Patuharakeke Te Iwi Claims Update

Patuharakeke Te Iwi Claims Update Takahiwai Marae 8th April 2017

This presentation covers - • Current claims environment and its implications for Patuharakeke • Update regarding Ngati Wai Trust Board(NTB) mandate • Update regarding Te Runanga O Ngati Whatua(TRONW) mandate • Update regarding Maranga Mai/TIMA (Ngapuhi) mandate • PTB engagement with Office of Treaty Settlements on behalf of Patuharakeke

Current Claims Environment • Paparahi o Te Raki – Waitangi Tribunal Northland Inquiry Hearing status • Current Crown Mandated Groups: • Ngati Wai Trust Board (direct negotiation) • Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua (direct negotiation) • Tuhoronuku IMA (Ngapuhi Independent Mandated Authority) (direct negotiation)

Te Paparahi o te Raki Inquiry • Stage 1 completed and Tribunal report produced • Examined the Māori and Crown understandings of He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 • Stage 2 hearings to be completed 2017

Why is the position of Patuharakeke unique? • Patuharakeke has maintained it’s autonomy with the Treaty claim process and has held on to it’s mandate • Patuharakeke rohe is on the border of Ngapuhi and Ngati Whatua and Ngati Wai (their claims overlap into Patuharakeke’s rohe) • affiliated to all 3 iwi currently negotiating with the Crown for settlement of historical treaty claims but has mana tupuna tuturu – Patuharakeke has not given mandate to any of these bodies • Patuharakeke has completed comprehensive research into its Treaty claims and proven significant breaches including raupatu and imperfect land acquisition • The rohe of Patuharakeke has the most extensive commercial and industrial development in Te Tai Tokerau

Ngati Wai Trust Board (NTB)- Mandated Representative Body • Urgency hearing regarding NTB mandate completed at the end of 2016. Report and recommendations expected July 2017. • NTB has not completed historical research on Treaty breaches for the southern takiwa but includes Wai 745 and 1308 in its mandate • Takahiwai marae vacated its marae representation on NTB in lead up to recent triennial elections while awaiting the mandate outcome

Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua (TRONW) • The Runanga has progressed the iwi claims of Ngati Whatua through Wai 303 since 1992 • The 19 hapu of Ngati Whatua as set out in the Charter of TRONW include Patuharakeke • OTS requested that TRONW refresh their mandate in 2016, PTB requested removal of WAI 745 and WAI 1308 from their mandate and this has been agreed

Ngapuhi Mandate – Tuhoronuku(TIMA)/Maranga Mai • In September 2015 the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on the Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry (report) • A tripartite agreement commenced between Te Kotahitanga o nga hapu (the collective seeking Waitangi Tribunal hearing and report first); Tuhoronuku; and the Crown-developed options for Ngapuhi based on the report • The groups decided the favoured option was to evolve Tuhoronuku’s mandate • The final report – ‘Maranga Mai’ was released on 10 August 2016, it recommends:

Maranga Mai report - Hapu Representation • Hapu will select teams to participate in 6 regional forums to make decisions about negotiations • Hold hui-a-hapu to nominate representatives according to their tikanga • Hapu decide how to incorporate “urban” into their teams • Determine kaumatua and kuia representation according to their tikanga • Hapu teams gather and document aspirations and interests • Hapu reps can be chosen to represent more than one hapu

Maranga Mai Report - Hapu Representation • If you are in more than one hapu you can participate in them all • Proposed process: • Hui-a-hapu held on the marae with 21 days public notice to decide the process by which they choose representatives • Hapu may choose representatives at the hui or by postal ballot or other voting process in which case they will need to advertise and hold another hui • Record keeping of tikanga used for appointing reps in case process is contested • Not restricted to one rep, can choose a team. Can adjust make up of team time to time to suit hapu needs. Hapu can work together through a single team.

Maranga Mai Regional Decision Making • New regions – Hokianga, Kaikohe Taiamai, Te Pewhairangi, Whangarei, Whangaroa, Mangakahia • Establish overall negotiation plan and strategy as well as setting up negotiating tables and appointing negotiators • For decisions that only affect some hapu within their regions, only those hapu would be involved in the decision to be made by 75% of those hapu

Maranga Mai - Regional Decision Making • Hapu representatives to exercise the vote of the hapu in regions (only if decisions need to be made by vote when a consensus can’t be reached) • Decisions to be made by consensus and/or tikanga – if dispute resolution options are exhausted 75% majority required • 1 vote per hapu in its region – can participate in more than one region

Te Hononga Nui • The hapu within the regions decide who will attend the collective forum on any given issue that needs to be collectively discussed • Collective forum of hapu teams to have discussions and make recommendations to the regions • No decision making power

Te Hononga Iti – Kaitiaki Trust • A ‘legal entity’ to hold the mandate for negotiations and accountability responsibilities (reporting to the Crown on mandate maintenance), provide admin/logistical support to hapu through the regions • Hapu in the regions decide who participates in governing the legal entity – Made up of 1-2 representatives from each region • Limited authority focussed on admin functions - No decision making power • Executes the decisions of hapu through the regions • No set term of representatives – appointment to be reviewed annually. The region can replace reps at any time by consensus or vote of the region • Directed by regional reps

Te Hononga Iti – Kaitiaki Trust continued • Ensures compliance with agreed negotiation and communications plan • Conduit for claimant funding to be distributed in accordance with the negotiations and funding plans • Has legal liability • Employs staff as directed by regions • Monitors and reports on disputes and withdrawal • Monitors the accountability of regions (including identifying issues and divergences for regions to resolve) • The Report focusses on this meeting the Crown requirement of having a legal entity to “hold” the mandate

Negotiators and Negotiation Working Groups • Primary interface with the Crown • Negotiates proposed redress • Develop options and proposals for regions to decide on • Provide strategic skills and advise on negotiation plans

Hapu Withdrawal Mechanism • Proposed process to be followed: • Hapu hold hui-a-hapu to decide whether to withdraw. Hui must be publicly advertise 21 days prior (incl date, time, venue, purpose of hui, resolutions to be put and consequences of withdrawal) • Crown to provide statement of potential consequences • If the hui supports withdrawal 30 days written notice must be given to the region, collective forum and kaitiaki trust of its intention to withdraw • Within that 30 days the region and/or collective forum and the individual hapu hold at least two hui to attempt to resolve the issues leading from the decision to withdraw. • If not resolved another hui-a-hapu is held to confirm the intention to withdraw (same advertisement requirements apply). Consequences of withdrawal must be given at each hui prior to motions being put • If all requirements are met for withdrawal the hapu will provide written notice to the kaitiaki trust

Mandate Withdrawal Mechanism • Proposed process to be followed: • Those seeking to withdraw inform the regions and the kaitiaki trust in writing, Must be co-signed by 60% of the hapu representatives or by a certain number of adult members of the iwi (possibly 5,000) • Meet with the kaitiaki trust to try to resolve issues • If matter unresolved, organise a series of public hui discussing the proposal t withdraw. 21 days notice to be given in national and regional media, ads must outline purpose of the hui, background to the concerns raised and state the consequences. • Crown observer under TPK is to attend the hui

Withdrawal Following both processes Ministers then need to assess whether to recognise the withdrawal on the basis of the process undertaken, whether to negotiate separately or whether their claims will continue to be covered by negotiations, whether the remaining support is sufficient to continue negotiations

Negotiations • Diagram on page 28 of the Report • First step: developing our “Negotiating Brief” based on hapu aspiration and interest documents – hapu reps then discuss in their regional forums how their interests differ or can align – feed into the collective forum where required – regions to establish Ngapuhi-wide interests and aspirations • These will be used to develop and approve negotiations plans • Early stages there’ll be an opportunity to take the Crown team around the rohe to discuss significant sites and meet directly with hapu representatives • Second step: Negotiations (historical, commercial and cultural working groups) -> Crown offer -> Consultation -> Counter-offer and revised Crown offer -> Consultation -> Draft AIP -> Consultation -> Outcomes (signed AIP and clear endorsement to proceed to deed drafting) • Third step: Draft deed and settlement legislation -> Initial DoS -> Ratify settlement and PSGE’s -> Sign DoS -> Implement settlement redress

Post-Settlement Governance • Needs to be determined

The current status of Maranga Mai • Tuhoronuku is halting the transition process (where it’s mandate will be transferred to Te Hononga Iti) • Tuhoronuku is still not agreeable to the final Maranga Mai report • It’s primary issues are that there is no urban representation and the number of regions (they argue Mangakahia should not be its own region) • The Minister is currently facilitating discussion between Te Kotahitanga and Tuhoronuku on this • It is clear the Minister envisages that legal proceedings could potentially be filed against him by Tuhoronuku

Issues with the structure/process • Onerous Hapu Withdrawal mechanism; • Withdrawal is still subject to Minister for TOWN sign off; • No clarity on what hapu receive – PSGE structure unknown; • Seats available at Te Hononga Iti level; • Still a single mandate process; • Encroaching involvement of TIMA leading to uncertainty of management; • No decision-making powers; • Absence of Whangarei involvement.

Where does Patuharakeke fit in the proposed structure? TE HONONGA ITI/NGAPUHI NEGOTIATORS WHANGAREI REGION PATUHARAKEKE

Whangarei Taiwhenua Position • Whangarei Taiwhenua (which is deemed to encompass Patuharakeke rohe) does not have a position on Maranga Mai and accordingly abstains from any Te Kotahitanga resolutions related to the Maranga Mai report; • Whangarei no longer has a representative on the Te Kotahitanga working party to discuss Maranga Mai on behalf of Whangarei; and • Some other hapu like Ngati Kuta Patukeha and Te Waiariki are no longer pursuing settlement under a TIMA or Maranga Mai structure.

Office of Treaty Settlement & Patuharakeke • Patuharakeke as mana whenua of this rohe is the only group that is best suited for the Crown to settle the historical grievances of our people. • Patuharakeke has maintained its autonomy and has not given it’s mandate for settlement to any group currently negotiating with the Crown • The Patuharakeke claimant group is clearly identified and the claim area well defined • Comprehensive historical research into Crown Treaty breaches has been completed and presented at Stage 2 hearings- the breaches include confiscation

Patuharakeke Engagement • PTB approached Hapu leadership within the Whangarei area to discuss with the Whangarei hapu/iwi to move together and supporting each other in the current claims environment • Has led to the development of Whangarei Terenga Paraoa Assembly

Options • Look at the alternatives – Whangarei collaborative/regional approach based on connections to Whangarei Terenga Paraoa; • Decide whether to keep WAI claims in or out? • Advise position to others • Be aware that even after withdrawal the Crown may not accept new Large Natural Groupings.

Resolution passed unanimously for PTB to: • Notify TIMA/OTS that PTB withdraws WAI 745 and WAI 1308 from the Tuhoronuku Independent Mandate Authority • Notify the working party of Maranga Mai and the Minister for Treaty Settlements that PTB wish to have it’s claim withdrawn from their mandating process

Patuharakeke Te Iwi Claims Update