MESSAGE TO THE CROWN

Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu holds the mandate and responsibility to represent the iwi of Ngāti Kahu on resource management, land claim and other issues as instructed by the fifteen hapū marae and sole taurahere of Ngāti Kahu. 

The hapū make the decisions and give instructions over their whenua and moana me ngā mana Tiriti, etc – NOT Te Rūnanga, and certainly not you.   In general, hapū represent themselves as they see fit and according to their tikanga.  But should they want or need the tautoko of other hapū, they bring their tāke to the other hapū at their monthly rūnanga.  After that, each hapū decides for itself if or how they will give their tautoko.  When hapū choose to act jointly as the iwi of Ngāti Kahu, they do so by instructing Te Rūnanga at their monthly rūnanga.

The hapū are and hold mana whenua and rangatiratanga.  These are principles and practices which are much deeper, higher and stronger than the governance role you hold.  Hapū mana whenua and rangatiratanga are based first and foremost on taking care of Papātūānuku and all her children.  You are expected to ensure those who have agreed to let you rule over them act in a way that supports that role.

When hapū act, either in their own right or together as iwi, they do not engage as submittors to or consultees with any of your agents, be it a sub-committee of a District Council like the MRG, an advisory committee to one of your agents like the Fisheries Fora, or one of your subsidiaries like the EPU or the EPA. Nor do hapū consult with your agents – they instruct you, and you instruct those agents. As such hapū are not compelled to attend any hui with any of your agents, especially when they have already conveyed their combined instructions to you as to what your agents can and cannot do in their rohe.

Regarding Te Rūnanga’s experience and expertise in the field; the literature on Māori land claims as well as case law on resource management can provide you with a starting point.  Documents ranging across the years from the Taipā Sewage Report (1988) to the High Court decision CIV 2010-488-348 (29 September 2011) are available to you.

Regarding Te Rūnanga’s representations and presence at fora across the motu me te ao on Te Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti, mana whenua and rangatiratanga, and all other aspects of tikanga, the extensive reports and pānui available on its official website http://ngatikahu.iwi.nz/ will provide you with another ready starting point. 

Te Rūnanga have not only consistently, unashamedly and effectively defended Ngāti Kahu against “a corporate takeover tsunami," it has done so against all-comers, including you. 

Te Rūnanga exists with or without legislation, and holds its mandate with or without your and your agents’ support.

Engari, kia mahi tonu tātou ki runga i te tika, te pono me te aroha.  Kei a koe.

SETTLE OR SUE

Under the Crown’s Treaty settlement programme, Iwi can choose to either settle with or sue the Crown.  In Te Hiku o Te Ika, apart from Ngāti Kahu, all Iwi have chosen the settlement option.  As a result, last month Ngāti Kahu filed three applications with the Waitangi Tribunal for an urgent hearing objecting to the Crown’s deeds of settlement with Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāi Takoto. in so far as they cause prejudice to Ngāti Kahu 

Amongst other things, Ngāti Kahu objected to the inclusion in the Crown’s deeds with those other iwi of lands in which Ngāti Kahu holds mana whenua.  These include the forest, Hukatere, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē, Te Make (Sweetwater farm), Kaimaumau and Rangiāniwaniwa.  Ngāti Kahu also objected to the Crown’s attempt to impose on them the agreement with other Iwi over lands administered by the Department of Conservation.

These three urgency applications are quite distinct from the remedies application that Ngāti Kahu had already filed for relief via both binding and ordinary recommendations against the Crown.  As reported last week, the success of that application is looking good.  However, at the most recent judicial conference, the positions of the other Iwi were very interesting. 

In spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Crown has promised to settle his client with large chunks of other Iwi’s lands, the Te Aupōuri lawyer complained bitterly that Ngāti Kahu were delaying their settlement.  Even though the Crown confirmed it is nowhere near ready to introduce legislation on any of the settlements, in his eyes the delay is all Ngāti Kahu’s fault.  In any event, it is not a matter for the Tribunal.

Meanwhile, Te Rarawa’s lawyer tried to argue that her client would not only take the lands settled on them in the Crown’s deed, but they should also be given a share in any lands that Ngāti Kahu are awarded as relief where they share mana whenua. Essentially Te Rarawa want to double-dip by first benefitting through settlement with the Crown, and then benefitting again via the relief Ngāti Kahu get from binding recommendations against the Crown. However, the Tribunal judge told their lawyer very clearly they could not do that because they had chosen to settle their claims with the Crown, not file an application against it with the Tribunal.  So that was the end of that.

As for Ngāti Kuri, their lawyer advised the Tribunal that his client had withdrawn their objection to Te Aupōuri’s deed of settlement because the Crown had agreed to re-open negotiations in respect of key areas that the Crown was vesting in Te Aupōuri.  Exactly what those re-opened negotiations will garner for Ngāti Kuri is not yet known.

Ngāi Takoto are not a party to the remedies application.

The Tribunal has yet to decide whether it will hear Ngāti Kahu‘s three applications for urgency.  To that end it will hold a judicial conference, probably in the week of 16 July and probably in Auckland.

TRIBUNAL SETS A DATE

Following the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision to hold hearings for both binding recommendations and ordinary recommendations over Ngāti Kahu’s claims, a judicial conference was held on 5 June in Wellington to establish the principles the Tribunal will use when determining what relief it will order and recommend.

Opposing Ngāti Kahu at the conference were several Crown servants, as well as Te Aupōuri. But only Te Rarawa’s lawyer turned up and, once again, asked the Crown to talk for them. As for the whānau from Ngāti Tara who oppose the return of Rangiputa to all Ngāti Kahu, instead claiming that they are the main mana whenua over it and it should therefore be returned only to them and one other hapū, they did not turn up.  However the Tribunal noted that they were piggy-backing on Ngāti Kahu’s claim and asked for the minutes of the meeting that recorded agreement that Rangiputa would be shared with all Ngāti Kahu.

During the conference the Crown kept trying to cut back the lands that could be ordered to be returned, and spent some time trying to persuade the Tribunal to look at its “good, generous, fair and pragmatic [settlement] offer to Ngāti Kahu” rather than considering binding recommendations.  It said it had “acted genuinely and fairly” and it was Ngāti Kahu’s fault that negotiations had failed because they had been “stubborn and intransigent”.

When the Tribunal was clearly not impressed with that rhetoric, the Crown then tried to say it could not be ordered to return “private land” with 27B memorials on the title to Ngāti Kahu.  A 27B memorial warns the buyer that the Crown could be ordered to buy back the lands if the Tribunal upholds a claim over them. However the Tribunal was clear that all buyers knew what they were getting into when they speculated on the land and were duly warned.

The Crown then talked about how upset current “owners” would be about being notified that they could be losing “their” private land without being allowed to be heard by the Tribunal.  On that point, Ngāti Kahu had no sympathy given that they were not notified or heard when most of their lands were stolen by the Crown, and they were certainly not paid, as these “owners” will be. 

The Tribunal has now directed that further evidence be provided to it on a number of issues including mana whenua evidence for shared lands, as well as evidence of the prejudice suffered by Ngāti Kahu, such as the exact amount of land loss suffered, the resultant socio-economic statistics, and the valuations of the lands to be resumed.

Finally, the Tribunal set down a date to hear the remedies application in the week commencing 3 September 2012 at a marae venue of Ngāti Kahu’s choice.