our universities (of which I was one) and an increasingly informed frustration at the legislative disempowerment
of our people - there was an emergent political will across Maoridom to confront the power culture and try to
turn things around. This began to mesh with a willingness in Pakeha culture to be more supportive of Maori
grievance. The importance of that should not be underestimated! I and a few of my colleagues both recognised
this emergent climatic change in New Zealand politics and culture and began to engage with it. A few of our
senior kaumatua began to back us with increasing strength and they brought the people along with them. The
old warriors backed the young warriors. The crystallising opportunity, however, came with the election of the
fourth Labour government under David Lange which unleashed a number of opportunities such as the reform of
the Waitangi Tribunal and the State Owned Enterprises Act. The former provided base for historical claims and
the latter an opportunity to take a case of the High Court which forced the issues on to a whole new level of
public attention.' This statement form one of the leaders in the settlement process, Tipene O'Regan, clearly
demonstrates how it was the amalgamation of legislative development and a new, more modern, frame of mind
held by New Zealanders that allowed the settlement to occur.
While the has been fevered as a triumph for Ngāi Tahu, there are still many who believe that the $170,000 was
insufficient compensation. There is no doubt that the lands that Ngāi Tahu lost are worth far more that the
government could possibly afford to give back, and it seems to be a commonly held belief that the settlement was
the best that could have been achieved at the time, a view that is held by both of my interviewees. When asked if
the settlement of $170,000,000 was sufficient, Sir. O'Regan replied as such- "No. But then, it was never going to
be. An appropriate level of compensation was never economically or politically possible - the formal value of the
loss was $16-18 billion in 1990 dollars. Accepting the package that we did was on the basis that it might be
sufficient to form the basis of an intergenerational economy which could support Ngai Tahu culture into the
future... It was the best possible settlement that was available at the time. I am confident that there was
'nothing left on the table'. That said there were some pretty big disappointments - the outcome on the old claim
to the 'Hole in The Middle'; The Otago Tenths outcome; the failure to settle the fresh water rights question and
the unresolved position of customary rights generally. There's others but I can rest, knowing that at the time
and in the situation we were in we could not have done more. I believe the right decision was the decision to
settle rather than leave the task for another generation to fight."
8
The significance of the settlement lies not only in the financial compensation given to Ngāi Tahu, but in the
restoration of their rights as the first inhabitants of the south island of New Zealand. It also can not be ignored that
the government's official apology to the tribe for their grievances and their acknowledgement of the tribe have
assisted Ngāi Tahu in establishing themselves as an integral part of New Zealand society, something that has been
long awaited and that money can never buy.
The Ngāi Tahu treaty settlement was, and still is a vital and important part of New Zealand history. It highlights
both negative and positive aspects of our society, and in doing so is an invaluable insight into race relations in our
country. It is terrible that it took so long for the settlement to occur, and it should not be forgotten that New
Zealand citizens, both Māori and Pakeha, have had to fight for generations to achieve what is now considered to
be a fundamental move in modernising and legitimising our nation, and as something that had to happen. The
settlement did not give Ngāi Tahu sufficient money in relation to the losses that they have incurred, but it did
acknowledge them, something that many of our forefathers had neglected to do for so long. The Ngāi Tahu treaty
settlement has given the iwi the ability to build' ', and to provide for future generations, which is and always will be
an invaluable asset to the tribe.
9