When it comes to land claims, noone would call Ngāti Kahu a Goliath, and most would say it’s boxing way above its weight. In fact Haami Piripi has said it is "on a hiding to nothing." However the little iwi has recently had another win against the Crown.
On 18th April, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a memorandum saying it will now hold hearings for both binding recommendations and ordinary recommendations for Ngāti Kahu’s claims. It is satisfied that the claims the Tribunal upheld did include two general claims for Ngāti Kahu, both lodged by McCully Matiu, and it will make recommendations based on those. However it has declined to include the three Te Paatu claims because they were not lodged in time to be heard in the 1990-4 hearings, and as such were not reported on in the 1997 Muriwhenua Land Report. It has also declined to include Te Paatu’s territories on Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē, up to Hukatere and across to Rangaunu for consideration. Te Paatu do not agree with this and have now asked Ngāti Kahu to seek urgent hearings to stop the Crown vesting those lands in other iwi. Ngāti Kahu will do that.
In preparation for hearings the Tribunal has asked that Ngāti Kahu advise what principles it should take into account in determining the recommendations it will make. Ngāti Kahu will take those principles from their Deed of Partial Settlement, which the Crown rejected last year. They will also be asking for the total package of recommendations to be what they have listed in their Deed.
Once the Crown and other parties have responded to Ngāti Kahu, another judicial conference will be held, probably in the week beginning June 4th.
This decision from the Tribunal is very historic. Ngāti Kahu and others had been denied hearings in the past. But thanks to the Mangatū Incorporation who had the resources to take the Tribunal through all the courts and get a decision from the Supreme Court saying the Tribunal had to hear their application for binding recommendations, Ngāti Kahu have now succeeded where many said they would not. Now they just have to get the binding recommendations over all State-owned Enterprise and Crown Forest lands in their rohe.
That will be an extremely bitter fight because the Tribunal has long been under threat from successive governments that if it used its powers of binding recommendations, they would be removed.
Ngāti Kahu should be under no illusion; the Crown will do whatever it takes to stop them succeeding, legal or otherwise. In addition it seems the leaders of at least two other iwi in Te Hiku will side with the Crown against them.
In the end though, neither the Crown nor its allies can ever change the facts. The lands concerned are not going anywhere, they still belong to the hapū of Ngāti Kahu, and Ngāti Kahu will box on.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
LIKE IT OR LUMP IT
In April 2008 Lombard Finance went into receivership owing $125 million to 4400 investors and former Cabinet ministers Sir Douglas Graham and Bill Jeffries as well as fellow Directors Lawrence Bryant and Michael Reeves were all charged with making false statements and misleading investors. This year, in spite of their fierce defence against the charges, they were all found guilty. Graham and Jeffries were sentenced to 300 hours community work and a $100,000 fine each, while Bryant and Reeves got 400 hours community service each. Secured creditors are expected to be repaid less than 24 cents in the dollar while investors will get nothing. Some of them spoke in court of shattered lives.
Meanwhile, in April 2010 Darcy Te Kiri and Boudene Mahiawere were arrested for the aggravated robbery of a Superette in Rotorua. They’d pretended to have a gun and had demanded cigarettes and cash from the owner's son. When he refused and pushed an alarm they took off with a $2.90 packet of pineapple lumps instead. Te Kiri is now serving 20 months in jail for this crime, and Mahiawere two years and four months. Their victim lives in fear of the next attempted robbery.
There is something wrong with this picture, and it’s not just the criminality of the offenders in both cases or the lack of justice for their victims. Rather it is the difference in the sentences for the criminals who are in high places and have friends there, and those who aren’t and don’t.
It’s a difference that should be carefully noted by all New Zealanders as this country continues its slide towards fascism; particularly those of us without friends in high places. We may never rob or mislead anyone, but if we are involved in protest or activism of any kind whatsoever, under recently passed law changes we are at risk of being arrested and charged with terrorism, and, unlike Doug Graham, if convicted our punishment would likely include jail time.
As she left court after his sentencing, Graham’s wife told waiting reporters he had nothing to say. But the haughty patrician couldn’t keep his mouth shut. “Well,” he smirked to her, “last time we ran over them,” a clear reference to an incident during the trial when his car had seemed to be deliberately swerved at a cameraman. Hardly the look of remorse his lawyer had earlier claimed his client felt. And the statement of his fellow criminal Bill Jeffries that he is considering appealing the conviction is, in the words of the Crown prosecutor, “The antithesis of remorse.”
Like it or lump it, Graham and Jeffries, who once dished out justice to the likes of Te Kiri and Mahiawere, should just be quiet and get on with paying for their own wrong doings; especially when their punishment is more comparable to a packet of pineapple lumps rather than the harder lumps they deserve, and others get, in prison.
Meanwhile, in April 2010 Darcy Te Kiri and Boudene Mahiawere were arrested for the aggravated robbery of a Superette in Rotorua. They’d pretended to have a gun and had demanded cigarettes and cash from the owner's son. When he refused and pushed an alarm they took off with a $2.90 packet of pineapple lumps instead. Te Kiri is now serving 20 months in jail for this crime, and Mahiawere two years and four months. Their victim lives in fear of the next attempted robbery.
There is something wrong with this picture, and it’s not just the criminality of the offenders in both cases or the lack of justice for their victims. Rather it is the difference in the sentences for the criminals who are in high places and have friends there, and those who aren’t and don’t.
It’s a difference that should be carefully noted by all New Zealanders as this country continues its slide towards fascism; particularly those of us without friends in high places. We may never rob or mislead anyone, but if we are involved in protest or activism of any kind whatsoever, under recently passed law changes we are at risk of being arrested and charged with terrorism, and, unlike Doug Graham, if convicted our punishment would likely include jail time.
As she left court after his sentencing, Graham’s wife told waiting reporters he had nothing to say. But the haughty patrician couldn’t keep his mouth shut. “Well,” he smirked to her, “last time we ran over them,” a clear reference to an incident during the trial when his car had seemed to be deliberately swerved at a cameraman. Hardly the look of remorse his lawyer had earlier claimed his client felt. And the statement of his fellow criminal Bill Jeffries that he is considering appealing the conviction is, in the words of the Crown prosecutor, “The antithesis of remorse.”
Like it or lump it, Graham and Jeffries, who once dished out justice to the likes of Te Kiri and Mahiawere, should just be quiet and get on with paying for their own wrong doings; especially when their punishment is more comparable to a packet of pineapple lumps rather than the harder lumps they deserve, and others get, in prison.
Monday, April 09, 2012
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL UPDATE
On March 22nd 2012 the Waitangi Tribunal held its second judicial conference on the Ngāti Kahu application for binding recommendations against the Crown which, if granted, would see the Crown forced to return certain lands to Ngāti Kahu, plus compensation.
Before reporting on this second conference, a brief background on the first one held in November 2011 is in order.
At that first conference the Crown opposed Ngāti Kahu’s application. It argued that (a) the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to hear the application, and (b) that even if it did have jurisdiction, Ngāti Kahu should not be allowed to benefit from the Tribunal’s 1997 Muriwhenua report through binding recommendations, because none of the other iwi had chosen that pathway.
At that first conference, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa had supported the Crown against Ngāti Kahu, while Ngāti Kuri attended in an observer capacity.
After hearing from all the parties in November, the Tribunal asked Ngāti Kahu for more information on a number of matters.
First, they were to list the properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, including ‘private lands.’ Second, they were to identify which of their claims the Tribunal had found to be well-founded in its 1997 Muriwhenua report. Third, they had to identify the prejudice they had suffered in relation to those well-founded claims. Fourth, they had to identify their relationship with the properties in those well-founded claims. Fifth, they were to show evidence in the Muriwhenua report of their rohe. Sixth, they were to show the location (with maps linked to legal descriptions) of all properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, in that rohe. Seventh, they had to show the location (again with maps linked to legal descriptions) of all properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, outside that rohe. Finally, they were to tell the Tribunal whether the binding recommendations they sought would “represent a final determination in respect of all matters that those claims cover.”
Ngāti Kahu provided this information to the Tribunal in the middle of February 2012, and the second judicial conference was held. It made interesting listening.
The Crown, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa continue to oppose Ngāti Kahu. Additionally they have been joined by the Harrison whānau of Ngāti Tara who appear to want the Tribunal to decline Ngāti Kahu’s application so that they can apply for binding recommendations instead. Their lawyer told the Tribunal that the Rangiputa station belonged to Ngāti Tara and made no mention of the fact that Te Whānau Moana/Te Rorohuri and Patukōraha are mana whenua there also, or that those hapū have agreed to share Rangiputa with all Ngāti Kahu hapū.
Graham Latimer has also joined the proceedings claiming to represent Te Paatu descendants of Te Parata (and others) and that he has a claim for the return of most of the lands included in Ngāti Kahu’s application.
All parties are now waiting for the Tribunal’s decision on the matter of jurisdiction.
Before reporting on this second conference, a brief background on the first one held in November 2011 is in order.
At that first conference the Crown opposed Ngāti Kahu’s application. It argued that (a) the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to hear the application, and (b) that even if it did have jurisdiction, Ngāti Kahu should not be allowed to benefit from the Tribunal’s 1997 Muriwhenua report through binding recommendations, because none of the other iwi had chosen that pathway.
At that first conference, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa had supported the Crown against Ngāti Kahu, while Ngāti Kuri attended in an observer capacity.
After hearing from all the parties in November, the Tribunal asked Ngāti Kahu for more information on a number of matters.
First, they were to list the properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, including ‘private lands.’ Second, they were to identify which of their claims the Tribunal had found to be well-founded in its 1997 Muriwhenua report. Third, they had to identify the prejudice they had suffered in relation to those well-founded claims. Fourth, they had to identify their relationship with the properties in those well-founded claims. Fifth, they were to show evidence in the Muriwhenua report of their rohe. Sixth, they were to show the location (with maps linked to legal descriptions) of all properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, in that rohe. Seventh, they had to show the location (again with maps linked to legal descriptions) of all properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, outside that rohe. Finally, they were to tell the Tribunal whether the binding recommendations they sought would “represent a final determination in respect of all matters that those claims cover.”
Ngāti Kahu provided this information to the Tribunal in the middle of February 2012, and the second judicial conference was held. It made interesting listening.
The Crown, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa continue to oppose Ngāti Kahu. Additionally they have been joined by the Harrison whānau of Ngāti Tara who appear to want the Tribunal to decline Ngāti Kahu’s application so that they can apply for binding recommendations instead. Their lawyer told the Tribunal that the Rangiputa station belonged to Ngāti Tara and made no mention of the fact that Te Whānau Moana/Te Rorohuri and Patukōraha are mana whenua there also, or that those hapū have agreed to share Rangiputa with all Ngāti Kahu hapū.
Graham Latimer has also joined the proceedings claiming to represent Te Paatu descendants of Te Parata (and others) and that he has a claim for the return of most of the lands included in Ngāti Kahu’s application.
All parties are now waiting for the Tribunal’s decision on the matter of jurisdiction.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE
“It started with a bang, and that was all,” so said a supporter of the Urewera Four during the five week trial of Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Emily Bailey and Urs Signer.
The trial ended last week with guilty verdicts on some firearms charges, not guilty verdicts on others, a hung jury on the lead charge of participating in an organised criminal group, and the Crown saying it will opt for a retrial on that lead charge.
For us the taxpayer who funded both sides of the trial, what has been achieved? Has justice been served. Has the Crown fulfilled its duty to us? Do we feel safer?
Difficult though it may be to face it, face it we must; the only thing that has been achieved by the most expensive criminal prosecution in the history of this country has been a widening of the divisions in our society. But we should not be surprised at that. The whole operation from beginning to end was symptomatic of how the Crown treats any people with a world view that is not based on it being sovereign in this country.
No people in Aotearoa (even Ngāti Kahu) have as long or staunch a history of independence as do Ngāi Tuhoe of the Urewera ranges. And amongst Ngāi Tuhoe, no individual has represented that independence more consistently and effectively then Tame Iti. So, again, we should not be surprised at the ferocity with which the Crown pursued his conviction. But neither should we be silent witnesses to it.
Even Paul Holmes, hardly an advocate for Māori sovereignty, roundly criticised the Crown’s action with regard to Ngāi Tuhoe specifically, and other world views generally. “The New Zealand government,” he wrote in the NZ Herald, “has always displayed a capacity for savagery and vindictiveness in their dealings with Tuhoe.”
Like Holmes, I too detect a level of spite in the Crown’s willingness to seek a retrial. If they (i.e. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet) had to pay for any of this out of their own pockets and not the pockets of us taxpayers, not only would there be no retrial, there would have been no trial period.
Sadly, there are plenty of local examples of that same savagery and vindictivenes. We see it in the way the Crown , the local Council and some developers treat anyone in the Far North who stands between them and what they want. Using our money, they buy, bully or bash any opposition into submission all the way up through the Courts. To what end? The same end as that achieved in the trial of the Urewera 4, deepened divisions.
It seems the rabbit hole down which common sense, goodwill and common cause in this country are rapidly disappearing is also getting deeper. But some people just want to keep digging.
The trial ended last week with guilty verdicts on some firearms charges, not guilty verdicts on others, a hung jury on the lead charge of participating in an organised criminal group, and the Crown saying it will opt for a retrial on that lead charge.
For us the taxpayer who funded both sides of the trial, what has been achieved? Has justice been served. Has the Crown fulfilled its duty to us? Do we feel safer?
Difficult though it may be to face it, face it we must; the only thing that has been achieved by the most expensive criminal prosecution in the history of this country has been a widening of the divisions in our society. But we should not be surprised at that. The whole operation from beginning to end was symptomatic of how the Crown treats any people with a world view that is not based on it being sovereign in this country.
No people in Aotearoa (even Ngāti Kahu) have as long or staunch a history of independence as do Ngāi Tuhoe of the Urewera ranges. And amongst Ngāi Tuhoe, no individual has represented that independence more consistently and effectively then Tame Iti. So, again, we should not be surprised at the ferocity with which the Crown pursued his conviction. But neither should we be silent witnesses to it.
Even Paul Holmes, hardly an advocate for Māori sovereignty, roundly criticised the Crown’s action with regard to Ngāi Tuhoe specifically, and other world views generally. “The New Zealand government,” he wrote in the NZ Herald, “has always displayed a capacity for savagery and vindictiveness in their dealings with Tuhoe.”
Like Holmes, I too detect a level of spite in the Crown’s willingness to seek a retrial. If they (i.e. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet) had to pay for any of this out of their own pockets and not the pockets of us taxpayers, not only would there be no retrial, there would have been no trial period.
Sadly, there are plenty of local examples of that same savagery and vindictivenes. We see it in the way the Crown , the local Council and some developers treat anyone in the Far North who stands between them and what they want. Using our money, they buy, bully or bash any opposition into submission all the way up through the Courts. To what end? The same end as that achieved in the trial of the Urewera 4, deepened divisions.
It seems the rabbit hole down which common sense, goodwill and common cause in this country are rapidly disappearing is also getting deeper. But some people just want to keep digging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)