PULLING OUR PUNCHES

Our 11 year old mokopuna has an axeman’s eye and and has recently taken upon himself the job of splitting our firewood.  Listening this morning I heard the repeated sound of whack-ching! whack-ching! Puzzled, I went out to watch him for the first time.  He  has an awesome swing, starting from above the head and ending on the concrete floor.  After checking the cutting edge and finding no major damage, nor a suitable chopping block, I showed him how to pull his stroke sufficient to split the wood but not hit the concrete below it.  In boxing it’s called pulling your punches.

I have this metaphor in mind as Ngāti Kahu prepares to face off next week in the fight for resumption of all 27b properties stolen by the Crown in the reduced Ngāti Kahu claim area set by the Waitangi Tribunal.

Last week all the interested parties filed most of their evidence with the Tribunal.  Essentially, they come from four quarters; the Crown, hapū within Ngāti Kahu, other iwi, and hapū from outside Ngāti Kahu. 

For the Crown, opposing evidence has been filed from Pat Snedden (Chief Crown Negotiator), Maureen Hickey (Senior Policy Analyst with the Office of Treaty Settlements), Russell Garton (a valuer), Adam Levy, (also from OTS) and Jacqueline Hori- Hoult (from NZTA).  Their common point is to show that Ngāti Kahu are unreasonable and wrong for seeking resumption instead of settling.

From inside Ngāti Kahu opposing evidence has been filed from certain whānau within three of Ngāti Kahu’s fifteen hapū.  For Ngāti Tara there are Raniera Bassett, Chappy Harrison, Robert Gabel and Atihana Johns.  For Te Paatu we have Graham and Tina Latimer.  And from Pēria there is Pereniki Tauhara.  They all have two common points.  First they claim all the other hapū have excluded them from participating and benefitting as part of Ngāti Kahu.  Second, they’re all former or current personnel from Ngāti Kahu Trust Board, the body which lost the fight with Te Runanga-ā-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu for Ngāti Kahu’s mandate back in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

For other iwi comes opposing evidence from Haami Piripi, Paul White, Malcolm Peri, Hector Busby, Joe Cooper and Manuka Henare for Te Rarawa, Waitai Petera and Hugh Karena for Te Aupōuri, and Rangitane Marsden for Ngāitakoto.  Their main common point is that they do not want the 27b properties they either occupy or own to be resumed for Ngāti Kahu.

Evidence has also been filed by neighbouring hapū from Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu ki Whaingaroa who largely support Ngāti Kahu’s claim for resumption, but record that they also have interests in the Kohumaru station and Ōtangaroa forest.

There is still more evidence to be filed by the Crown and others, so Ngāti Kahu are well and truly up against it.  It will be interesting next week to see if the gloves finally come off, or if they continue to pull their punches.

BULLY FOR THEM

On facebook recently someone called Henk posted a tongue-in-cheek theory that overweight National Party Ministers really, really hate people on benefits.  As examples Henk cites Jenny Shipley who ruthlessly slashed benefits when she held the Social Welfare portfolio in 1990, and Paula Bennett, the current heavy in what is now known as the Social Development portfolio who has been hooking into beneficiaries like only a reformed beneficiary could.  As a reason for their theoretical hatred, Henk reckons that the big lasses are jealous of skinny beneficiaries.  Henk is definitely a fattist, but he isn’t as sexist as he sounds.  “Imagine,” he invites, “what Gerry Brownlee would do!”  Then, after an elliptical pause, he suggests “Probably firing squads.”

Actually I think Henk is on to something here, not about fat people who are no more or less hateful than any other group in my experience, but about how some people in power use their authority to bully those beneath them.

In a classic case of pulling the ladder up behind her, once she became Minister of Social Development, Paula Bennett cancelled a training benefit which she herself had used while on the DPB.  She then later released the private details of a beneficiary who criticised her for doing that.  How did Bennett manage to get access to those details?  What pressure was brought to bear on some underling to open the file, access the information, than pass it on up to her?

Apparently the resultant public backlash against her critic has shocked poor Ms Bennett. But now that Human Rights Commissioner, Rob Hesketh, has investigated the subsequent complaint and found she breached the privacy of that beneficiary, is she repentant?  No she is not.  “I do not believe that I breached privacy,” she said last week before going on to say she might release more details in the future.  Dear me.

Similarly Wayne Brown has been pinged by the Auditor-General for being unwise in blurring the lines between his personal business interests and his Mayoral role.  He used Far North District Council Mayoral letterhead to write to the Far North District Council CEO about his outstanding rates bill with that same council, and got other staff to follow up on the same bill.  I hate to think what it’s been like for those staff, but apparently the Mayor is the victim here.  "I don't get the same crack of the whip as an average man," he complained. "They haven't treated me like a developer - they've treated me like a mayor."  Good grief.

The word to describe these behaviours is bullying, and politicians in and out of parliament seem highly prone to doing it, regardless of their body measurements, gender, race, colour or creed.

Personally, I’m grateful to the Human Rights Commissioner and the Auditor-General for bringing these and other cases to light.  Bully for them, I say.

POLITICIANS' PROMISES

Chris Finlayson held a meeting in Kaitāia on Saturday to speak with owners of 27b memorialised properties about Ngāti Kahu’s application for resumption of those properties.  There were about fifty 27b owners there, as well as a number of police and several Ngāti Kahu kaumātua who, initially, were told they couldn’t come in.  They went in anyway.

At first Finlayson talked very generally, saying that the Crown would vehemently oppose resumption and that he wanted Ngāti Kahu to settle instead.  He also repeatedly said he wasn’t there to talk about legal matters, but when asked he conceded that 27b memorials on titles clearly warn buyers the land may be resumed to remedy claims and that, if the Tribunal orders it, the Crown has to resume that land under the Public Works Act. 

He also admitted that 27b memorials can only be removed if Ngāti Kahu agrees to settle, which it hasn’t, and that the Waitangi Tribunal would only make resumption orders for a very good reason.  He didn’t explain why settlement hadn’t happened, but he claimed that the 90 day period after any orders were made was when things would be sorted out so that the orders didn’t become final. What he failed to advise was that during that 90 day period there’s no obligation for Ngati Kahu to change any part of those orders if they don’t want to.

He was interrupted very early on by a man who wanted to know why, when the Treaty said the Crown had to look after all people, it was only looking after Māori, and he replied that the Crown’s breaches against Māori had to be addressed.  

Another man, who’d recently been told by the Crown he owned one of three properties that should have had 27b memorials on them, demanded it be removed. Finlayson said it was due to a registering error and promised he’d talk to him after the meeting.  A woman asked if he could remove the 27b off her property and he said yes, after settlement.

A woman asked if he could remove the 27b off her property and he said yes, after settlement. However he made no such promises to a man who said he'd asked former MP John Carter at the time if it was safe to buy 27b land and Carter had assured him it was because resumption would never happen.  He was also silent when another man said market value under the Public Works Act wouldn’t cover what he’d put into his property and he had to be paid out in full.

Ngāti Kahu’s kaumātua reminded everyone that the 27b lands were only a small fraction of more than 230,000 acres stolen from the tribe by the Crown, and had been on-sold to private buyers instead of being returned to Ngāti Kahu.  They also offered to explain the issues further.  There seemed to be genuine interest from a number of the 27b owners in hearing them, but Finlayson said he wasn’t there for that.  

After the 90 minute meeting ended he left them all to ponder his promises.  While they ponder, any 27b owner who wants to know more is welcome to contact me at nkceo@xtra.co.nz  or ring 4083013.

LIKE A FOX

Like a fox guarding the henhouse is a saying that warns against giving a job to someone who will then be in a position to use it for his own benefit.

FNDC has long been pushing for a unitary authority in the Far North which combines the powers and authorities of both Regional and District Councils.  It has also long been trying to get the support of iwi for this proposal. 

To date the hapū who instruct Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu have declined to support because neither Regional nor District Councils are Māori let alone Ngāti Kahu structures.  Additionally both councils, but FNDC in particular, have consistently been anti-hapū mana whenua and rangatiratanga.  In fact right now FNDC is appealing to the Supreme Court against Ngāti Kahu’s win last year on behalf of the hapū Te Whānau Moana in the High Court over Te Ana o Taite. 

Since April this year, a group of council and iwi leaders calling themselves the “Better Local Government Working Party” have been promoting a proposal whereby the four councils in Northland (i.e. Whangarei District Council, Kaipara District Council, Far North District Council and Northland Regional Council) are restructured into two unitary councils.  They claim this reduction will bring greater efficiencies and cost savings to ratepayers, increased productivity and improvements for staff, simplified planning processes for developers, effective representation for Māori and better governance all round.  On that logic, wouldn’t it be better to reduce the four to one or less?

Last month they invited community leaders to a meeting on Thursday 26th July.  But on 24th July they sent a special exclusive invitation to iwi leaders to attend a separate hui on the 7th August, instead.  Apparently the change was suggested so that we could feel comfortable with asking questions and providing feedback … pertaining to the draft application developed through the Better Local Government Working Party. I appreciate their concern for my comfort, but suspect that holding an exclusive hui is more about getting their agenda passed than anything else. Hei aha.

By and large Ngāti Kahu don’t care how councils structure themselves because it’s not their structure or number that are problems for us.  Rather, it’s their ignorance of and hostility towards hapū mana whenua. 

Other iwi (presumably at the instruction of their hapū) support the proposed retructure because they’ve been guaranteed a few Māori seats on each council and reckon that will make them hapū-friendly.  The fact that Māori will still be a minority on councils ruled by very hapū-unfriendly laws has either escaped them, or doesn’t worry them.  I’m reminded of a cartoon from my childhood in which a predator meets a rooster who sees nothing but a cute friend, while the predator sees nothing but a juicy roast.  

Whatever happens regarding any local government restructure, the acronym NRC does not mean it’ll become a Nice to Rangatira Council, and FNDC will never mean the Fox Never Dines on Chicken.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXf3QttUPlI

CROWN VERSUS NGĀTI KAHU

On 17^th July, the Waitangi Tribunal held a Judicial Conference at the Environment Court in Auckland to consider Ngāti Kahu’s application for urgent hearings into the Crown’s deeds of settlement with Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāitakoto; insofar as they prejudice the interests of Ngāti Kahu.  Unlike previous conferences which have been held in Wellington, a number of Ngāti Kahu hapū representatives were able to attend this time to watch and hear the Crown and the other iwi’s lawyers fight desperately to stop Ngāti Kahu being able to challenge the Crown’s deeds. 

Before the conference, Lloyd Pōpata, Te Karaka Karaka (Hully Clarke), Bernard Butler, Yvonne Puriri and Margaret Mutu had filed extensive briefs of evidence responding to the Crown’s and the three iwi’s objections to the application, and demonstrating clearly that Ngāti Kahu has mana whenua at Hukatere, Te Oneroa-ā-Tōhē, Kaimaumau, Te Make (Sweetwater), Tangonge, Ōkahu and Takahue.

The only way the Crown and the other iwi can combat the level of knowledge of mana whenua Ngāti Kahu provided is to pretend it doesn’t exist. As such their lawyers fought to have the Tribunal remove most of Ngāti Kahu’s evidence from the record.

The Tribunal’s main concern is whether the Crown’s deeds will cause significant and irreversible prejudice to Ngāti Kahu. Ngāti Kahu argued that they will because they vest large areas of land in other iwi, ignoring that they are Ngāti Kahu’s lands too. The other iwi’s lawyers argued that Ngāti Kahu had plenty of opportunity to have a say but chose not to; so they and the Crown decided how Ngāti Kahu’s interests would or would not be recognized. In fact, as Ngāti Kahu pointed out, it did have its say and had repeatedly told the Crown and its allies not to include Ngāti Kahu lands in their deeds. But they had chosen to ignore Ngāti Kahu, which is why the application had been made.

During the conference the other iwi lawyers praised the Crown repeatedly for doing a marvellous job in settling their clients’ claims and fully supported all its attacks on Ngāti Kahu. They also said that their clients are extremely grateful that the Crown is now allowing them to buy their own land back off it. Te Aupōuri’s lawyers went as far as saying all the land the Crown stole rightfully belongs to the Crown and that customary title has all been extinguished. That essentially says they do not agree with the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that the Crown had not been able to prove it held title to any of the lands and that the underlying native(/customary) title was therefore not extinguished. As such all those lands still belong to the hapū they were stolen from.

Ngāti Kahu did not get through everything in the Judicial Conference, so its lawyers filed written responses last week. Now everyone is waiting for the Tribunal’s decision on whether the application will go to hearing.

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY

Dr Jane Kelsey is a professor of law at the University of Auckland, a prominent critic of globalisation and an informed commentator on international trade agreements and treaties.  During the Waitangi Tribunal’s recent hearing of the water claim, I found her evidence compelling because it gave a clearer picture of the risks in these treaties to national sovereignty.  This is all part of the broader Washington Consensus; more on that in a later column.

International trade treaties and agreements give investors very broad rights to challenge many rules in countries where they have invested; especially those that could affect their cash flow.  International law firms have joined the gravy train and, predictably, there’s been a massive jump in the numbers and types of such disputes brought by investors against governments.  In the past decade alone there have been 48 of them at a cost of $100 million each. 

In particular, large investors and their legal teams are aggressively targeting government regulations and policies which are supposed to protect things like public health and environmental conservation.  How that works is simple and cynical. 

If a government with strong regulations is in a trade agreement that includes a government with weak regulations, then investors can sue the strong-rule government for making them meet (and pay for) a higher standard than the weak-rule government; because it disadvantages them in trading terms. 

New Zealand’s government has bi-lateral agreements with those of China, India, Korea, Australia and Malaysia.  It’s also in multilateral agreements like TPPA and the WTO/Doha Round.  As well as being able to play this government off against its trade agreement partners in a dispute, investors will also be able to pick which of a number of international tribunals they take their dispute to.  These tribunals all differ widely and are unpredictable in their outcomes. Some are held in secret without proper due process, none of them follow logical precedents set by previous tribunals, and it’s impossible to know what view a particular tribunal might take.  Finally, there is no appeal process against any of them.

Often as not investors aren’t so much interested in actually pursuing their dispute as they are in using it to influence government policies, and, in a number of cases, governments have chosen to settle rather than go through what could be a long and very expensive dispute resolution process.  In essence they have surrendered their people’s sovereignty to international corporates, law firms and tribunals whose interests, backed up by the military might of the United States, now supersede those of the citizens of their countries. 

One definition of war is a condition of active antagonism or contention: a concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious.  What Dr Kelsey described in the Waitangi Tribunal last week amply matches that definition.   

We are engaged in international trade warfare.  But, instead of protecting its citizens from the enemy, New Zealand’s government is sleeping with it.

WORTH THE PRICE

Unless we have something like a congenital defect, most of us are perfectly balanced and self-aware beings at birth.  We laugh, cry, eat and sleep as we need.  Like the fowls of the air we neither sow nor reap, and like the lilies of the field we neither toil nor spin; we simply experience life from the I am, or the true self. 

Not so long ago that happy state was known as childhood, and it lasted for a good decade.  But today many of our children are metaphorically sowing, reaping, spinning and toiling before age five.  They’re also experiencing life through the Ego, or the false self, earlier than preceding generations. 

Regardless of when ego may replace true self, the cause is always the same.  It involves being taught that our happiness and worth is predicated on things like what we do or own, how we look or sound, where we live or work, who we’re with and why. 

This lesson is false but believable because, although these things can’t produce happiness, they can measure it. In fact they are used to do exactly that in Bhutan, a small Kingdom located in the Himalayas where the terms Gross National Happiness [GNH] and Happiness Quotient [HQ] were coined in 1972.

The cornerstones of GNH as defined by the Bhutanese are; the promotion of sustainable development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance. 

In collaboration with an international group of scholars and researchers, the Centre for Bhutan Studies then further defined eight general contributors to happiness: physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance; social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good governance; and ecological vitality. In Bhutan all proposed development policies and plans must first pass a GNH review based on a GNH impact statement that’s similar in nature to the Environmental Impact Assessment required for development in New Zealand.

The Bhutanese grounding in Buddhism means they believe that the whole earth benefits when material and spiritual growth happen side by side.  Here in New Zealand, tikanga-based Māori and a number of others have a similar philosophy and practice.  But Bhutan scores consistently higher than many richer nations in worldwide surveys of satisfaction with life; including New Zealand. 

Does that mean it’s necessary to either be a child or a Buddhist to be happy?  No, it’s much simpler than that.  The only prerequisite for happiness is to experience life in all its gore and glory through the true self rather than through the ego.

As adults, when we hold onto or reclaim that truth, we find that we can again eat, sleep, cry and laugh as we need.  But even better than that, we consciously experience the only happiness there truly is; that which resides within each of us. 

In my opinion, that alone makes life worth the price of admission.

A DONE DEAL

Two weeks ago the Mixed Ownership Model Bill passed into law and yesterday, the Waitangi Tribunal opened an urgent hearing into two claims brought on behalf of the New Zealand Māori Council and others. 

While John Key has conceded that these claims have the potential to slow down the timetable for the partial sales of Mighty River and Genesis, he is confident they will still go ahead. 

We have been here before and history says that Key is probably right. 

The NZMC has a record of taking the Crown to Court supposedly to stop the sale of resources whose ownership is claimed by Māori. But instead of stopping the sales, negotiations between the two have always been followed by a settlement of sorts that allowed the sales to happen. 

In 1987 NZMC negotiated the clawback provisions inserted into the SoE Act, and the Crown got to sell large chunks of claim land into SoEs.  In 1988, in exchange for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and further legislatives changes, the Crown got to sell the trees and cutting rights on more claim lands.   

In view of that history, and to borrow a phrase from Gordon Campbell, these latest two claims “look less like threats than like invitations to negotiate.”

Today the NZMC’s call is for the Tribunal to recommend a halt on the partial sale of state-owned power companies until Māori claims over the water they run on are settled.  In the past, this would have been the signal for the NZMC and Crown to swing into negotiations.  But there are a bunch of new kids on the floor now, and the Crown is already talking with them over the ownership of water. 

Unlike NZMC, the National Iwi Leaders Forum [ILF] is a non-legislated group of rangatira who are answerable to and instructed by their sovereign hapū and iwi.  If an issue impacts their sovereignty, they establish a working group on it.  The freshwater working group is chaired by Sir Tumu Te Heuheu.

Some ILF members support the NZMC claims for various reasons; for some it’s about ensuring they’re at the table in any negotiations, others just want the sales stopped, and some are mixed in their motives.  But others who know the history aren’t convinced. 

Key also knows the history and he doesn’t care who he may have to negotiate with, as long as they can deliver the Māori constituency.  In the New Zealand Herald yesterday he said, "The Waitangi Tribunal's rulings are not binding on the Government, so we could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I'm not saying we would, but we could."  I read that as his opening negotiation statement.

Where does all this manoeuvring leave those who genuinely want the sales stopped? I am afraid that, unless they’re prepared to do more than tap Mom and Pop on the shoulder, it leaves them on the sidelines watching like wallflowers while the deal is done.

BORROWER BEWARE

Last month I went to a one day Māori women’s leadership hui organised by FOMA, and co-sponsored by Westpac.  The focus was, initially, the Māori economy.  The keynote speaker Nanaia Mahuta was great.  Then Jenny Shipley strolled in.

Ms Shipley said our cultural parameters needed to be reformed, because it was critical we not talk to ourselves.  She reckoned that our future lay not in the Māori economy but in the global economy.  And she advised that in the “post-settlement” era, Māori needed to open ourselves up to partner with international financiers, including the Chinese.

Neither Shipley nor her kōrero float my boat, but this is someone who is part of the military industrial complex [MIC] in which the world’s politicians, their armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them both, all scratch each other’s itches.  So what she had to say was probably the most important korero of the day.

In order to operate globally, the MIC controls the banking system.  Regardless of whether a lender is based in Shanghai, Wall Street or Kaitāia, there is only one banking system.  It is centred in the city of London and its sole focus is (and always has been) the destruction of national sovereignty in favour of MIC sovereignty .

One of its main tools is arbitrage (the practice of shifting cash between two or more markets in order to take advantage of price differences between them).  Lending is one way of shifting money, so banks work hard to make debt look attractive to the borrower.

Those of us in our middle age have already seen more debt bubbles blown and burst in our lifetimes than in all other eras combined.  Housing, cars, credit cards, student loans; you name it and banks will blow it for you.  But now the bubbles have all burst, currencies around the world have been inflated into worthlessness, and MIC members are looking to cash out and shift into hard assets that generate or control food, water, health care and other necessities of life.  Think land and asset sales.

This is where Shipley and her international financiers come in, and where Iwi had better watch out.  Here in the Far North they are courting pre-settlement iwi with attractive rates.  But, unless the iwi business model is one which fully anticipates and is able to pay loans back, these lenders should be seen for what they are; aneurysms looking for new homes, having blown their former ones. 

Chinese lenders are a special worry, not because of their race but because of America’s racism which has forced them into being the only ones buying America’s foreign debt.  Now they’re looking to lend their devalued American dollars into anything, so they can get it off their books. 

E ngā iwi, kia tūpato.  There is no sentimentality involved here, only one banking system.  Non-payment will trigger, at best, a renegotiated loan on higher terms; at worst, foreclosure.  Let the borrower beware.

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.