Summarised by Centrist
Historian Martin Fisher’s credibility took a hit in the High Court after he admitted key claims in his testimony weren’t directly supported by his sources.
Fisher, a University of Canterbury senior lecturer and author of a book on the Ngāi Tahu settlement, had positioned himself as an independent expert witness—but under cross-examination, he struggled to justify his statements.
The case examines Ngāi Tahu’s claim that its freshwater rights were never settled in its 1990s Treaty agreement. The Crown argues otherwise, saying water was explicitly off the table.
Fisher submitted evidence supporting Ngāi Tahu’s position, but the Attorney-General’s lawyer, Mike Colson KC, pressed him on whether his work was truly neutral. When asked if his 2019 paper, written at the request of a key Ngāi Tahu figure, was meant to assist the iwi’s litigation, Fisher insisted it was simply an account of negotiations—before conceding that his assertion about water rights being an “open question” wasn’t actually backed by his references.
“Come on, Dr Fisher,” Colson said. “You’re supposed to be an independent witness for the court.”
The Crown flatly objected to Fisher’s entire testimony, raising questions about whether he was acting as a historian or an advocate.
