Dr Vincent O’Malley has recently given evidence on our behalf in Stafford v Attorney-General.

 

Dr O’Malley is a professional historian and a director of HistoryWorks, a public history consultancy in Wellington that specialises in the Treaty of Waitangi and related matters concerning historical Crown and Māori relationships.

 

He has a BA (Hons) in History (1st Class) from the University of Canterbury and a PhD in New Zealand Studies from Victoria University of Wellington. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of several nonfiction books addressing aspects of New Zealand history and especially the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori-Crown relations historically.

 

For the purposes of our case, Dr O’Malley was asked to address a number of instrumental questions, for example:

 

• Did the Crown reserve 15,100 acres of land for the benefit of the customary owners of the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award? If not, how much land did the Crown actually reserve?

 

• Did the Crown exclude the pā, urupā and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award?

 

• What was the impact of the loss of land on the customary owners? What evidence is there of the socioeconomic conditions in which they lived after 1845 and up to the present day?

 

He also prepared and presented meticulous reply evidence to the Crown witnesses.

 

Dr O’Malley is a pre-eminent New Zealand historian. We are thankful for his skill and knowledge in support of this kaupapa.

 

Ngā mihi Dr O’Malley.

 

In Week 5 the Crown presented its opening submissions to the Court.

 

Here’s a few of the Crown’s assertions, and the way we read them.

  “The defendant acknowledges the deeply felt grievances of the plaintiff and those he represents, and all of the stories in evidence that relate to that… But the defendant invites the Court also to view this from another angle, one that takes in the broad context of the history of this country and then considers the obligations and responsibilities of the Crown in contemporary Aotearoa

 

Our translation: Sorry, not sorry

  “The Crown continues to back its Treaty settlement process as the appropriate means of resolving the issues the subject of this case, and in order to do so in light of the private law duties found to exist, will fully test the application of the remaining steps in the private law process that were initiated by the Supreme Court decision.”

 

Our translation: We will continue to fight you every step of the way

  “The defendant will argue that not only is no land currently held on any trust (of any kind) for the plaintiff, but that the evidence is insufficient to establish breaches of the more general fiduciary the Supreme Court found to have existed… and it is now too late to do justice: the claims are time barred and barred by laches and acquiescence.”

 

Our translation: We will baulk at providing any remedies

  “The defendant denies the facts are sufficient to establish any breach of fiduciary duty across any of the relevant categories of land.”

 

Our translation: The Supreme Court thought differently