MUAUPOKO TRIBAL AUTHORITY

WHY THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LOOK FURTHER

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 own and have included ALL new names in their Wai 52 whose original claimants have all passed on. Those now running this claim have in the most part never been involved in Maori affairs in the tribe running back over 30 years with many having indirect whakapapa not direct to Maori Chiefs. A Muaupoko Claimants Cluster was formed with the lawyers representing those Wai claims that were left out. This included Wai 108 which at the time was not wanting to become involved due to individual disputes and the fact no dialogue was discussed and when it was it was bulldozed to nothing by the same MCC claimants at the beginings. We had reservations right through meetings then decided we wanted to be Independent even though the Crown had stated we must cluster. In June 2012 Wai 108 teminated being in the Cluster as it came to a head that claimants were intending to talk only for themselves & some were not showing up to the huis so noone knew where they were. It was totally disorganised but in saying this dominated by one person. We opted out.

Muaupoko Cluster Claimants in the Horowhenua settlements

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL WAI 2200
IN THE MATTER OF The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
AND
IN THE MATTER OF Wai 2200 the Porirua ki Manawatu Inquiry
AND
IN THE MATTER OF Muaupoko

JOINT MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL CONCERNING MUAUPOKO AND
MUAUPOKO CLAIMANT RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
DATED 12 JULY 2011
________________________________________________________________________
Te Mata a Maui Law
PO Box 44331
Point Chevalier
AUCKLAND 1246
Tel: 0508-TEMATA (0508-836282)
Email: david@tematalaw.co.nz
Counsel Acting: David Martin Stone
2
MAY IT PLEASE THE TRIBUNAL
1. This memorandum is filed on behalf of claimants enumerated in Annexure “A”(“the claimants”).
2. This memorandum is filed in preparation for the upcoming Kawiu marae judicial conference to be held 13th July 2011.
3. Counsel in this joint memorandum shall mean the collective legal offices and chambers of Kathy Ertel & Co, Te Haa Law and Te Mata a Maui Law. Muaupoko Tribal Authority Update
4. Counsel anticipates that the Tribunal will want to be updated concerning meetings, discussions and progress if any with the Muaupoko Tribal Authority (“MTA”) concerning the issues of mandate and progression towards hearing.
5. As counsel has previously indicated it is the claimants desire, individually and collectively, to proceed to hearing before engaging in negotiations with the Crown.

The MTA on the other hand, has had its mandate strategy approved by the Office of Treaty Settlements (“OTS”).
6. In the intervening time since the last Judicial Conference in this inquiry, counsel along with members of the Muaupoko Claimant Cluster met with the MTA and their legal counsel to discuss finding a way forward that would accommodate both interests. Unfortunately while both are committed to working together, the MTA is still resolute in proceeding towards direct negotiations with the Crown and the claimants wanting a hearing before the Waitangi Tribunal.

7. Recently, the claimants via counsel extended another offer to MTA counsel hoping to have this issue resolved but no response was received by the date requested. Accordingly the claimants see no benefit for further engagement in this exercise.
3 Mandate

8. In counsel’s submission the MTA has no inherent jurisdiction or authority, either express or implied, to represent Muaupoko for Waitangi Tribunal purposes or negotiation purposes.

9. For the avoidance of doubt the claimants do not give the MTA their mandate.

10. The claimants want to proceed to hearing and in counsel’s submission there is no reason, jurisdictional or otherwise, that should impede the claimants from doing so.

11. In counsel’s submission the correct position is that Muaupoko be permitted to advance towards hearings until such time that the MTA proves unequivocally that Muaupoko want to enter into negotiations with the Crown.

12. Until that time, in counsel’s submission, the MTA is incorrectly and improperly stalling Muaupoko progress especially given that:
a. It is unclear in terms of registered claimants (if any) who the MTA represents;
b. Counsel collectively represent approximately 78% of all Muaupoko registered claimants;
c. The MTA have stated twice in meetings with counsel and members of the Muaupoko Claimant Cluster that they do not have a mandate to represent Muaupoko for direct negotiations with the Crown and the same is supported
in the affidavit of John Kenrick dated 12 July 2011;
d. The claimants are organised and clustered and only need CFRT to fund them and will be seeking the same in due course;
e. The claimants have a draft Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the rules, procedures and tikanga for operating a Muaupoko Claimant Cluster;
f. The claimants will be presenting said memorandum to CFRT shortly;

4
g. The Muaupoko Claimant Cluster ratified and accepted the memorandum in principle.

Muaupoko Research Update
13. Counsel understands that research will be an issue raised at the conference and in anticipation of the same provides this synopsis of the collective Muaupoko research needs to the Tribunal.

14. Before addressing specific reports and their relationships to particular claims, counsel wish to assert that a complete, well-researched and documented oral and traditional history project for the Muaupoko tribe should be undertaken as a very high priority.

15. The claimants wish to acknowledge work done by Dr. Gilling that addressed the history surrounding Ihaia Taueki and his descendants in the Horowhenua area. This report has been useful but it was never intended to be the sole foundation of research supporting the claimants and their claims. The reports sought by the claimants must be complete and should address the full Muaupoko rohe not merely Muaupoko ki Horowhenua. The research required should address all hapū and cover the pre-waka migration history of Muaupoko as well as their fate after the arrival of colonial settlers.

16. Counsel strongly stress the need for an oral history component in addition to broad- scale research.

17. Claimants and counsel have identified the following research that appears essential to prove their claims:

Wai Synopsis of Claim Research Require

Wai 262 Findings are
relevant
5
concerns damage to toheroa beds, pingao, harakeke, foreshore & marine ecosystems,
the degradation of Horowhenua lakes,rivers, streams, sands and sand duneerosion, seabed, eel weirs and other
customary kaimoana sources treasured by Muaupoko, Public Works takings, theKohitere and Waitarere forests as they
relate to the ownership of Muaupokopeople, local government issues includingthe Horowhenua District Council and its
predecessors and their numerous breachesto the lands and environs of the Muaupoko people.
Muaupoko Mana Whenua Report
Muaupoko Lakes and Mana Moana Report
Muaupoko Waahi Tapu
and Environmental Report
Local Government Report
237 Wai 237 concerns the degradation of Lake Horowhenua and the legal and regulatory
laws and policies that abrogate from Muaupoko their kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga of Lake Horowhenua. This
problem extends to include sand dunes and other surround environs and waahi tapu.
Muaupoko Environmental and Waahi Tapu Report; Muaupoko Lakes, Waterways, and Natural Features and
Mana Moana Report; Muaūpoko Lake Horowhenua and surrounds environment report Muaupoko Environmental and Waahi Tapu Report;
Muaupoko Lakes, Waterways, and Natural Features and
6
Mana Moana Report; Muaūpoko Lake Horowhenua and surrounds environment
1490 Wai 1490 is a claim by Mario Hori-Te Pa and others. Details of this claim to be provided at a later stage.

1621 Wai 1621 is a claim by Mark Stevens. Details of this claim to be provided at a later stage.

1629 Wai 1629 is a claim filed by Viviene Taueki on behalf of Muaupoko concerns Crown policies and practices that have disregarded Māori matauranga, tino rangatiratanga, and katiakitanga obligations when decisions
concerning environmental matters are made, as well as land takings under the Native Land Court scheme.
Muaupoko Environment and Waahi Tapu Report

2045 Wai 2045 is a claim brought by an individual, namely Kahumaori Kay Pene, for and on behalf of Muaupoko. It
concerns the Crown’s taking of Muaupoko land and resources in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Muaupoko/District wide Oral and Traditional History Report.

2046 Wai 2046 is a claim filed by three individuals, namely Jillian Munroe, John and Roimate Kenrick for and on behalf of
District wide Economic Impacts Report
7
Muaupoko. It concerns Muaupoko lands loss which led to economic impoverishment and downstream prejudice including but not limited to criminal offending.

2048 Wai 2048 is a Whanau claim filed by an individual, namely Te Rautangata Kenrick concerning Whanau lands that the claimants allege were alienated from them by Native Land Court processes. It also alleges that the Crown imposed land administration policy and practice which were designed to further alienate the claimants from their ancestral lands. All these are issues applicable to all Muaupokom who have suffered land loss via the Native Land Court system.
Native Land Court Report

2050 Wai 2050 is a claim filed by an individual, namely Mariana Williams for and on behalf of Te Kapa Trust, Ihaia Taueki and Muaupoko. It concerns the Horowhenua block and the role the Native Court has played in alienating Muaupoko from the Horowhenua block.
Muaupoko Mana Whenua Report

2051 Wai 2051 is a Whanau claim filed by an individual, namely Whetu Kenrick for her brother, Derek and for her Whanau and for Muaupoko. The claimant’s brother, Derek,
District Wide Maori Mental Health Report suffered mental illness. It therefore concerns Maori mental health which pleads as both an issue and a consequence of Crown actions and prejudices which have detrimentally impacted upon and are applicable to the wider Muaupoko community. In that sense while initially a Whanau claim, it presents issues that
concern all of Muaupoko.

2052 Wai 2052 is a claim filed by an individual namely James Kenrick, for and on behalf of Muaupoko concerning Muaupoko waters, lakes, streams and beaches and Crown systematic abrogation of Muaupoko
kaitiakitanga, mana moana over said taonga. It is essentially a resource management claim hoping to restore kaitiakitanga and mana moana back to Muaupoko.
Muaupoko Mana Whenua Mana Moana Report
Specific Moana/Lakes Environmental Degradation Report

2053 Wai 2053 is a claim filed by two people, namely Mona Kupa and Hera Ferris for and on behalf of Muaupoko. It concerns the lack of adequate provision and access including financial funding and support to
Muaupoko to ensure adequate access to health care and support. Wai 2053 differs
from Wai 2173 such that the latter concerns historical Maori health issues whereas the former concerns contemporary Maori health issues including the failure to ensure
District Wide Health Social Economic Reportthat Maori health issues are recognised and
adequately addressed.

2054 Wai 2054 is a claim brought by an individual, namely Bella Moore for and on behalf of Muaupoko. It concerns rating and local government policy and practice which were purposely designed and implemented in such a way to omit
Muaupoko participation and benefit.
District Wide Local Government Report
District Wide Rating Report

2056 Wai 2056 is a claim brought by an individual, namely Henry Williams for and on behalf of Muaupoko. It concerns the alleged Crown failure to safeguard and adequately protect Muaupoko matauranga including education of all matters pertaining to Muaupoko such as te reo, Muaupoko tikanga and kawa, value systems, identity and the abrogation of Muaupoko education replacing the same with Pakeha education.
Muaupoko Oral and Traditional History Report

2093 Wai 2093 is a claim filed by an individual, namely Jean Brownie for and on behalf of Muaupoko concerning the Crown’s abrogation of Muaupoko to harvest beached whales including the meat, blubber, bones and other rongoa associated with beached whales. It is essentially a resource management claim hoping to restore kaitiakitanga back to Muaupoko.
Muaupoko Oral and Traditional History Report
Muaupoko Whenua Mana Moana Report

2140 Wai 2140 is a claim brought by an individual, namely Hinga Gardiner for and on behalf of Muaupoko. It is a mana
wahine claim which pleads that Muaupoko women have been displaced within both imported value systems which fail to
recognise Muaupoko women as equals to men.
Muaupoko Oral and Traditional History Report
Muaupoko Mana Whenua Report
District Wide Mana Wahine Report

2173 Wai 2173 is a claim brought by an individual, namely Carol Murray for and on behalf of Muaupoko. It concerns Crown established policies and practices that contribute to factors of ill health such as low income, poor housing, low education, and low unemployment and associated ill health disparities that disadvantage Muaupoko.
Muaupoko/District Wide Social Economic Report

2175 Wai 2175 is a claim by Francis Brown and concerns the abrogation of kaitiakitanga of Muaupoko in relation to marine and mammals in particular dead and stranded whales. The claim says stranded whales and
the fishing of them was part of Muaupoko culture and harvesting of whales for meat, blubber and bones were treasured taonga used for food, rongoa and weaponry whereas today the same is outlawed.
Muaupoko Mana Moana Report
Muaupoko Oral and Traditional History Report

2326 Wai 2326 is a claim brought by an individual, namely Peggy-Anne Gamble, for and on behalf of Muaupoko as well as more specifically the desecendants of Hopa Heremia. It concerns the Crowns taking of
Muaupoko land and resources, as well as the Crowns failure to properly protect the rights of the Muaupoko people.
Muaupoko/District wide Oral and Traditional History Report.

MIR 5912 MIR 5912 is a claim filed by Adelaide Waititi the full particulars of which will be
pleaded to at a later date.
Particulars to be provided at a later date

MIR 6031 Mir 6031 is a claim filed by Alexander Taueki and concerns Crown policy andm legislation and subsequent conduct when creating Māori Townships and the laws that governed them thereafter and subsequent
loss of Māori land
Native Townships Report
7. Counsel will discuss this memorandum further at the conference if required to do so.
DATED at Auckland this 12 July 2011.
___________________________
David Martin Stone
12
Linda Thornton - Counsel
Moana Sinclair - Counsel
Kathy Ertel - Counsel
TO: The Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal; Crown Law Office; and those on the
notification list for Wai 2200 Inquiry.
13
ANNEXURE “A”
Wai Number Claimant/Claimant Group Counsel
1. Wai 52 Kahu Pene K. Ertel
2. Wai 108 Tama Ruru M. Sinclair
3. Wai 237 William Taueki L. Thornton
4. Wai 1490 Mario Hori-Te Pa and others K. Ertel
5. Wai 1621 Mark Stevens K. Ertel
6. Wai 1622 Mervyn Taueki Ransom D. Stone
7. Wai 1629 Vivienne Taueki L. Thornton
8. Wai 2046 John and Roimata Kenrick and Jillian Munroe D. Stone
9. Wai 2048 Te Rautangata Kenrick D. Stone
10. Wai 2050 Mariana Williams D. Stone
11. Wai 2051 Whetu Kenrick D. Stone
12. Wai 2052 James Kenrick D. Stone
13. Wai 2053 Mona Kupa D. Stone
14. Wai 2054 Bella Moore D. Stone
15. Wai 2056 Henry Williams D. Stone
16. Wai 2093 Jean Brownie D. Stone
17. Wai 2140 Hinga Gardner D. Stone
18. Wai 2173 Carol Murray D. Stone
19. Wai 2175 Francis Brown D. Stone
20. Wai 2326 Peggy Ann Gamble K. Ertel
21. MIR 5912 Adelaide Waititi D. Stone
14
22. MIR 6031 Alexander Taueki, et al. L. Thornton

The Government has ignored tikanga the most important aspect for Maori. Some like Wai 108 is 20 years old and will not even get a say yet is the only originasl claim left of a claimant still alive today.

To brush this aside the politicians who allow the MTA a mandate on a flawed AGM etc and false media exposure plus Te Puni Kokiri's irresponsible draft is totally wrong so this website will portray just why there is a problem that needs to be solved. Remember too the Kaunihera Kaumatua Council never holds meetings in the Horowhenua so kaumatua are not even advised or asked to offer advice from those who have knowledge.

HOW EASY IS IT TO LOSE EVERYTHING:

However, an iwi or tribe in NZ can lose all the money they receive from the Government of NZ is easy to fathom. Bad investments, inexperienced Trustees, lack of vision, self help rather than for our younger generations & most of all traditional tikanga. Wai Claims allow urban authorities and those with indirect whakapapa or geneology to start and form trusts to receive such monies from the Government starting off to facilitate social services. The Government of course wants to wash their hands of these cases so they quickly aim to have direct negotiations with authorities who have no experience apart from being able to manipulate their followers by a numbers game--the same as why the MLC Maori Land Court will not intervene and allow voters establish their own trustees, which has never worked in the Horowhenua and does not work when you look at the track record of trusts in the Horowhenua. The Court up to 2013 have told us we are not owners and our lanmd is in the hands of the Lake Domain Board which is wrong.

Once whoever has a mandate its hard to reverse so the NZ Govt needs to get this house in order first. There are those who can conduct social services but their is a small band that can only conduct business concepts perhaps with experienced outside help as well. Its always been the same with Maori tribes and always wil be. Some in the family structure receive all the jobs and those smaller entities of families miss out as their voice is never heard not forgetting the quieter ones who say nothing yet perhaps can contribute if only they were asked. But its not just in NZ. Its tribal and where it is tribal its the norm world wide the fittest win the not so fit lose with not many rules in the game eg. Uganda, Rawanda, Soloman Islands etc.

But those who run these Trusts have never experienced having funds to play with and as with Ngati Tama it was a loose closed shop to do as they pleased. With Muapoko its the same. Not one of the promoters has ever invested their own funds at risk yet now want to go direct negotiations with the Crown behind closed doors to receive whatever the Crown will give them as a fair deal. They will receive what they feel is an adequate settlement for all but as one will see it will never filter down. The scary part is if one has never invested own funds at risk or even had the ability to save via business sums over $100k then how can one trust where these funds will go eventually--we all know the answer to this. What is a good investment and how will this settlement be based on what calculations--will land returns be in $$$ amounts as fair and how if the MTA have no research conducted to date can they even think of going for a Crown Settlement without input from those who know more?.

Remember Noone else is allowed just representatives in the group they choose and this is where the fault lies.

The Crown does not care as they want this all over and they do not care about the children and the families who will gain nothing--that being the majority of the Maoris in the group tribe under the claim territory. The lawyers of course charge what they like and the Justice system does not even vet what is paid to these lawyers nor the applicants whose claims they are on the back with know. The claimants are not told until after the Legal Aid is paid to the lawyer then a simple letter is sent to the Claimant to say the Justice Dept Legal Aid have OK'd the payment to such and such for the hours of work they have claimed for---& its in the 10s of 1000s as some of the commercial Law firms charge I have heard $400NZ an hour---not bad for writing a few letters.

But they--the Legal Aid Dept do ask the applicants if they have a problem with the payment after saying they have paid the lawyers?? now is this crazy--no it can't be as its the NZ Justice System policy. In business one must send in an invoice then statement to then receive payments but this way is as said the policy? But of course things happen and as the claims progress of course action by some lawyers is that they are thinking this is the best opportunity to fill their pockets up and decide to buy property under a mortgage. Well as at June 2012 there seems to be a go slow with payments as too many lawyers---yes apparently Ngati Raukawa have we heard around 52 lawyers on the pay roll?? are all in for the kill? We can also see why the Government want a quick solution as its costing them.

Are lawyers for themselves? well they certainly know how to dip into the till. Take the case of Rotorua lawyer John David Rangitauira now struck off who spent other people's money after being duped by a $27 million email inheritance scam Got four and a half years jail -- four charges of obtaining by deception & used $338,834 from a Maori trust he chaired. Lawyers are scarey to say the least--but their position is no different from a worker's.

To date MCC lawyers are doing well portraying what the problems are as at July 2013 and the MTA are having internal problems and must now submit to TPK to keep themselves being solvant as they hide many anomolies within their authority.

The blame is on all Maori not thinking and getting their act together. Too much bickering and nothing being achieved. Disgraceful.

All are too blame