The Waitangi Tribunal today declared the Ngai Tahu people have legitimate Otago land grievances.
It did not recommend Otago land be returned to the tribe, but that some compensation was necessary for breaches of the treaty.
While the report released today did not recommend what form compensation should take, it acknowledged the Crown had failed to provide enough land for Otakou Maoris to form an economic base for the future.
Retrospectively, the tribunal found the tribe was left with only sufficient land for bare subsistence, with no opportunity to turn, as European settlers did, to pastoral farming.
The tribunal upheld a claim that the Crown failed to provide an economic base, acting in breach of treaty principles.
To detail the shortfall of land for Ngai Tahu, the tribunal compared the 9615 acres left them with the 8650 acres awarded to Mr John Jones, of Waikouaiti, in December 1844.
An additional 2560 acres was granted to him in 1849, giving him 11,060 acres. This provided more than 1000 acres for each member of his family, in stark contrast to the 30 acres a head for the Ngai Tahu, based on an estimate of 335 people.
The tribunal said it could not uphold claims based on the Crown's failure to provide tenths of land purchased and return it to the tribe.
No evidence
It found no evidence that such a condition was in place at the time Otakou land was sold.
Of the estimated 400,000 acres intended for purchase, three areas were to be reserved from the sale; a large block on the western side of the Otakou Heads, a reserve at Taieri and another at Molyneux, together found to contain 9615 acres.
When the agreement was completed on July 31, 1844, it was explained to Ngai Tahu that they had, in disposing of their land, surrendered their interest and title to that land and that the consent was binding for themselves as well as their children.
They were told they would have to leave any part of the land occupied by them and confine themselves to the reserves.
"There is nothing in the agreement or in the contemporary record of the negotiations to suggest that the company or Crown agents promised to ensure that tenths would be provided."
Defective
The tribunal found that instructions from the governor of the day, Captain Robert Fitzroy, to Mr John Symonds, who supervised land sales on behalf of the Crown, were defective.
While Mr Symonds had followed instructions . . . [these] had failed to ensure the Maoris retained sufficient land for their present and future needs.
This fact puzzled the tribunal because Captain Fitzroy believed that as a general rule tenths should be reserved for Maori vendors, in addition to lands for their occupation.
"The failure on the part of the Crown either to make such provision for tenths or to make other adequate provision, constituted a breach of treaty principle.
"It was clear that Ngai Tahu had been prejudicially affected by such failure on the part of the Crown."
The tribunal also spoke of three claimants' Otakou grievances, which related to the Princes St reserve.
The Crown had been accused of failing to set aside the Otepoti (Dunedin) reserves as promised at the time of the sale and that it failed to create the Princes St reserve in 1853.
No mention
There was no mention of a reserve at Dunedin in the Otakou purchase deed of 1844 or in any other documentation at the time of the purchase. The tribunal was not satisfied the Princes St reserve had been promised ...
Accordingly, there was no breach of the treaty.
In conclusion, it said the Crown's failure to meet treaty obligations rested more on failure to ensure Ngai Tahu retained sufficient land for their present and future needs.
The tribunal considered that if Ngai Tahu are compensated for that breach of the treaty, as they should be, such compensation should more than encompass any perceived loss by Ngai Tahu of "their Princes St reserve".