Disaffected
members of Bay of Plenty iwi Ngati Ranginui failed in attempts to identify
historical possession of land as a separate hapu entitling it to specific
compensation within the iwi’s $38 million Treaty settlement.
Ngati Ranginui settled compensation with the Crown
in 2014 for nineteenth century land confiscations in the Tauranga region. The iwi had decided that 30 per cent of its
Treaty settlement would be shared equally amongst hapu with the balance divided
on a formula proportionate to land wrongly confiscated. Pirirakau, with its 1273 registered adult
members, was recognised as one of eight hapu within the iwi. Ngati Taka, with 306 members, also claimed to
be a separate hapu and was accorded this status over the objections of Pirirakau;
the two hapu share a common ancestor in paramount chief Te Ua Maungapohatu. Matters reached a head over distribution of
the 70 per cent as direct compensation for loss of land. Between Pirirakau and Ngati Taka about eight
million dollars is at stake. Pirirakau
said it held mana whenua over the land during the period of confiscations: 1840
to 1865. Ngati Taka then held no
separate status as a hapu, it said The
two hapu agreed to go to arbitration.
The arbitrators found for Pirirakau.
Ngati Taka appealed, claiming the arbitration process was flawed: due
process was not followed and one arbitrator was biased.
The Court of Appeal was told Mr Kuku Wawatai,
head of Maori Studies at Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, together with retired Maori
Land Court judge Mr Heta Hingston were appointed arbitrators. At the outset Mr Hingston disclosed his
spouse has links to Pirirakau. The two
hapu agreed the process to be followed for their arbitration.
The Court of Appeal stated that the process
actually followed could not in any sense be regarded as a model arbitration,
but the two hapu did follow the arrangements agreed upon. The process could not be said to have
prevented a fair hearing. Mr Hingston’s
links to Pirirakau had been disclosed and there were no allegations of actual bias. The result of the arbitration stood.
Bidois
v. Leef – Court of Appeal (18.05.15)
15.050