Jean Joseph’s comment on Facebook – Re: Court case Glendith Samson vs Reuban Peterson on behalf of Waimahana Marae

Jean Joseph‘s comment on Facebook – Puhi O Te Waka – Waimahana Marae Committee on 31 Dec 2024

Kiaora

Good question Valerie. IF YOU RECALL. THERE WAS A COURTCASE AGAINST GLENDITH SAMSON by Reuban Peterson to stop elected KKTB Trustee o Waimahana onto the marae to give update. The Court Injuction was not upheld by the Maori Land Court, however due to the fiction created until the marae committee recinder or when elected marae trustees invite we remain polite. However, at the recent AGM there was 3 waimahana registered beneficiaries present whom live in Waimahana. Thank goodness, it gave me hope that there are whanau who are willing to get information and question and take a stand. I hope I have answered your question about Glendith and I.

Ngamihi

Graham Williams response to Jean Joseph‘s comment on Facebook

If you read the court minutes, you’ll realize Jean Joseph‘s comments above are not correct. Reuban Peterson was not trying to stop Glendith Samson from attending the marae. He was asking the court for an injunction to stop Glendith Samson saying that she represents the Waimahana Marae, when she had not been elected or authorized to do so by the Maori Land Court approved Waimahana Marae Committee.

The ruling to decline Reuban Peterson‘s application eluded to in the minutes by Judge Armstrong below is that the Maori Land Court jurisdiction does not extend to the Kahukuraariki Trust Board as it is not a Maori Trust. The only options would be to take the matter to the High Court or the Waitangi Tribunal.

Unfortunately, Jean Joseph, Glendith Samson and the Kahukuraariki Trust Board continue to misrepresent themselves as representing the Waimahana Marae, despite not being elected nor authorized to do so by the Waimahana Marae Committee.

Maori Land Court – 179 TTK 152-168 Minutes (Reuban Peterson – 30 August 2018)

Request for information as a non-registered member of KTB

Kia ora Trustees,

The Trust Board is obligated to include all members of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa in the process specified in Clause 33 of the KTB Trust Deed, whether they are registered or not, and as such I stand clearly within the parameters of the Trust Board. The Trust Board has failed to include all members in this process, as I was excluded from the SGM/AGM hui on the 18th June 2022, and I was denied the opportunity to present and discuss my serious concerns outlined in my letter in relation to the Resolution 1 – Ownership of Stoney Creek Station process outlined in Clause 33. The subsequent attempts to address my concerns by your GM via email, and the erroneous summary report provided by Toko have failed. My concerns remain unresolved, hence my outstanding requests for information.

My current outstanding requests that are unresolved:

1) Confirmation of my complaint in relation to being denied confirmation of my beneficiary status. Still waiting after more than a year.

2) Confirmation of my complaint in relation to being excluded from the SGM and AGM held on 18th June 2022. Still waiting after almost a year. Ms Baker has confirmed in her email below that the link provided to the SGM and AGM was to enable registered members only an opportunity to participate and/or view both hui in real time. This of cause means that non-register members were excluded, which in itself is a breach of the KTB Trust Deed Clause 33 to provide an open, transparent, and fair process to all members of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

3) A full copy of the zoom recordings of the SGM and AGM that I was excluded from held on 18th June 2022. If you can’t provide this then please provide me with the contact details and authority of the communications consulting service you engaged, so I can arrange for a copy of the hui zoom recording. Also, I have an email from your office confirming the existence of the zoom recording.

4) Copy of all of the SGM documentation including agenda, advertisements, minutes, and attendance register for the SGM held in relation to Clause 33.2 of the Trust Deed. As detailed in Toko’s summary report “Schedule 2, Point C – During the consultation process and at a Special General Meeting (SGM) called to discuss Stony Creek Station”. This is not available on your website. In fact, I’m not sure your GM understands exactly what SGM I’m asking about, as I don’t believe she has a detailed understanding of your Trust Deed , specifically Clause 33.2.

5) Copy of Toko’s full report relating to the Resolution 1 and Resolution 2 engagements, consultation, and meetings: including agenda, advertisements, minutes, and attendance registers. This is not available on your website.

Unfortunately, since you refuse to provide the information, I have requested, I can only assume that the process followed, voted on and passed by your administration under Clause 33 in relation to Resolution 1 – Ownership of Stoney Creek Station, has not met the conditions laid out in Clause 33, and as such any decisions relating to this matter are null and void. This coupled with your exclusion of non-registered members is a clear breach of the process and conditions outlined in Clause 33.

Nga mihi,

Graham Williams

Member of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa

Non-registered members yet again denied access to Kahukuraariki AGM (2022, 2023 and now 2024)

2 December 2024

Kahukuraariki Trust Board

P O Box 788, Kerikeri 0295

By email: admin@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz

RE: Kahukuraariki AGM 2024

Dear Chair and Trust Board,

Thank you for your letter dated the 4th September 2024 responding to my letter of 5th August 2024.

Thank you for acknowledging that I have provided my whakapapa and birth certificate to the Trust Board confirming my status as a “member of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa”; as in I whakapapa to Ngati Aukiwa.

Thank you for outlining your Trust registration process; however, I’ve never asked how I can become a “registered member” of the Trust. In providing my whakapapa and birth certificate I am providing proof that I am a “member of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa”, and as such a beneficiary of your Trust. I do not have to register to be a beneficiary, nor do I have to register to be able to participate in and afforded access to AGM, SGM, minutes etc as per your Trust Deed. I believe this matter was addressed in my lawyer’s letter to you more than a year ago on the 25 September 2023, and again to your lawyer on the 21 November 2023. You acknowledged receiving my lawyer’s letter at the 2023 AGM, and reaffirmed receiving it again in your recently published Kahukuraaki Trust Annual Report 2024 of the 16th September 2024. To date we have not received a reply from you nor your lawyer.

Unfortunately, by only offering to allow me to attend the latest AGM as an observer, you have yet again denied me the opportunity to participate in the latest KTB AGM; which is the third straight year that I have been denied my rights as a beneficiary.

Additionally, as requested in my previous letter, can you please provide the contact details of the new Trustees?

Yours Faithfully,

Mr Graham Williams

Member of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa

Correspondence Address:

Graham Williams

PO Box 301347

Albany 0632

Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2024 – Brief Review

From: graham.williams@wairuakiwi.com
Date: 19 September 2024 at 4:48:51 PM AEST
To: Teresa Tepania-Ashton <teresa.tepania-ashton@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>
Cc: April Hetaraka <ahetaraka@gmail.com>, Hinepotaurangi Jean Joseph <jjhinepotaurangi@gmail.com>, Roger Kingi <rateakingi@xtra.co.nz>, Norm Mckenzie <norm.mckenzie@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>, Ana Hotere <anahotere@gmail.com>, Waitangi Wood <tauihoitepotrust@gmail.com>, Roger Kingi <roger.kingi@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>, Hone JJ Ripikoi <jj@farnorth.me>

Subject: Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2024 – Brief Review

Kia ora Teresa,

I’ve just finished reviewing your yet to be approved Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2024 and Financial Statements, and the Trustees may wish to have your accountant review your GM’s flawed analysis, as it implies that the operational loss this year of $187k are due to market highs and lows of the Milford Investment portfolio performance in 2024, which according to the details recorded in your published Financial Statements is clearly not true.

GM quote: “The Balance continues to show a healthy $19,541,930 equity (net owned assets), which is inclusive of the Milford Investment Portfolio. There is difference (a loss) of approx. $187,000, compared with last year, which in the scheme of investment market highs and lows, is not significant for long term investors like the Trust. Over the long term, invested funds will even out and will continue to provide a competitive rate of return as long as the majority of the quantum remains intact.”

The Milford Investment portfolio performance in 2024 resulted in a net profit of approximately $500k not a $187k loss, according to your Financial Statements. The Milford Investment portfolio balance dropped from $5.7m in 2023 to $5.5m in 2024 due to withdrawals to cover your excessive administration and operational expenses. Your investment strategies over the past 4 years have failed to provide enough revenue to cover your operational expenses hence your losses. It’s reasonable to accept losses for a year or so, but 4 years straight without even attempting to rein in your operational costs nor adequately adjusting your investment strategy is concerning to say the least.

The Trust’s primary responsibility is to manage the settlement assets for its present and future beneficiaries; however, I’m concerned over the serious losses incurred over the past 4 years; 2021 – $380,000, 2022 – $630,000, 2023 – $570,000, and now in 2024 – $187,000. The exceptional Milford Investment portfolio gains in 2020 of $1.5 million have now been extinguished as I predicted in my analysis last year. The Milford Investment portfolio 4 years ago was $6.9 million, however its diminished to $5.5 million in 2024. The primary reason for these losses based on reviewing your accounts over the past 4 years, would be the excessive Administration and Operational costs; in 2023 – $1.2 million, and yet again in 2024 – $1 million. What does the Trust intend to do about reversing these excessive Administration and Operational costs?

I’ll leave others to comment on the inaccurate 2023 AGM Minutes, as yet again I was denied the opportunity to attend, speak and vote as a non-registered member. Could you please ensure that this email is tabled at your 2024 AGM as a matter of record?

Nga mihi,

Graham Williams

Member of Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa

References:

  1. Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2024: https://www.kahukuraariki.iwi.nz/kahukuraariki-trust-annual-report-2024/

Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2023 – Brief Review

From: graham.williams@wairuakiwi.com <graham.williams@wairuakiwi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2023 3:46 pm
To: ‘Teresa Tepania-Ashton’ <teresa.tepania-ashton@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>
Cc: ‘April Hetaraka’ <ahetaraka@gmail.com>; ‘Hinepotaurangi Jean Joseph’ <jjhinepotaurangi@gmail.com>; ‘Roger Kingi’ <rateakingi@xtra.co.nz>; ‘Norm Mckenzie’ <norm.mckenzie@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>; ‘Ana Hotere’ <anahotere@gmail.com>; ‘Waitangi Wood’ <tauihoitepotrust@gmail.com>; ‘Roger Kingi’ <roger.kingi@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>; ‘Hone JJ Ripikoi’ <jj@farnorth.me>

Subject: Re: Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2023 – Brief Review

Kia ora Teresa,

I’ve just finished reviewing your yet to be approved Kahukuraariki Trust Annual Report 2023 and Financial Statements, and the Trustees may wish to have your accountant review it, as there are mistakes in your GMs analysis which misrepresents the Milford Investment portfolio performance in 2023, compared to the details recorded in your published Financial Statements.

The Milford Investment portfolio performance in 2023 resulted in a net loss of $100k not $570k, according to your Financial Statements. The Milford Investment portfolio balance dropped from $6.6m in 2022 to $5.8m in 2023 due primarily to withdrawals to cover your administration and operational expenses. Your investment strategies over the past 3 years have failed to provide enough revenue to cover your increasing expenses hence your losses. It’s reasonable to accept losses for a year or so, but 3 years straight without even attempting to rein in your increasing costs nor adequately adjusting your investment strategy is concerning to say the least.

The Trust’s primary responsibility is to manage the settlement assets for its present and future beneficiaries; however, I’m concerned over the serious losses incurred over the past 3 years; 2021 – $380,000, 2022 – $630,000, and now in 2023 – $570,000. The exceptional Milford Investment portfolio gains in 2020 of $1.5 million are likely to be fully extinguished by 2024 at this rate. The Milford Investment portfolio 3 years ago was $6.9 million, however its diminished to $5.8 million in 2023. A major reason for these losses based on reviewing your accounts over the past 3 years, would be the massive increase in Administration and Operational costs relating to Staff Salaries and Trustee Fee Payments, which on average account for about 40-45% of the losses for each respective year. The Administration and Operational costs in 2020 were – $114k ($53k and $61k), in 2021 – $176k ($91k and $85k), in 2022 – $266k ($225k and $41k), and in 2023 – $287k ($227k and $60k). What does the Trust intend to do about reversing this trend of excessive losses?

Also, while reviewing the latest Financial Statements for 2023, I noted that the Trust received $376k worth of NIWA/VMC grants from the Crown and paid out $448k to NIWA for NROP. I note that the Trust doesn’t appear to record any equity interest in the NROP / Seafood International Ltd (SIL) entity. Why doesn’t the Trust own part of the NROP / Seafood International Ltd (SIL) entity considering they’ve contributed significant Trust funds?

I’ll leave others to comment on the inaccurate 2022 SGM & AGM Minutes, and the lack of an independent attendance register for the 2022 SGM, as I was denied participation in both as a non-registered member. Could you please ensure that this email is tabled at your 2023 AGM this coming Saturday as a matter of record?

Nga mihi,

Graham Williams

Member of Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa

References:

Latest – Re: Organize a hui with Peterson/Thomas whanau occupying Stony Creek Station


From: graham.williams wairuakiwi.com <graham.williams@wairuakiwi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2022 5:05 pm
To: Trustees
Cc: Andrew.Little@parliament.govt.nz; kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz; Toko Kapea <T.Kapea@tuiagroup.com>
Subject: Re: Organize a hui with Peterson/Thomas whanau occupying Stony Creek Station

Kia ora Trustees,

I appreciate the attempt of your administration to provide the information we have requested; however, they have fallen well short of establishing good faith. Geraldine has only provided draft minutes of the SGM and AGM 2022 hui, which are very brief considering the gravity of the Resolutions, particularly Resolution 1: Ownership of Stoney Creek Station. Numerous breaches, discussions and comments that occurred at the SGM have not been minuted. I was refused access to the online Zoom SGM by Geraldine as I was not a registered member, which according to Clause 33 as a member (registered or not) is a breach of your own Trust Deed. I believe that initially Missy Peterson was also asked to leave the SGM, as she was not a registered member, but luckily common sense prevailed. Also, my Letter was not discussed at the SGM, even though it raised questions over potential breaches in relation to Resolution 1: Ownership of Stoney Creek Station process, specifically Clause 33.2. As a start, providing a link to the SGM zoom recording would have been a sign of good faith and transparency as per clause 33.1, but no that has not been provided.

My questions and requests for information have nothing to do with the Settlement Process that finished in 2017. My questions and requests for information are to do with the Trust Board fulfilling their obligations as Trustees under the Trust Deed, which despite Geraldine’s curt email reply and Toko Kapea’s Summary Report have been left unanswered. Toko’s report does not provide proof that the Trustees followed the Resolution 1: Ownership of Stoney Creek Station process, outlined in Clause 33.2. This is why we have requested additional information, which hasn’t been provided.

As you must appreciated, it is very frustrating as a member to be denied access to hui and information that is my right under the Trust Deed, and your administration has done little to help by refusing to openly communicate or even recognize its own members as defined in your own Trust Deed.

I’m happy to engage in an open, fair, and transparent manner, so we can move forward; however, you and your administration has failed to do so to date.

Nga mihi

Graham Williams


From: Missy Peterson <m.peterson01@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2022 3:19 pm
To: Geraldine Baker <geraldine.baker@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>; Annwyn Buchanan <cramond8@yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Trustees
Subject: Re: Organise a hui with Peterson/Thomas whanau occupying Stony Creek Station

Kia ora Geraldine,

Thank you for what you have so far provided, however I am still awaiting access to the rest of the documents requested as a ‘member of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa’ I have attached a copy of this request from some months ago.  

Missy


From: Geraldine Baker <geraldine.baker@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2022 1:39 pm
To: Missy Peterson <m.peterson01@hotmail.com>; Annwyn Buchanan <cramond8@yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Trustees
Subject: RE: Organise a hui with Peterson/Thomas whanau occupying Stony Creek Station

Kia ora Missy,

We have responded to your requests for information.

Please advise whether a hui is possible to discuss options between the Trust, the whanau who continue to occupy Stony Creek Station, and those Iwi members who support them. As stated in my previous email, we are not looking to re-examine the settlement process or to be abused or harassed. The Trustees are now focussed on the future and what potential opportunities there could be for all Iwi members. This could include warm and affordable housing options, hauora and wellness programs, business and tourism enterprises and employment, and so on.  

Again, I look forward to your earliest response, thanks.

Nga mihi

Geraldine Baker

Kaiwhakahaere Matua

Kahukuraariki Trust Board


From: Missy Peterson <m.peterson01@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2022 10:07 pm
To: Geraldine Baker <geraldine.baker@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>; Trustees; kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz; andrew.little@parliament.govt.nz; graham.williams@wairuakiwi.com
Subject: Re: Organise a hui with Peterson/Thomas whanau occupying Stony Creek Station

Kia Ora Geraldine,

I have been tasked with the job of responding to your email regarding the above subject matter.  As a show of good faith by the KTB and to move forward, can you please provide the documents (view the KTB Minute Book, AGM/SGMs minutes including 2022) that Graham Williams and I (as members of Ngatikahu Ki Whangaroa) have requested in earlier correspondence with you as General Manager of KTB, Rosie Conrad as KTB Admin and Teresa Tepania (chairperson of KTB). 

Nga mihi

Missy


From: Geraldine Baker <geraldine.baker@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2022 3:24 pm
To: Annwyn Buchanan <cramond8@yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Waitangi Wood <tauihoitepotrust@gmail.com>; Teresa Tepania-Ashton <teresa.tepania-ashton@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>; Rosie Conrad <rosie.conrad@kahukuraariki.iwi.nz>; ‘Norm McKenzie’ <norm.mckenzie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Subject: Organise a hui with Peterson/Thomas whanau occupying Stony Creek Station
Importance: High

Tena koe Annwyn,

At the Trust Board meeting held last month in Tamaki Makaurau, the Board agreed to attempt to hui with the whanau/some of the hapu of Ngati Aukiwa, currently occupying the whenua known as Stony Creek/Waikohautu Station. We understand this has been attempted many times before in the past but not with this current set of Trustees.

The purpose of a hui would be for both sides to try and reconcile and talk through a resolution that is satisfactory to both parties. Sounds simple but we all know, the matter is sensitive and may take some time to resolve. It may the first of many hui to get to a place where both are agreeable or may be the only hui where nothing is achieved and a stalemate remains.

The Trustees will not be there to re-examine what happened in the past; or the settlement process; or to be verbally abused or harassed. They will attend under the presumption both sides want to find a solution that is future-based, where the outcome is focussed on delivering benefit for future generations of Ngati kahu ki Whangaroa Iwi members.

If you think this is doable, please let me know and together we can start to organise something that suits most peoples availability.

Nga mihi

Geraldine Baker

Kaiwhakahaere Matua

Kahukuraariki Trust Board