Mandate letters written to the NZ ministers regarding MTA mandate

With funding by CFRT the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and Te Puni Kokiri and not forgetting Fisheries money the MTA has a reason to get a mandate to run every claim including Wai 108. They now have a high court case on July 5th over the AGM 2011 that was one of the worst AGMs I have ever attended and nothing was democratic with 2 lawyers representing out claims present to witness

Tēnā koutou

Thank you Linda Thornton for your reply letter dated 8 June 2012 regarding the draft Mandate Strategy. Below are the responses to those raised in your letter.

You questioned why Te Puni Kōkiri is carrying out the proposed MTA mandate process rather than the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS). At the end of 2011 it was established that TPK were better resourced to assist Muaūpoko in the mandate process. Therefore in order to assist Muaūpoko in progressing towards a formal mandate process and vote, TPK has taken the lead on this work stream on behalf of the Crown. We have previously done this for the Kaipara, Tāmaki, Hauraki and a number of other iwi on a case by case basis.

You raised concerns over the deadline for comments on the draft Mandate Strategy and the hui that are being held during this period. To note the submission period is open until 29 June 2012. The hui that will be held during this period are information hui run by the MTA to inform Muaūpoko of the mandate sought by the MTA and an opportunity to provide further information and answer any questions. These hui are mentioned in section 8 of the draft Mandate Strategy, however these hui do not form part of the formal mandate process. I do hope that all Wai claimants attend. To emphasise, no mandate has been conferred to the MTA, and formal mandate hui will be held at a later date yet to be determined. The mandate strategy has not been finalised as the MTA wanted input from Muaupoko members before finalising.

Thank you for noting the pending case of Rudd v MTA (CIV 2011-454-749), TPK are aware of this litigation. I disagree with your comment regarding the ability to represent anyone in matters such as Treaty negotiations. As you know, the recognition of a mandate for Treaty settlement matters is by the Minister for Treaty of Negotiations and the Minister of Māori Affairs. The draft mandate strategy is the process that the Muaupoko Tribal Authority propose to ask Muaupoko members whether they wish the MTA to have the mandate for the purpose of negotiating a Treaty settlement. They are consulting on their draft mandate strategy which is consistent with the Waitangi Tribunal’s East Coast Settlement report.

As you know from my email the Crown has invited submissions for the draft mandate strategy. Advertisements were also placed in the DomPost, Wairarapa Times, Manawatu Standard on 7 June and then the Daily Chronicle (Horowhenua) on 8 June 2012 – the MTA information hui were included in the pānui (attached). We’ve put pānui on the TPK website (http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/newsevents/news/muaupoko---notification-of-draft-mandate-strategy-for-treaty-settlement-negotiations/) with the mandate strategy, the mandate strategy is on the OTS website, and we agreed with the MTA that they put the strategy and email address and address for submissions on their website (http://www.muaupoko.iwi.nz).

Ultimately, we want as many people as possible to know about the draft mandate strategy so that they can engage with the process so if a time come to vote on whether or not to give the MTA a mandate, they can make an informed decision. I trust you have informed your clients about the draft mandate strategy and the information hui. This will be a great opportunity for people to have their say earlier in the process rather than later.

I look forward to receiving your submission(s). Many thanks, Kererua

Download PDF Written by Linda Thornton on behalf of the MCC Muaupoko Cluster Group regarding the mandate process

KATHY ERTEL & Co.
Barristers & Solicitors
14 December 2012
By email only to:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tena korua e nga minita
Muaupoko Mandate strategy and process
1. This letter is written to bring to your attention serious deficiencies in the Mandate process that is being implemented by the Muaupoko Tribal Authority. We act for several claimants who are members of the Muaupoko Claimant Cluster, specifically Wai 52, 237, 493, 1490, 1621, 1629, and 2326. We are writing to you today in order to avoid claims that our concerns are a function of the mandate vote.
Conditions of Mandate Strategy Approval Not Met

2. We, other counsel, and some claimants have written to various OTS and TPK staff complaining about a potential mandate of the MTA both on substantive and procedural grounds. When the mandate strategy was recently released for review, our clients unequivocally objected to that mandate strategy and set forth very strong reasons why it should not go forward. Included in these objections were issues relating whakapapa (claimant definition) and the open hostilities between the two groups. MCC claimants have also asserted their right to hearing and their ultimate objective to embark on their own mandate after hearing. In short, they object to both MTA as a representative and to mandate at this time.

3. As you may know, the MTA mandate strategy was approved subject to two conditions: 1) to rework the whakapapa and 2) to meet with claimants. At a 19 October 2012 hui with claimants, TPK and OTS informed those in attendance, Hon. Christopher Finlayson -2- 14 December 2012 Hon. Pita Sharples including counsel, that there were 3 themes to be discussed at a claimant hui: a) the
possibility of progressing a dual process; b) whakapapa and c) representation or how can the two groups (MTA and MCC) work together.

4. At the Waitangi Tribunals 1 November Judicial conference in the Porirua ki Manawatu inquiry, we were quite astounded to hear that the MTA mandate was set to commence in November inasmuch as the conditions to mandate strategy acceptance had not been met, to our knowledge.

5. On 15 November a published notice in the Horowhenua Mail announced the Proposed Mandate of the Muaupoko claims. This notice included reference to whakapapa that our clients had never seen before. One of our objections to the whakapapa originally proposed was that it was overbroad. The published whakapapa was even worse it added tupuna that are not Muaupoko tupuna and included 7 hapu; that are not Muaupoko hapu;. Our clients cannot fathom whose these additional 7 hapu; really are. It was certainly not done under the auspices of the Kuia Kaumatua Kaunihere because this group hasn't met in over a year. This unilateral act by the MTA has so expanded the definition of Muaupoko as to be unrecognisable and overbroad. It has allowed people who are not Muaupoko to vote on the future of Muaupoko claims.

6. On 19 November, at 7:25 p.m., after the voting had opened for this mandate, I received an email message from Mr. Moses, a contractor for MTA. He transmitted a letter inviting MCC to a facilitated hui one of the conditions to the mandate strategy approval, but in this case commenced after the mandate process had begun. I wrote a complaint to Mr. White of TPK and he referred me back to Mr. Moses. One of the features of this invitation was the lack of detail no time or place for a hui. When asked about the meeting details, Mr. Moses suggested that our respective groups could meet on 16 December at 1 p.m. This is after the mandate voting is closed. When asked about the lack of detail for a hui, the response was that it was that the original letter was intended to determine our interest and then establish a date. This however was not mentioned in the original letter.

7. The letter also invited us to discuss the mandate strategy. This is an extremely cynical effort to comply with Crown conditions for a claimant meeting. Voting Process has been Unfairly Manipulated

8. In addition to a complete failure to comply with the conditions of the mandate strategy, we are writing to express our profound objections and outrage about the way the voting process has been manipulated to prevent votes by those who oppose
the mandate.

9. We note that the 15 November published notice states: There will be special votes for those who are not currently registered with MTA or for those who do not wish to register with MTA but wish to vote.The notice is silent about how those special votes are to be obtained. We understand a flyer was sent out that listed the Freephone number of Election NZ as a way to obtain a ballot. However, this flyer was mailed to people who are on the MTA register those least likely to need that information in as much as they received ballots in the post. The flyer was not made available to those not on the MTA register until the 8 December information hui.

10. Ballot papers for unregistered Muaupoko were also available for the first time at the MTA hui on 8 December. These hui were quite poorly attended. To the best of our reckoning, there were no more than 70 people at the Palmerston North and Levin
hui; about 30 of those were non-registered people who opposed the mandate. This is hardly the way to reach a broad number of unregistered people. It is quite obvious that the MTA had no interest whatsoever in making sure everyone who may have
wanted to vote against the mandate actually had that opportunity. Rather, the process was made to look like it was open to all to vote.

11. At the information hui, MTA speakers plainly stated that all ballots had to be received by noon 16 December. MTA urged people to bring their ballots to a hui set for Sunday a special meeting of the MTA and submit the ballots at that time. Our clients and others like them are extremely disinclined to give their ballots to the MTA, so we contacted ElectioNZ to determine whether a mailbox rule was being observed. The answer was, Yes, all ballots postmarked on or before 16 December that were received by ElectioNZ by 19 December would be counted. This information is not available to all voters. Quite obvious, this misinformation will discourage people from voting. To those who do not know about the mailbox rule, it certainly shortens the period of voting; to be received by ElectioNZ on Sunday at noon, the ballot must have been posted by Thursday, possibly even Wednesday. Given that ballots weren't made available until Saturday 8 December, this has given those not registered with the MTA a total of 5 days within which to vote.

12. The post-vote review of the vote by MTA under the guise of whakapapa review is another form of abuse of a democratic system. Those on the MTA register did not have their whakapapa reviewed, certainly not in connection with a contested mandate. It is hardly an impartial exercise to allow those who seek the mandate to review the votes of those who oppose particularly since these are presumably the people who managed to generate 7 new hapu;and two additional tupuna. If there is to be a whakapapa review it should have been managed in an impartial way.

Conclusion
13. This process is not just unfair, it has been subject to outrageous manipulation. This is not a democratic process; it is a process that has been put in the hands of people who are not afraid to engineer the outcome. It is one thing for a group to go to such lengths to claim a mandate, it is quite another for a government to sanction this conduct. Accordingly we are writing to demand that the Crown immediately
disaffirm this process.
14. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Kathy Ertel & Co.
Linda Thornton

Why no AGM? Or is it our people will find out the real truth and worse the public funders will ask questions? [ Bad constitution ] have not posted this constitution as yet but will do so shortly.

MTA WANT DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CROWN, WITH OTS, OFFICE OF TREATY SETTLEMENTS, BECAUSE MTA WANT TO GET THEIR HANDS ON CASH AND ASSETS THAT BELONG TO MY PEOPLE AND CHILDREN. MY CLAIM DOES NOT BELONG TO MTA TO DEAL WITH AS IF THEY HAVE A PROPERTY RIGHT OR CONTRACT OVER Wai 108.THIS IS A TREATY BREECH AND ANOTHER WRONG ON TOP OF AN EXISTING ONE.

I DO NOT WANT OUR CLAIMS BEING TREATED AS IF I DO NOT EXIST AND THAT SOME SOCIAL WELFARE ORGANISATION CAN TAKE MY CLAIM, JUST LIKE THAT, WITH THE HELP OF THE CROWN!!

Remember the MTA would not allow beneficiaries minutes for 1 year after asking for them 3 times during the year. Finally they provided minutes thru lawyers due to their high court case ONLY just to find they actually concocted the minutes. They still have no AGM which they said would be in Oct 2011. There have also been no financial accounts allowed or presented to the owners.

Has now been postponed so many times that as at 2013 there is still no hearing date??. First time due to not having enough time to collate information --MTA excuse? Secondly, due to be held 5th July 2012 now it seems the MTA lawyer Mathew Sword never notified the MTA High Court lawyer==coincidence yes/no? If true then perhaps this lawyer needs to put in for a diary as he indeed has a memory lapse plus should be taken to task for submitting the NEW constitution when the old constitution had not even been ratified at the 2011 AGM that was passed quickly yet noone had even had time tio read it by a show of hands???

The Muaupoko Cluster also has no answers and many of the cluster do not go to meetings. Some meetings are met with verbal abuse and swearing so one can see why the cluster is down to just about one family. It really needs everyone to come together but as we see the situation in Sept 2015 the MTA is trying their best to appease but can only do so if everyone else comes to the party. All subsequent meetings have been scuttled by certain cluster members so one can see why even this cluster has not got it together and never will. Many changes have occurred. Steve Hirini has left as CEO; Mauhanga Williams left as Chairman as has Bendon Tukapua. No writeups in the daily. We hope the settlement will be for the best for all Muaupoko.