Claims Urgency Hearings - Ngatiwai Trust Mandate Inquiry
Ngatiwai Trust Board underwent a lengthy mandate process to negotiate a Treaty Settlement with the Crown, leading to urgent hearings on concerns over the recognition of the mandate. Claimants allege issues with the mandate process, marae representation, and Crown engagement.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Understanding the Claims Urgency Hearings
What are the urgent hearings about? A Mandate is an authority to act on behalf of others In this instance the Ngatiwai Trust Board asked its members for a mandate to negotiate a Treaty Settlement with the Crown on behalf of Te Iwi o Ngatiwai. The Ngatiwai Trust Board ran an extensive mandating process over a period of 2.5 years with more than 50 hui, 370 written submissions, 285 TV and Radio panui, 2,735 voting packs and three independent reviews. The Crown recognised the NTB s Deed of Mandate on 21 October 2015. On 20 November 2015 the Waitangi Tribunal began to receive applications for urgent hearings to be held to inquire into the Crowns recognition of the NTB s Deed of Mandate for a number of reasons
Summary of Claimants and Hapu Claim No Claimants Hapu or other Group Inc in DoM? Wai 2544 George Davies, Huhana Seve, David Carpenter and Robert Carpenter Ngatiwai ki Whangaruru No specifically Wai 156 Marie Tautari and Rowan Tautari TeWhakapiko Hapu o Ngati Manaia No Wai 745 Jared Pitman, Dr Guy Gudex and Ani Pitman Patuharakeke Yes Wai 2181 Michael Beazley and William Kapea Te Uri o Maki-nui No Wai 2337 Mira Norris and Marina Fletcher Te Parawhau No Wai 2545 Deirdre Nehua Ngatiwai and Ngati Hau Not specifically
Summary of Claimants and Hapu Claim No Claimants Hapu or other Group Incl in DoM? Wai 2546 Mylie George, Carmen Hetaraka, Mike Leuluaiand Ngatio McGee Te Uri o Hikihiki and other Ngatiwai whanau Yes Not specifically Wai 2549 PereriMahanga, Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, Violet Sade, Ngaire Brown and Winiwini Kingi Te Waiariki, Ngati Korora and Ngati Taka Pari Yes Wai 2550 RuihaCollier and Haki Mahanga Te Waiariki and Ngati Korora Yes (as above) Wai 2557 Elvis Reti Himself and his whanau Not specifically Note that the DoM was amended to remove Te Kapotai and their claims on 27 May and the Board has been informed that they intend to withdraw from the urgent hearings.
Wai 2544 George Davies, Huhana Seve, David Carpenter and Robert Carpenter The claimants allege: That the Crown has not ensured that the NTB carried out an open, fair and robust process (i.e. people could not speak openly at mandate hui) There are significant issues surrounding the election of marae representatives who make up the NTB (i.e. A marae chairperson can determine the beneficiaries of a marae and veto candidate nominations) The structure of the NTB does not represent the people of Ngatiwai and there is inadequate hapu representation (i.e. 3/14 Ngatiwai Marae are undeveloped reserves) The Crown did not seek to engage with the claimants when they raised concerns over the DoM (forcing claimants to converse with NTB at all times)
Wai 745 Jared Pitman, Dr Guy Gudex and Ani Pitman (continued) The claimants submit: The Crown has not allowed them to decide who will hold the mandate to settle their claims without Crown interference The Crown did not make appropriate changes to the NTB s DoM following receipt of the claimants submissions opposing the mandate They have never indicated support for, or voted in favour of the NTB DoM A collective mandate has never been given to anyone other than the Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board (PTB) They have not been able to focus on their preparations for Waitangi Tribunal hearings and the present settlement negotiations threaten their funding and rights to a full Waitangi Tribunal inquiry Three settlement entities (NTB, Tuhoronukuand Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua) have been given notice that they do not have a mandate to settle their claims They are forced to withdraw from the NTB s DoM but the process is significantly onerous and costly and they are not in a financial position to fund it The voting results are not reliable enough to demonstrate a majority of support because of the low percentage of votes cast
Wai 156 Marie and Rowan Tautari The claimants allege: The Deed of Mandate claimant definition dose not recognise Te Whakapiko hapu as an active hapu (allowing the NTB to overlook the need for hapu representation for Te Whakapiko) Te Whakapiko hapu have never given its support of mandate to the NTB Inadequate engagement and consultation during the pre-mandate phase The Crown did not require NTB to conduct hui in a way that allowed participants to participate freely and openly When concerns were raised with the Crown they were advised to raise these concerns with the NTB directly OTS have allowed the NTB to withhold relevant mandate information from claimants, creating an environment of mistrust undermining kotahitanga
Wai 745 Jared Pitman, Dr Guy Gudexand Ani Pitman The claimants say that the Crown has failed in its duties to act fairly and in good faith by: Failing to act impartially in its recognition of the NTB s Deed of Mandate Failing to adequately address and respond to the claimants concerns over the application of the Crown s large natural grouping policy Failing to address or resolve concerns relating to the Ngatiwai mandating process, including hui and voting processes Failing to have due regard to the opposition of the claimants to the mandate process, and their inclusion in the NTB s Deed of Mandate; and Failing to carry out a fair process leading up to its recognition of the NTB s Deed of Mandate, and failing to ensure that the mandate was not pre-determined.
Wai 2181 Michael Beazley & William Kapea The claimants note that Te Uri o Makinui tribes are of the Kawerau confederation and submit that the Crown seeks the settlement of Ngatiwai claims within the Kawerau tribal rohe, and does so without consulting the Kawerau people including the claimants. The claimants also submit that the NTB DoM: Fails to acknowledge the existence of Kawerau interest in the area where Ngatiwai claims are to be settled Wrongly includes Kawerau hapu as historic hapu of Ngatiwai; and Was developed without consultation with the claimants or Kawerau people.
WAI 2337 Mira Norris, Marina Fletcher & TamihanaPaki The claimants submit that the Deed of Mandate includes Whangarei Harbour and Parawhaulands. The claimants note that the Deed of Mandate includes Wai 688, which they submit is a Parawhauclaim, and should not be included.
Wai 2545 Deirdre Nehua The claimant submits: That the Crown s essential requirement for mandate to be accepted is that the process undergone is open, fair and robust. However the claimant alleges that the Crown has not upheld that standard. The Crown has not allowed her to decide who will hold the mandate to settle her claim without interference. Instead the Crown has dealt directly with the NTB, and has not resourced any other group to develop an alternative model, or model more appropriate for Ngatiwai. That she has raised concerns with the NTB through written correspondence, at hui and in submissions on the DoM. However nothing eventuated from her input and her concerns were ignored. The process used to consult with Ngatiwai has not been consistent with tikanga and has not allowed Ngatiwai to freely express their concerns in an open forum. The Crown has encouraged NTB to claim areas which are not within the mana whenua of Ngatiwai.
Wai 2546 Mylie George, Carmen Hetaraka, Mike Leuluai & Ngatio McGee The claimants allege: That the Crown s recognition of the NTB DoM will significantly and irreversibly prejudice their whanau and Ngatiwai generally. The claimants allege that the Crown has and will cause them prejudice by recognising a mandate which: Does not have adequate accountability measures Is not representative of Ngatiwai Does not allow for hapu to exercise rangatiratanga Treats Ngatiwai hapu disparately; and Fundamentally misapplies Ngatiwai tikanga
Wai 2549 PereriMahanga, Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, Violet Sade, Ngaire Brown and Winiwini Kingi The claimants assert: That they are not a hapu of Ngatiwai, and that their three hapu (Te Waiariki, Ngati Takapari and Ngati Korora) maintain a defined manawhenuawhich is exclusive, autonomous and independent of Ngatiwai. It is contrary to the genealogical, geographical and geopolitical facts of history in that the claimants are not Ngatiwai; and The claimants for those claims did not consent to their inclusion in the NTB s DoM
Wai 2549 PereriMahanga, Mitai Paraone-Kawiti, Violet Sade, Ngaire Brown and Winiwini Kingi (Con t) The claimants assert that they have suffered and will continue to suffer the following significant and irreversible prejudice: The Crown s disregard of the hapu rangatiratanga of Te Waiariki, Ngati Korora and Ngati Taka Pari hapu The Crown s attempt to acheieve, though the Ngatiwai mandate, what it was unable to achieve through the Ngapuhi mandate The Crown being a party to the re-writing of the whakapapa of Te Waiariki, Ngati Korora and Ngati Taka Pari hapu The potential loss of the ability to seek binding recommendations from the Tribunal with regards to Glenbervie Forest and The deterioration of relationships between the claimants hapu and Ngatiwai The claimants note that there are no other remedies available to them
Wai 2550 RuihaCollier &Haki Mahanga The claimants, who whakapapa to Te Waiariki and Ngati Korora hapu , assert that these hapu are not Ngatiwai hapu. Rather the claimants assert that these hapu are hapu of Ngapuhi. The claimants submit that they have suffered and will continue to suffer significant and irreversible prejudice because of the Crown s failure to consult and adequately engage with the claimants, and the Crown s failure to remove Wai 620 from the NTB Deed of Mandate
WAI 2557 Elvis Reti The claimant alleges that the Crown has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by failing to actively protect his taonga and other interests. The claimant alleges that he is suffering significant and irreversible prejudice as a result of the Crown s recognition of the NTB s Deed of Mandate.
Tribunal Decision 2 May 2016 The Tribunal noted a number of similarities with the Ngapuhi mandate where it identified a central theme : that the Crown had breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by failing to protect actively the ability of hapu to exercise their rangatiratanga in determining when and how they would settle their claims. The Tribunal also noted a series of claims which diverge or depart from the central theme that were more concerned with relationships within kin groups, within marae administration, or in some cases, personal disputes rather than matters that would lead the Tribunal to grant urgency. an example is the requirement in the DoM that nominees for election must be endorsed by the Chairperson of the appropriate marae, who may not be acting properly
Tribunal Decision 2 May 2016 What is central and telling for this application is that the mandate is said to be granted on the Ngatiwai iwi register on the basis of one person one vote and it can not be ascertained which, or if any hapu have given their mandate to the NTB. (Para 292) I apprehend that the central proposition for most claimants is that the confirmation and guarantee contained in Article 2 of Te Triti was to the rangatira, the hapu, and to all of the people, and that is the way that the matter should be dealt with. The Crown should not attempt to go over the head of the hapu without hapu consent. (Para 298))
Tribunal Decision 2 May 2016 It is suggested that the claimants are a small but vocal minority 80 signatures against the mandate in August 2013 525 signatures gained in a petition against the mandate in February 2016 However, in these circumstances it would be difficult indeed for me to find that the present applications are simply an expression of dissatisfaction from a small and vocal group of dissidents. (para 300) I consider it better the problem be addressed at this stage. There is clearly considerable support for the claims. The matter of hapu rangatiratanga is an important issue (para 311)
Tribunal Decision 2 May 2016 the matter to be heard is: a. Are the claimants themselves, or any group of Maori of which they are a member prejudicially affected or likely to be prejudicially affected by a policy or practice, act or omission of the Crown that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty? b. The policy, practice, act or omission alleged is that Crown s recognition of a mandate held by the NTB in relation to the hapu referred to in the NTB s Deed of Mandate without the support and consent of those hapu.
Tribunal Decision 26 May 2016 Further decision on Framing of the Central Theme The central issue relates to the Treaty relationship between the hapu and the Crown and not other groups. The question upon which I have allowed urgency specifically excludes internal processes as a central issue. The issue as currently framed does not restrict claimants and does not restrict hapu except to the extent that they must be named in the Deed of Mandate. The intention is that all claimants and any hapu referred to in the Deed of Mandate may be heard.
Workshop Questions 1. What makes a hapu and what makes an Iwi? 2. What does being Ngatiwai mean to you and what makes us Ngatiwai collectively? 3. Do you agree with one collective Ngatiwai Settlement or should there be several separate settlements? 4. How do we know who are the representatives for each Hapu so that we can seek their consent?
