The Dicktatorship of Treaty Negotiations

In this blog I will discuss problems arising for whanau, hapu (sub-tribe), and iwi (tribe) involved in the treaty negotiations process; with specific reference to one of my own hapu: Ngati Kurupakiaka (koo-doo-paar-key-ah-car).
The treaty negotiations process is a significant step for Maori to take in the proper restoration of lands and taonga that were unjustly stolen from them by the Crown. It’s an arduous ordeal that Maori can ill afford to proceed with lightly. Unfortunately for my own hapu the saddest problem it inflicts upon itself – causing them to enter into pre-negotiations bewildered and ambiguous as to what these processes are – is ignorance and also lack of understanding.
But, has the Crown made this process easier for Maori, aside from the fact that it provides an unsubstantial amount of money and resources for research into our claims, in which it should? Absolutely not! The Crown has dished out stringent guidelines and “preferences” for each iwi, hapu and whanau, affected by its actions which have breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, to follow although it is the Crown’s misconduct.
An example of this is the Crown’s expectation to redress all historical treaty grievances by 2014. Another example of this is the Crown’s “preference” to negotiate claims with large natural groupings (LNG) rather than individual whanau and hapu (although in some circumstances, it may be possible to deal with distinct hapu or whanau interests that are separate from the main tribal claims within a settlement). These “speedy guidelines” have caused for individual whanau and hapu, including Ngati Kurupakiaka, to feel that if they don’t hurry along to meet the Crown’s stringent rules, they will miss out on any hopes of claim settlement. As a result of this, we are walking into hapu and mandating meetings voting on motions that effectively are subject to harming the progression of the hapu to treaty settlement.

Oha Manuel of Ngati Kurupakiaka expressed her view saying that the treaty grievance processes were dictated to Maori and were not negotiated between Maori and the Crown. “The Crown more or less has said, we want to redress grievances caused by us towards Maori; this is the way we will do it and these are the rules”. That is that! She also says that the Crown is not forth coming with adequate resources for Maori to do this. “The Crown is in a better position to say this is how we wronged you, this is what we can offer to you to make amends, do you accept?” She also supports allegations that say treaty claims that have been settled to date are but a mere 2% - 4% of what was actually stolen by the Crown.

These processes allow other whanau, hapu and large natural groupings to disrespect tikanga tangata whenua in many ways. One example of this is the mandating processes towards direct negotiations, where the large natural grouping is able to trample on the ahi kaa roa/ahi kaa (home people) by obtaining votes from members of the hapu who live away from the whenua to mandate their large natural group; whether ahi kaa have given their mandate or not.

Because of the Crown’s “preference” to negotiate with LNG’s, Kurupakiaka has opted to be a part of the LNG Te Tira Whakaemi O Te Wairoa (Te Tira). Te Tira also comprises 6 other claimant hapu/groups in the Wairoa District. Let me introduce the parties involved in this problem for Kurupakiaka:


· Ngati Kurupakiaka:
My hapu or sub-tribe, who in this case is the claimant. Kurupakiaka’s stronghold is based at Taihoa Marae beneath the mana of the eponymous ancestor, Te Kawiti.

· Te Tira Whakaemi O Te Wairoa (Te Tira):
An umbrella name for The Large Natural Grouping, comprising six various iwi and hapu of the Wairoa District, including Ngati Kurupakiaka, entering into direct negotiations with the Crown to seek a “comprehensive settlement” (settlement of all the historical claims of a claimant group at the same time) of all their historical claims. However, Te Tira is the mandated body, made up of three reps from each hapu within the LNG, to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown. They were formally known in the earlier stages of their instigation as the Wairoa District Working Group.

· Wairoa Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board:
One of the six (6) original claimant groups in the LNG. WWMTB was initially the representative group for Ngati Kurupakiaka at the Te Tira table. However, Kurupakiaka has since mandated its own representatives to the table.

· The Crown: The “Dicktatorship”

Check out this website giving differing views on the treatment of the treaty settlements process:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/treaty_negotiations

You can never trust your own: The determination of a hapu to get what is theirs

As I have mentioned in my previous blog, there are several processes in negotiations that allow specific whanau and hapu within a large natural grouping to tread on tikanga and other whanau/hapu. An example of this is the validity Ngati Kurupakiaka possesses in forming its own representation on the Te Tira table to avoid this process. Let me explain.
The relationship between WWMTB and Ngati Kurupakiaka is an intimate one which goes back to the time of its instigation. Sir Turi Carroll (dec), President of the NZ Maori Council between 1963 and 1967, and Lena Manuel (dec), former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, both of Ngati Kurupakiaka descent; have both been chair of The Trust Board in their respective times. The guardianship of this formidable player, and the management of present-day treaty negotiations, was passed on to Carroll’s nephew: Rangi Paku, the current chair of WWMTB. Lena’s son is the current secretary.
Based on this information, Kurupakiaka have become devoted to the workings of The Trust Board and are “loyalists” to their cause because of these ties. When it became resolute that representation for Kurupakiaka was to be mandated by The Trust Board, the hapu effectively sought to alienate itself from this enduring treaty-negotiations-relationship. It seems like a stab in the back, but it is a strategic move for the hapu which strongly reflects its analysis of the treaty settlement process. Of course, this came after some thought and deliberation. The motion received mixed views. Many of the loyalists respected the relationship it had with The Trust Board, the predominant make-up of this party being the older generation of the hapu, and wanted to retain the Trust Board’s mandate. The younger counter-parts were in favour of moving an individual hapu mandate to the Te Tira table. It was decided so through a letter to Te Tira.
Now let me explain how this move is important for both Kurupakiaka and the Trust Board.
I have mentioned that Te Tira Whakaemi O Te Wairoa comprises 6 individual hapu/groups. These groups have specific claims and interests in the county of the Wairoa Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry District, known as Te Rohe Potae of Te Wairoa. These groups are:
· Ngati Raakaipaaka of Nuhaka
· Hinemanuhiri, who have a large interest in Te Kapu (Frasertown) and Lake Waikaremoana
· Rongomaiwahine, who have a large distinct interest in the Mahia region, including Portland Island and the Mahia peninsular
· Ngai Te Rakato, whose interests lie on the mainland in the Mahia region including Oraka and Kopuawhara
· Whakaki Nui-A-Rua collective, of Whakaki
· WWMTB: includes representation for other hapu in the Wairoa Township borough including: Ngati Hingaanga, Ngai Te Apatu and others

As I have said, the issues instated in this large natural group are a reflection of the power and governance that allows individual whanau/hapu to tramp on others. The three mandated representatives, for each group/hapu on Te Tira, account for one vote at the table. Basically, the votes are lop-sided and biased! I won’t put names to the faces but it seems logical that if Kurupakiaka was to join The Trust Board at the table, we would empower them and indeed ourselves with an extra vote.
For Kurupakiaka, it comes back to securing what is rightfully ours. With one vote at the table, The Trust Board is ineffective against this bias.
An example is the appointing of the “governance entity” that handles settlement assets received from the Crown: “prior to the introduction of legislation the claimant group will have ratified and established a governance entity to hold and manage the settlement” (A Guide to Treaty of Waitangi Claims and Negotiations with the Crown). Te Tira has NOT stipulated in its deed of mandate the requirements for appointing this “governance entity”. Because of the group’s nature, it is entirely possible that “comprehensive settlement” (refer to first blog) will be undertaken. This means that redress of Kurupakiaka’s distinct claims will be a part of the wider settlement package, but when it comes to dishing out settlement assets, Kurupakiaka may not obtain its RIGHTFUL redress amount; hence, the importance of the hapu having its own mandate. The ultimate goal of Kurupakiaka and the Trust Board is to have reps on this “entity” to negotiate their specific claims with the Crown. Robert Joseph’s thesis, The government of themselves: indigenous peoples’ internal self-determination, effective self-governance and authentic representation: Waikato-Tainui, Ngāi Tahu, gives similar occurrences, alluding to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu and Ngai Tahu land claims, where distinct hapu were ripped off by their own people.
Although every LNG requires a deed of mandate, stipulating its “fair” intentions, defining its claimant group and identifying the area to which claims relate, there are alliances and secret partnerships within the group that deprive the other hapu of fair settlement. Perhaps Kurupakiaka should follow in the footsteps of individual hapu who have gone forth into direct negotiations with the Crown as themselves. It seems an appropriate avenue in avoiding conflict with other parties, but no guarantees redress is just and honourable. That’s the saddest thing; it’s a lose lose situation!

Check out the negotiations process on:
http://www.ots.govt.nz/

My first blog discusses the theory of communication, what it is, how I’d define it and how it has progressed over time. Communication is the process in which people basically send and receive messages, verbally or non-verbally. Inter-personal communication, in this modern age, is more efficient and easier because of technology advancements. Back in Gail’s and Trisha’s day, there were a number of channels in which to communicate with people but those channels weren’t as instant or technological as the ones now, i.e. email, fax, text message etc; these channels are economical. However, I have found that although these technological methods may be efficient and instant, they can also be unreliable. Example, I sent a sketch of a fire escape plan to my parents by fax, my parents’ fax had run out of ink and parts of the sketch were missing. The missing vitals included the gather point and an alternative escape route. After much debate they decided to ring me to get the correct information. They didn’t know whether to: assemble at the Walnut tree or at the mailbox, jump through the window or take the door.
Generally disruptions in the communication channels can create modifications to a message and create confusion for the receiver. Technology provides us with economical channels in which to communicate but doesn’t necessarily guarantee that communication will be successful.
I believe that the most effective method of communication is face-to-face. It is where the sender and receiver meet eye-to-eye, where both can give feedback to each other and understand what is being said. However, as I have mentioned, in every communication channel including face-to-face, there are interferences; e.g. in face-to-face situations: the receiver could be hearing impaired, the sender could be illiterate and send out the wrong words and therefore the wrong meaning.
Here is a hyperlink to a classic example of a misunderstanding in a face-to-face situation.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/1JezBurrows.html