My real concern is the fact that the Trust Board met with the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson on September 13th in Kaitaia who opened the door to re-negotiate.
I ask you this whanau, WHO do you want to negotiate for us? Because after attending the Trust board meeting held after the final roadshow Hui on Sep. 28th at Waitaruke Marae it appears that the board are ready to name their negotiators without even bringing it back to the people.
I have attended 2 of the Roadshow Hui’s both in Auckland and at Waitaruke Marae. I am troubled by the Trust Boards inability to listen to the whanau, and their obivious desire to go settlement by 2014 (July) as stated in their Hui minutes for May 2013.
All through the roadshow the Trust Board have maintained that these Hui were only to give us information on the “process” to reach settlement and that any decisions need to be made by the iwi. However when a proposal was made at the Waitaruke Marae Hui for the Trust Board to host a wananga to address all the concerns and issues raised by the iwi during the roadshow, the chairman said ” these roadshows have been a wananga! I don”t think so.
If you want to register and contribute, pose a question or make a statement on this website please contact me at admin@ngatiaukiwa.com.
On a number of occasions both via email and in hui, it has been requested to the Trust Board and Chairperson directly that the reference on page 8 in the Consultation Hui Handbook to “Pita’s Uncle” be removed, as Pita was not his nephew.
In the first hui held in Auckland this question was discussed and agreed to by the Trust Board that the reference would be removed; however to date this has not happened.
More recently in the last hui held in Auckland, Pita explained that it was a general reference to uncle and not a specific one, and that he would need a good reason not to keep it in the booklet. Pita was then told point blank that he was ‘riding the coat tails of uncles mana’ and that it needed to stop.
So, should the reference be removed?
As the mandated enity it is the Trust Board’s responsibility to communicate with its claimant community; however to date they have failed to do so. With only 80 people attending the 6 consultation hui, but yet the Trust Board have spent $603,000 worth of OTP funds trying to do so.
So here we are at an impasse; although the Minister of Maori Affairs has advised, “It is the mandated entity’s responsibility to communicate with its claimant community”, the entity refuses to communicate openly and freely. The Governments AIP offer is publically available; all of the funding details are publically available; the NKKWTB deed is publically available; but the entity still refuses to communicate openly.
I must admit I’m perplexed; I can’t see how the government expects the land claim process to succeed unless they can convince the Trust Board to openly communicate.
32. What is the Post Settlement Governance Entity?
Trust Board Reply:
The Post Settlement Governance Entity is the organisation that will receive any assets that form the Treaty settlement. That organisation must be elected and appointed by the Iwi who are registered for that Claim. The PSGE must meet rigorous standards set by the Crown, around governance, legal status, constitutional requirements, representations, transparency and accountability.
I believe Ella Henry mentioned in the last hui that there are a number of restrictions on the use of the redress land. Ella mentioned that this is to our advantage as we would not have to pay rates for 30 years; which sounds ok on the surface; however perhaps Ella is not aware that Section 108 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires all Councils to introduce policies for the remission and postponement of rates on Maori freehold land; which is what the Far North District Council has done.
Far North District Council – Maori Freehold Land Rates
So, the question I’m asking is perhaps we should re-negotiate these restrictions because we already appear to have the advantage Ella eluded to?
David Manuel (Chairperson of NKWTB) said at one of the hui that the Trust Board would have the current occupiers of the Stoney Creek Farm arrested for trespass once they got the farm back. The problem is aren’t they Ngati Aukiwa; which is part of Ngatukahu ki Whangaroa, and as such wouldn’t they have the right to be on their own land?
I’ve just received the latest funding information from OTS as at 29 August 2013. OTS have paid another $50,000 to the Trust Board, that’s $603,000 to date for the Trust Board to negotiate and communicate with our Iwi over the Governments offer.