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/