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