Mandate huis were poorly represented and was conducted by a facilitator Mark Moses only with questions not being explained by members of the MTA. Any desention the meeting was closed eg. Palmerston North hui.Our disgust was sent to the MPs to view and NO REPLIES forthcoming.

No Kaunihera kaumatua meetings have been called for to us kaumatua since 2011. Yet they have now been asked to furnish the same to TPK--Te Puni Kokiri who are not silly & know whats going on. This is good as they need to now look at what must be done---a clean out.

The Maori Party is concerned by the low numbers of Maori taking up the opportunity to switch from the General roll to the Maori roll, and are urging Maori voters to stand up for Maori representation and their Maori seats. Dr Pita Sharples, Maori Party Co-Leader said "the first month results for the Maori electoral option are showing that more Maori are switching onto the general roll, than are switching to the maori roll----you can see why? as its a shame that business has gone to a new dimension like the Maori Trustee which is propped up by Pita Sharples. For us we want the Maori Party to check out the MTA and clean it out. Wait and see but read more on what we are saying but what of your mokos future. Where are Maori really going?

MAORI PARTY LOOSES Ikaroa Rawhiti by-election

The latest Ikaroa Rawhiti by-election Sunday 30th June 2013 saw Labour’s newest MP, Meka Whaitiri win the seat by a majority of over 1500 votes and the Maori Party now scratching for survival. Maori Party result, their candidate Na Raihania won 20% of the vote about the same he got in the general election. But the Mana Party went well past the Maori Party to take second place. Dr Sharples said Te Ururoa Flavell’s leadership challenge was a cause in their loss as voters now see the Maori Party as a defunct party. What you have is a left-wing and a right-wing Maori party as both Mana & Maori party got more votes than Labour together. However due to their fracture & fighting typical in all Maori you have only room for Maori to have political power with one Maori party not 2. Remember Hone Harawira left the Maori Party so they could have won this election if they stayed together. Its too late now and your vote today is a wasted vote if they stay like they are.

Kua tuturu to whakaaro ki te tiriro ki nga mea anake e tika ana ki a koe, engari pea hei mua ake nei ka ata marama ai to titiro

KATHY ERTEL & Co.
barristers & solicitors
telephone 04 384 1148 facsimile 04 384 1199
26 bidwill street mt cook wellington 6021
Free phone 0800 klelaw
Kathy Ertel Principal
Linda Thornton Associate | David Laird Associate

14 December 2012
By email only
Christopher Finlayson, Minister of Treaty Settlement Negotiations
Parliament Buildings Wellington

Pita Sharples
Minister of Māori Affairs Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Tēnākōrua e ngāminita
Muaūpoko 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 Muaūpoko Tribal Authority. We act for several claimants who are members of the Muaūpoko 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 Tribunal’s 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 Muaūpoko 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 Muaūpoko tupuna and included 7 hapū that are not Muaūpoko hapū. Our clients cannot fathom whose these additional 7 hapū 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 Muaūpoko as to be unrecognisable and overbroad. It has allowed people who are not Muaūpoko to vote on the future of Muaūpoko 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.
Hon. Christopher Finlayson -3- 14 December 2012
Hon. Pita Sharples

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 ElectioNZ 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 inasmuch 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 Muaūpoko 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
Hon. Christopher Finlayson -4- 14 December 2012
Hon. Pita Sharples
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 opposeꈯparticularly since these are presumably the people who managed to generate 7 new hapūand 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
Associate
cc: Mr. Tom White
Ms. Jaclyn Williams

[ Not one reply back from the Ministers as at June 2013 ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
">Download PDF
LETTER TO MINISTERS FROM kaumatua Charles Rudd
Cl- Postal Counter
Levin 5500
19 December 2012

To whom it may concern; For your Information
Testa koutou katoa, ano
Reference: Muoupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA) proposed mandate.
Subject: Muaupoko Waitangi Claims
Issue: Continuing colonial' Divide and conqueor' PDivide and rule' ethos'.
"Every object tells a story, feel the message, and don't shoot the messenger".

This communication is an additional follow-up, to the correspondence dated the 16. of December 2012, which was also sent to Elea fons.com, PO Box 3138, Christchurch 8140.

I. The Muaupoko tribe has 36 Waitangi claims before the Waitangi Tribunal, in the ki
Manawatu, district. They are set out as such: 23 Claimants aligned to the Muaupoko Cluster Claimant group.
12 Independent claimants

I Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA), claimant
2. The essence of my point is that the Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA), with their one claim and with the help of Crown agents, are deviously manipulating to take ova all of the Muaupoko claims, so that they can go into direct negotiations with the Office of Treaty Settlements. We of the Muaupoko Cluster Claimant group, do not want to go into direct negotiations with the Office of Treaty Settlements at this point of time, as we need to go through the Waitangi Tribunal research process beforehand, to do justice and due diligence to our individual claims.

3. Crown Forest Rental Trust, Te Puni Kokiri, the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA), are all in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, 1840, Article .. Tino Rangatiratanga / Self Determination.

4
The Crown Forest Rental Trust is financially subsidising the Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA) with their one claim, and refuses to financially subsidise the Muaupoko Cluster Claimant group with their twenty three claimants, or the other Claimants. Crown Forest Rental is not asking the Muaupoko people what they want, they are telling the Muaupoko people what they want. Where is the fair play in that, I ask? Where is the justice, legally or morally?

5. Te Puni Kokiri is also perceived to be supportive of the Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA)'s, in the MTh's manipulate marketing svategies, in reference to the proposed mandate to deviously take over the other claimants Waitangi claim, by stealth. The new Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri Michelle Hippolit, is perceived to have a conflict of interest because she has connections to a person who hos been convected to help
the Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incorporate (MTA), to market the MTA's proposed take over mandate strategy.
That is a conflict of interest because Te Puni Kokiri is not asking the Muaupoko people what they wan, they are telling the Muaupoko people what they want.

6 The Office of Treaty Settlements along with the others are perceived to be deploying Divide and Conqueor / Divide and Rule strategies and tactic's (Maori against Maori) which amounts to institutional racism and ethnic cleansing.
Te Puni Kokiri and the Office of Treaty Settlements must be brought to account to what is perceived to be deviousness and manipulation, straight eller the Tatum Park hui, on the 19. day of October 2012. The deed that they have contrived on that above dale amounted to kupapatanga (Crown Maori using Maori against Maori), which sets the Muaupoko people, against the Muaupoko PeePie.

8 I ask that, what right and by whose authority does Crown Forest Rental Trust, Te Puni Kokirii, the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Muaupoko Tribal Authority Incomonue (MTA), and any hidden others, have to market my WA1 1631, Waitangi Tribunal registration number in the MTA's proposed mandate propaganda? Wai 1631, is my intellectual property as such, my domain that as I see it, that only the Waitangi Tribunal processes, and others that I give permission can use.

Further matters:
9. A Mr. Philip Taueki, whom is of the Muaupoko tribe and also a Waitangi Tribunal claimant, approximately two years ago or thereabout, made an application to the Maori Land Court under 'Section 29' of the 'Te Tom Whenoa Maori Act 1993 / Maori Land Act 1993'. Prior to the time of his' Section 29' application, Mr. Taueke rightfully an became annoyed at the ongoing internal bickerings and incompetence within the Muaupoko vibe, hence his
application. Right up to date, nothing has eventuated regarding his application, and mauers have come to
breaking point and violence within the Muaupoko Tribc.Matters are perceived to be of either procrastination, incompetence, or both by one or all of the parties that should had serviced, processed and executed those proceedings.

10. 'Section 29' of the Ire Tore When. Maori Act 1993 / Maori Land Act 1993'.

29. Reference to Court for inquiry:
(I) Minister, the Chief Executive, or the Chief Judge may at any time refer to the Court for inquiry and report any matter as to which, in the opinion of the Minister, the Chief Executive, or the Chief Judge, it may be necessary or expedient that any such inquiry should be made.

(2) A reference under this section shall be deemed to be an application within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court, and the Maori Land Court shall have full power and authority accordingly to hear the matter and to make such repor and recommendation on the matter to the Minister, the Chief Executive, or the Chief Judge as the Maori Land Court thinks proper.

Note: With respect of the above, and with the intimidation's, threats, harassment's, assaults, home invasions, and neap.s notices going on within the Muaupoko people in reference to Muaupoko politics, it may escalate to far worse. Which brings up the subject, such as: There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about AIM because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody would not do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when actually Nobody asked Anybody.

PS: Does that above saying seem familiar to any of you political representatives?

I I. Incompetence and or procrastination must not be the name of a serious outcome, therefore am of the opinion and recommendation that for the Muaupoko tribe, 'Section 29' of the `Te Tere Whenua Maori Act 1993 / Maori Land Act 1993'must be followed up with:

12. 'Section 30' of the 'To Turn Whence Maori Act 1993 / Maori Land Act 1993'.
30. Maori Land Court's jurisdiction to advise on or determine representation of Muni
groups:
(I) The Maori land Court may do either of the following things:
(.)
advise other courts, commissions, or tribunals as to who are the most appropriate representatives of a class or group of Maori:
(b) determine, by order, who are the most appropriate representatives of a class or group of Maori.
(2) The juisdiction of the Maori Land Court in subsection (1) applies to representation of a class or group of Maori in or for the purpose of (current or intended) proceedings, negotiations, consultations, allocations of property, or other matters.
(3) A request for a advice or an application for an order under subsection (I) is an application within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court, and the Maori Land Cola has the power and authority to give advice and make determination as the Courts thinks Penner.]

So to the above, what is the problem? What is the hold up to Mr. Philip Tack' , application. So I am asking all of you politicians, please inquire into this urgent and serious matter?

Recommendation:,
In reference to Muaupoko Waitangi claims that That Mr. Philip Taueki section 29 application
is proceeded to forthwith with urgency and then followed up with the section 30.
And
In reference to all of the 36 Mumpoko Waitangi claimants, that all of the claimants is
enforced into an inclusive consensus group of one body, but not as an MTA takeover. And
that the Crown and its agents do not transact business with the claimants until that has
eventuated.
• I am communicating with all of you differing political party leaders because you were all
voted in by the people of Aotearoa / New Zealand, to service and protect all our interests
without fear or favour.
• Logic and common sense must dictate that logic and common sense must prevail, to what I
have out-lined in my two correspondence communications.
• Please do not make the mistake of treating the message Ma I have outlined as an opinion or
allegation as such, without first making a serious inquiry into the matters. Remember Mat I
am a messenger.
Tens koutou, tens }mama tens koutou katoa. Hurl not
Naku noa na
Charles Rudd (snr)

[ Not one reply back from the Ministers as at June 2013 ]

All but Wai 52 want to go Tribunal hearings. Wai 52 want direct negotiations to cut the majority out as at June 2013. Muaupoko need to voice your concerns on this mandate. There is no leadership in Muaupoko and there is no way inexperienced Wai52 mandate new claimants [ all original claimants have passed away ] are going to express what Wai 108 claims wants.

More constructive work must be attended to as the MTA continues to fight amongst themselves. They need to include the claimants and come together as the issues are basically personality family conflicts & nepotism amongst them. It does not help our mokos, our kuia and koros and we are losing what little we have now. It has to stop and guidance can be had from Te Puni Kokiri which we hope will return a fragmented Iwi back to normality. Those of you from overseas have your say and tell us what you want by writing to us:

E hiahia ana ahau kia rongo i au whakaaro mo runga i tenei

NZ MAORI PARTY updated July 2nd 2013 Sharples quits as co- leader

[ History ] [ Wai 108 claim ] [ Office of Treaty Settlements ]

[ Lake Blame 2023 ] [ Lake news 2018 ] [ WECA Water & Environment group 2018 ] [ Drains,inlets and streams feeding the Lake 2018 ]

[ Arawhata flooding June 20th 2015 ] [ Listener Karl du Fresne Report Lake Aug 2014 ] [ Lake Trustees vote to remove Lake buildings? ] [ Sir Wira Gardiners shock report about MTA Nov 2013 ] [ Horowhenua Council Rating June 2014 ]

[ CFRT Crown Forestry Rental Trust] [ The money grab ] [ MCC- Muaupoko Cluster Group ] [ Horowhenua Lake 2013 ] [ ROLD Act ] [ Horowhenua Lake Trust ] [ OTS selling our Landbanked hospital & kimberley ] [ Lake Accord 2013 to NOT clean our Lake ] [ Lake Lobby Group 2013 to clean our Lake ] [ Horowhenua Council Polluters ] [ Lake Accord 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cleaning the Lake area 2024 [ Livin in Levin decide to clean the domain ]

Please note some pages on this website are unlisted for public viewing. Info has been collated from oral conversations from kuia & kaumatua & text material we have accumulated over years. [ Info Indemnity ]