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

Why have the NKKWTB placed a copyright notice on their website content? I would have thought that the Trust Board would welcome the free and open distribution of its material, not restrict or censor it?

And, why are the NKKWTB charging whanau who want to pass on material to their whanau?

The bottom of the NKKWTB website now reads:

Click here for reuse options!

http://license.icopyright.net/rights/tag.act?tag=3.13848?icx_id=4

FROM THE NGATIKAHU KI WHANGAROA TRUST BOARD WEBSITE

As of November 2013, Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa Trust board have been again looking for a peaceful way forward with the people occupying Stony Creek Farm. We have met with Ben Dalton who has been appointed by the Crown to liaise with the occupiers and the Trust Board.

As of January 2014, the Board have accepted the alternative proposed package in principle from the Crown for an opportunity to progress the Ngātikahu Ki Whangaroa settlement.

This will allow an opportunity for those who support the occupation of Stony Creek Station to have their ‘day in court’ to present their claims for this land. For this proposal to work all parties would have to agree to abide by whatever the Maori Land Court decides.

The Board embrace the idea of this as part of the process of bringing peace to our Iwi.

The Board has always maintained an “Open door policy” and have expressed this over the many years to the Crown and the occupying whanau.

The board are the mandated claimants on behalf of Ngā Marae o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, the body setup to settle the WAI 116 and WAI 258 Claims, and the Crown who are currently recognised as the legal owners of Stony Creek Station.

http://ngatikahukiwhangaroa.iwi.nz/ngatikahu-ki-whangaroa-accept-latest-proposal-to-progress-from-the-minister-hon-christopher-finlayson/

On the 24th of January 2014 David Manual Chair of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board received the following proposal letter from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson.

2014 01 24 Letter to David Manual NKKW

In Mr Finlayson’s letter he thanks the Trust Board for agreeing to meet with Mr Dalton recently to discuss potential approaches for progressing Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa settlement negotiations and resolving the occupation of Stoney Creek Station. He was also heartened to learn that they were prepared to give further consideration to the proposals raised by Mr Dalton.

In summary, as a result of those discussions 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 cash payments to help pay for the restoration of the Thompson and Clarke blocks etc.

He also mentions that he is willing to consider issues raised by the Kaitangata hapu regarding the Kowhairoa Peninsula.

In closing, he sees his proposal as offering the best opportunity to progress the settlement in the interests of all parties.