From: dmanuel.ngatikahukiwhangaroa [mailto:dmanuel.ngatikahukiwhangaroa@vodafone.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2014 8:03 p.m.
To: Moana Tuwhare; Norm McKenzie
Cc: Ben Dalton; Richard Hawk; Pita Pangari; Sandra Hei Hei; Dave Henare; Manaaki Poto; Michael Sheehan; Lee Cherie King; AJ Buchanan; Mark McKenzie; Taiporohenui Day; Adrian Tua; Ani Roberts; Diane Rainey; dennis
Subject: FW: Meeting tomorrow
Importance: High

Kia ora koutou

There seems to be a confusion of word interpretation I sent in the board letter to David Tapsell and a lack of knowledge of what has and is happening. Below is the email cancelation from David Tapsell. I also tabled this korero at the Taemaro hui-a-iwi last weekend where Joe Aperehama said that “Te Aukiwa said to the working parti not to meet NKKWTB.” Uncle Davey, Harry Brown and Pita will validate this. There seems to be some contradiction of what has happened and what has been said. I do not lie and take offense when accusations are pointed at me. I have been present at past Waimahana marae hui tikanga where matua Mike Petera has said to me ” me korero Koutou i te Kawanatanga, kahore matou i hiahia te tautoko.”

When Ben Dalton was facilitating korero between mea and the board Dec 2013 he made it quite clear that Aukiwa occupiers didn’t want to talk to the board.

I asked at the hui-a-iwi at Taemaro, ko wai ratou Te Aukiwa

1. Te Umanga Ltd
2. Roha Logging
3. Paeara
4. Working Party

No answer by anyone.

The board represent all descendants of Kahukuraariki and Haititai marangai and are mandated to do so. When it comes to ratification time, the truth will be spoken by the people whether to accept or not the crown offer. It will be decided by the majority not the minority.

I believe knowledge of our whakapapa is essential and that can only come from our kaumatua.

I extent a invitation now to all parties concerned to meet myself and nga Kaumatua to discuss the whakapapa and maybe a possibility to move forward together. Te kotahi tatou. If it is OK with Te Heamana o Taemaro, we could possibly have this hui at Taemaro soon, say

Saturday, 4th October 2014

10.00am start

Kei Konei te taki

David Manuel (Te Heamana)

Sent from Samsung Mobile

——– Original message ——–

From: Maria Terewi

Date:04/09/2014 1:16 PM (GMT+12:00)

To: David Manuel

Subject: FW: Meeting tomorrow

From: Tapsell, David [mailto:David.Tapsell@justice.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 10:39 a.m.
To: dmanuel.ngatikahukiwhangaroa; Ella Henry; ‘Richard Hawk’; Buds Terewi
Subject: Meeting tomorrow
Importance: High

Kia Ora

I have just been advised by Moana Tuwhare that although she and Norm have made progress on discussing a definition of Ngati Aukiwa, she has been instructed by the kaumatua that it is too early to meet with NKKWTB reps tomorrow on this issue. Her assessment is that they will be ready for this meeting early to mid-June. We will therefore cancel the meeting tomorrow and reschedule.

In terms of the fuller meeting proposed for 6 June where we aim to outline the refined AIP package, I want to assure you that we want to proceed with that meeting. It is not dependant on any agreement on the definition of Ngati Aukiwa. Assuming we get all of the valuation detail etc in on time that meeting will proceed.

Kia Ora

David

========================================================

Edwin Donald Emery

Email : edwin.emery@gmail.com

20 August 2014

Open Letter to the Hon. Christopher Finlayson

Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

Email : c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz

Ref : Aukiwa Working / Advisory Group (so-called) referred to as the ‘working party’

Tena Koe Minister,

I am writing to you as a member of the hapu of Aukiwa and also as a taxpayer.

I am not a member of this working party – I was nominated at a hui for this group on 19 April 2014 at Waimahana : I declined.

I do however support/tautoko the perspective and viewpoint of Ronda Williams, as representative of the stance of the Maria Te Paeara Whakapapa line.

That stance has been articulated in communications to your office and that of OTS, (Office of Treaty Settlements) from Ronda Williams and constitutional lawyer, Gerald Sharrock.

Of relevance are your words of advice (your letter dated 27 January 2014)

“I encourage you, as a registered member of Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa and a landowner at Taemaro, to continue to engage in settlement discussions with the wider claimant group. It is important that your voice is heard and your views are taken into account. These discussions are an internal matter for Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa and I consider it would be inappropriate for the Crown to have an active role in these discussions at this stage.”

1. In the establishment of this ‘working party’ the Crown has had an inappropriate active role right from the beginning and the subsequent process. A role that goes contrary to your own advice.(see above)
2. This was made possible by the attendance at the establishment hui, 19 April 2014, at Waimahana by Crown ‘fix-it’ man Ben Dalton.
3. Dalton bought along to this meeting lawyer, Moana Tuwhare, having no qualms advocating her as counsel. He further supported his position by saying he could readily access funding for a lawyer. She is now counsel for the ‘working party’ and compromised by her association with the Crown, effectively a Crown lawyer.
4. In regard to Paeara as the tupuna from whom the land was taken : Dalton said it would be limiting to talk of the return of land to a specific tupuna as it was not agreed upon and the focus should be on the trust.
5. To dismiss what he calls a specific tupuna is to deny the lawful rights of the owner of that land and the descendants of that tupuna, furthermore what entity,if any, the descendants put that whenua into is their business and not the prerogative of Dalton to patronize us by telling us our focus should be on a trust. More Crown interference. Mr. Dalton is whakahihi. Irrespective of Mr. Dalton’s role as mediator I find his manipulation repugnant. This behavior in an ancestral house only serves to draw the attention of my ancestors.
6. The nomination of individuals for this working party was ad-hoc at best. It is not a true representation of the hapu. People on the day were nominated who were not present. Another person on the day eventually nominated herself Chairperson. At subsequent hui more people were nominated. It most certainly does not pass as a mandated group that is representative of the hapu.
7. Following the 19 April 2014, Waimahana hui were a quick succession of hui at McDonald’s establishments at ridiculous hours like 6:30a.m. Insufficient notice and inappropriate venues just added to the comical farce of ‘musical hui’.
8. The culmination of this was a meeting with OTS (Office of Treaty Settlements) negotiator David Tapsell. This meeting occurred without consultation with the hapu. Attending this meeting was Crown-paid (pending) lawyer Moana Tuwhare. Her presence at this meeting was not sanctioned by the hapu and indeed was not part of her brief. Others present included Janice Smith, self-appointed chairperson of the ‘working party’, and Norm McKenzie, nominated by Smith onto the ‘working party’. It should be stressed that this meeting was a meeting of individuals with Tapsell and not a group that had consulted or been sanctioned by the hapu.
9. The disturbing outcome of this meeting was the ability of Tapsell to get an undertaking from these individuals that they would give OTS a running brief on what the ‘working party’ was doing. The Crown has absolutely no right to monitor the in-house processes of the hapu.
10. The follow-on is that Tapsell is to have a meeting,21 August 2014, with these individuals again. Once again not constructive as they are not a true representation of the hapu.

My viewpoint is that there are some individuals who have jumped off the ‘NKKWTB boat’ and onto the ‘working party’ boat.

This lead to a ‘wash, rinse and repeat’ scenario.

It is not surprising then that we have the same issues raised again : lack of process, manipulation of information, minimal accountability, no accurate record of minutes, insufficient notice of meetings, venues for hui which are not practical and minimal dissemination of information.

Today Tuwhare has over $14,000.00 going into her account : for what ?

I assume as minister you sanctioned this funding.

I suggest you re-visit this until there is an itemized account, her hours and the completed documents she has produced as part of her brief.

This information then being made available to the hapu.

11. The arrival of this ‘gravy train’ (totaling $75,000.00 – including the funds above) will, I suggest, see more taxpayer revenue being squandered – as has happened with $750,000.00 that went to the Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board.

I would appreciate your comments on the issues I have raised, in a timely manner.

Regards,

Edwin Emery

11 August 2014

Office of Treaty Settlement
David Tapsell

Progress to date

Kia ora David

Thank you for your update however in regards to anything Te Aukiwa might have to say the Board does not have any confidence in them at all due to work and effort in making arrangements to meet with them and they cancel out at the last minute.

This appears to be the way they wish to handle things when they are ready regardless of the amount of work and organizing NKKWTB Trust has done to accommodate them.

The Trust as the Mandated Body is concerned when you say it is a good sign of progress on their behalf, when NKKTB have been waiting for ever in order to move on and complete our claim. If they are as genuine as they say in wanting to make progress then let’s get on with it as action speaks stronger than just words.

We respect the fact that you are also doing your level best to keep things rolling by agreeing to meet with Te Aukiwa, but the plain simple Truth is they can’t be trusted but if you can make it happen then let’s hear what they have to say. The Board has a fairly good idea of what they want and what their answers will be hence the miss trust and the big question mark, why are we meeting at all.

A lot of our Trust Board members are becoming more and more frustrated with the ongoing non action of Te Aukiwa to move things on and are signalling returning to the AIP agreement and dealing with any outlying problems that arise or are in place.

At our last Trust Board meeting on Saturday 19 July 2014 at Otangaroa Marae, one of the Trustees whom we believe is in direct conflict with the Trust Board and Te Aukiwa has stated in front of the Board that information from the Te Aukiwa Lawyer Moana to the effect that OTS will be paying her legal fees.

NKKWTB has asked this question before and have been told that it is incorrect; this is what we are talking about when we say to whom we trust. Can you please confirm in writing to this trust board that the Lawyer Moana Tuwhare representing Teaukiwa is not being paid by OTS.

Furthermore we also had Beneficiaries at the meeting who made it absolutely clear that it is not just the matter of Stoney Creek that the Te Aukiwa group is seeking it is the Thompson and Clarke Blocks as well and they will fight to ensure its outcome.

In closing a couple of points I would like to make.

1. When will the crown be issuing eviction notices to the occupation of the house on the Thompson Block?
2. What is the projected time for the Board to take on the lease of Thompson and Clarke?
3. Is there any progress with the Otara Urupa 1.6 ha and Waipouritaka Urupa 1.6 ha for Kaitangata?

I hope to hear from you again.

Kia pai tou ra
David Manuel

Te Heamana o Ngatikahu Ki Whangaroa Trust Board

Letter to OTS Progress to date 11 August 2014

9 July 2014

Minister of Treaty Settlements
Hon. Christopher Findlayson
Beehive
Wellington
By Email

Director of Office of Treaty Settlements
Office of Treaty Settlements
Level 3
Justice Centre
19 Aitken St
Wellington 6011
For the Attention of Kevin Kelly

Dear Sir

Refined Settlement Offer

I refer to your recent letter to the Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa Trust to offer settlement.

I act for the Williams whanau in this matter. I am concerned you are repeating the nineteenth century error of settling with the wrong party.

We do not find it acceptable that any money is paid to this entity if is considered to be part of the redress of Ngati Aukiwa.

What is clear from recent well attended hui is that the Trust has no mandate to negotiate. Many in trust have no relationship to Paeara, and consequently no link to the land.

The nature of the rights and settlement of Ngati Aukiwa are broader than the Stoney Creek Farm.

The rights of the descendant of Paeara are principally upon Stony Creek Farm. The descendants of Aukiwa is larger than those of Paeara, including those who in the last four hundred years lost their connections not only to this land but their hapu allegiances are elsewhere.

The people who are central to this process have not been engaged with. This is the descendant of Paeara and the operators of the farm. Many in the trust have at best remote connection.

It may be that other than a modest payment to the farm operators for capital improvements the funds may be bestowed upon a Ngati Aukiwa entity, but not the Trust.

The key point is that Stony Creek Farm has been retrieved from unlawful acquisition. The
unlawfulness of its procurement by the Crown was recorded in the Muriwhenua Tribunal Report almost twenty years ago. The land is being administered according to tikanga.

It is important that efforts are made to reinstate/recognise the customary title of the land.

The management of the farm is not a matter in which the Crown should have an interest.

The timetable for response is unrealistic.

Progress is being made but not through the Trust. The working group is making some positive steps although it still needs more work. To settle with the Trust would be a gross breach of faith.

After 150 years of injustice we wish this matter to be resolved, but not so rapidly as to prejudice the justice of the settlement. The land is but a first step in reinvigorating the treaty partnership, a partnership inherent in structure of He Wakaputanga.

Yours faithfully

RightLaw

Gerald Sharrock BSc LLB

Letter to Minister re Amended Settlement Offer Ngati Aukiwa

On the 3rd of July 2014 David Manual Chair of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board received the following refined offer letter from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson.

Minister’s Refined Offer Letter to NKKWTB

In summary, as a result of discussions between the Trust Board and the Crown, the Crown has proposed, that everything in the AIP except for the Stoney Creek Farm will go to the Trust Board, and that the Stoney Creek Farm be handed over to the Maori Land Court to resolve ownership. In the meantime it will be managed by a new Trust Board which will represent all interested parties.

In addition to this the Trust Board will receive $6.2 million in cash payments to help pay for the restoration of the Thompson and Clarke blocks etc. Additionally, the minister agrees to return the Kowhairoa Peninsula.

In closing his letter Mr Christopher Finlayson gives the Trust Board only 5 days to accept his proposal; which is a very short deadline and would not give the Trust Board time to call a hui to discuss this very important offer. I have to ask why such a short time frame? What’s the hurry? Surely the Trust Board must take this back to its iwi for discussion?

The NKKWTB have asked for another $35,000 from OTS, that would make it $788,000 to date for the Trust Board to negotiate and communicate with our Iwi over the Governments offer.

27th June 2014

Re Ngati Aukiwa working party

The fundamental position remains unchanged.

Paeara was the person from whom the land was taken as native customary
title.

It should be returned to the descendants of Paeara as native customary
title.

It is a structure to achieve this that is required.

Issues associated with other parties rights with respect to the land should
be addressed by the descendants of Paeara after the return of the land. This should not be addressed in front of the Crown.

There may be parties who are subject to the kaitiakitanga of the hapu with
rights who are not descendants. These may arise from exercise of various
take or customs such as whangai. These are not issues which should
involve the Crown.

The kaupapa of this hapu is self reliance, frugal economy, self
determination, and voluntary unpaid work. This is obvious from the
manner of the farm management, the way of the kaumatua group. The
budget represents a complete denial of these values.

I am concerned that these costs potentially compromise the tino
rangatiratanga and erode value of any settlement. These represent a
mechanism of en-cashing land.

It needs to reminded that the people do not accept any mandate by the
Trust, and have had that reaffirmed in a series of hui.

The role of Ms Tuwhare is as an adviser to the working party and no more.
Many consider her the Crown’s lawyer, a supporter of Tuhoronuku, and a
recipient of Crown funds.

If the working party is to create this burden to the hapu it should be
disbanded, as a Crown initiative to threaten the land.

It appears that the hui are working without historic foundation, contrary to
the known traditions and the kawa of Paeara clearly demonstrated in the
hui where all claim descent from children of Paeara.

To go to Aukiwa is a meaningless position and one that invites involvement
from those who have no connection to the land. This underscores the
unfounded nature of the proposition.

When the working party continues to endeavour to create other lineages
of ownership are morally bankrupt. To spend money to pursue this breach
of Tikanga can not be sustained, and contrary to the words of elders in
historic times who knew the traditions .

The traditions are clear and should not be subverted by Crown funded
initiatives.

I can see no logic to the working party under such an expensive structure
and one that appears to work contrary to the words of the tupuna and well
established principles.

Yours sincerely

Gerald Sharrock BSc LlB,

RightLaw
Barristers and Solicitors

27th June 2014

Trustees of Ngati Kahu ki Whangaroa

I am writing with respect to the conduct of the Trustees.

My clients are concerned that you have spent considerable funds in advance on the basis of negotiating a settlement for Ngati Aukiwa.

The trustees may have some considerable exposure on a number of basis. These are fundamentally failing to operate the trust activities especially as they relate to this settlement process, and the governance and procedural requirements that have not been met. In addition there are issues that due to the conflict inherent in many trustee’s positions they have not acted in the best interests of the claimants as Ngati Aukiwa, as the descendants of the eponymous ancestor Paeara.

With respect to governance there have been numerous occasions where the following has not been implemented.

• Minutes have not been accurately recorded
• The minutes have not been confirmed
• The meeting locations have changed without notification following publication
• Proxies have been accepted that have not be properly completed
• Other proxies have been improperly rejected
• Votes have not been accurately recorded

On the issue of improper exercise of duty, Trustees have been acting contrary to best interests of Ngati Aukiwa as the traditional tangita whenua.

We also draw your attention the fact that in a series of well attended hui in recent months, any right of the Trust to deal with respect to Stony Creek Farm and surrounding land was firmly rejected by the tangita whenua of Ngati Aukiwa.

Be on notice that any attempt to continue to represent as having a right to address these issues will be most firmly dealt with.

Yours sincerely

Gerald Sharrock BSc LlB,

RightLaw
Barristers and Solicitors

I’ve just received the latest funding information from OTS as at 29 March 2014. OTS have paid another $50,000 to the Trust Board, that’s $753,000 to date for the Trust Board to negotiate and communicate with our Iwi over the Governments offer. With an OTS budget approved $1.09 million the Trust Board still have $250,000 they can draw down from OTS.

http://ngatiaukiwa.com/funding-29-march-2014/

8^th May 2014

Re Ngati Aukiwa Working Party

You have provided me with certain correspondence with respect to matters following the hui of 19 April.  I wish to make the following points that indicate a considerable breach of good faith:

• The minutes indicate that the meeting of the working party went beyond its mandated task of identifying options for ownership of land.
• It is concerning that the meeting agreed to have matters vetted by Crown prior to presentation to the people
• It is problematic that some of this group went to meet Crown officials without mandate or instructions.
• There is an existing kaumatua/kuia committee which should be used rather than reinventing.
• The meeting of two members of committee in a south auckland Mc Donalds is not tika.
• It is the kaupapa that meetings should be on the whenua.
• Kaumatua meetings are being called without notice to the known and recognised elders.
• The discussion of whakapapa with the Crown when the hui determined it was not the time to raise whakapapa on the marae is an extraordinary position, which is clearly contrary to tikanga.

A meeting held in the rohe attended by Ronda Williams, Chrissie Paul, Hazel Williams partly in response to this meeting made the following findings.

Why does Janice think herself Chair? Hui called with no notice at improper venue. Could have contacted everyone if tried. This was very clearly not a representative meeting with only two of them and the lawyer out of a possible nine plus Moana and maybe Gerald. 

All hui about the land have been and should be held on the land.

When the informal indication vote of interest in further investigation of proposal happened, many had already left the hui and there were also many abstentions. Also, it was by no means a vote for the proposal, only for investigating it.

The well attended Ngati Aukiwa hui before that one unanimously voted against the proposal. The response was NO and ALL. NO to the deal, and ALL of the land to be returned.

We are in favour of asserting our Aboriginal Title over all our land. We do not want a Trust, interim or otherwise. 

Clear and accepted Tupuna connected to the whenua now and at the time it was taken is Paeara and we are descendants of his children, Maria, Werahiko, Hemi Rua, Hemi Roha, and the baby Tarei.

We have been with Ngati Aukiwa for many, many years doing the work and they are speaking as if they are just starting Ngati Aukiwa up.

There has been a Kaumatua Roopu operating for years, my mother, Hazel Williams being on it, along with others that are not mentioned in Norms’ kaumatua list.

The resolution that was voted on and  passed is not the resolution that shows in the notes that Moana Tuwhare has put forward. The resolution was “That a working group be established to investigate options for the return of the whenua”. That is all it was, as it was voted on. So it is our opinion that the part-working group and the lawyer are operating well outside the scope of their mandate. Also, Moana has not been instructed to write a draft constitution.

We were surprised and not pleased to see that Ben Dalton had been copied in to all the correspondence. The discussions between our lawyer and our working group are not the business of a third party, particularly one who is a Crown employee.

Also, as we thought Moana is the lawyer for the working group, we would like to know in what capacity and by who’s instruction she met with David Tapsell and also in what capacity Norm McKenzie believes he attended that meeting.

Who asked for the meeting with David Tapsell? We as a hapu have not given any instructions to our lawyer to meet with anyone from the Crown on our behalf. 

We would like any and all copies of the correspondence between Moana and David Tapsell if it is believed by Moana to be somehow on our behalf.

NKKWTB have no mandate to discuss our land and no Ngati Aukiwa representatives have been mandated to be at any such discussions with the Crown lawyer.

We insist that David Tapsell has no right to see what options and conclusions we come to in our working group before we show our elders and the hapu. Who and when third parties see our work is a decision for the kaumatua and hapu to make.

As Norm McKenzie was not at the hui at Waimahana, he may not reflect the true feelings of the hapu. It seems he doesn’t know the Whakapapa or Kaumatua but has been asked to do these jobs. It has also come to our attention that Norm is the General Manager of the Maori Party and we believe this could be seen to be a conflict of interest.

As I understand it you have discussed also the issue that payment from the Crown as being problematic and it is not appropriate at this time for money to be paid over.

It also needs to be emphasised that the Trust has no mandate. It is entirely inappropriate to have discussions with the trust under the umbrella of the working party.

Yours sincerely

Gerald Sharrock BSc LlB,

RightLaw

Barristers and Solicitors