Thursday, November 23, 2017
Whakatohea Pre-settlement claims trust representative Arihia Tuoro and Whakatohea Maori Trust Board chief executive Dickie Farrar under cross-examination during the Waitangi Tribunal hearing at Wairaka Marae in Whakatane. Photo Karla Akuhata D6238-19
Karla Akuhata
STATEMENTS to the Waitangi Tribunal panel by one of Whakatohea’s treaty negotiators have been dismissed as “personalised attacks” and not fact.
Ngai Tamahaua deputy chairman Peter Herewini said he was disappointed that Maui Hudson’s evidence to the panel included a statement that he did not believe there was significant opposition within the sub-tribe to the Whakatohea Pre-settlement Claims trust negotiating an agreement to settle the tribe’s treaty grievances.
Mr Hudson is one of two people appointed by the Whakatohea Pre-settlement Trust to negotiate an agreement with the Government to settle the tribe’s treaty grievances. He also represents the Ngai Tamahaua sub-tribe on the Whakatohea Maori Trust Board with fellow hapu member Tracy Hillier.
As well as representing the sub-tribe on the trust board, Ms Hillier is also listed, with Rita Wordsworth, as the Ngai Tamahaua claimant with the Waitangi Tribunal.
Last week, at the urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing into the Whakatohea settlement held at the Awakeri Events centre, Mr Maui said Ngai Tamahaua supported the pre-settlement trust negotiations, and opposition to it only stemmed from Ms Hillier and a small group of people.
The hearing was granted to investigate whether the Government had acted in a fair and reasonable way when negotiating a settlement with the tribe, including whether the Whakatohea Pre-Settlement Trust was the appropriate group to discuss the matters with.
During his evidence, Mr Hudson said claimants did not own the claims and therefore should have no right to expect their consent was required for inclusion of it in the tribe’s settlement.
This week, two additional hearing days were scheduled and held at Wairaka Marae in Whakatane.
Many of the groups opposing the pre-settlement trust’s mandate, including lawyers on behalf of Ngai Tamahaua, wanted to use time during the extra two days to cross-examine evidence delivered by Mr Hudson in the previous week.
However, Mr Hudson was not available to attend either of the extra two days.
Instead, only Whakatohea Trust Board chief executive Dickie Farrar and Arihia Tuoro, representing the pre-settlement trust, were able to be cross-examined.
Mr Herewini, who was at Wairaka Marae too, because Ngai Tamahau chairman, Peter Selwyn was unable to make it due to other obligations, said he was disappointed the hapu’s lawyer, Te Kani Williams, wasn’t able to set the record straight when it came to Mr Hudson’s evidence.
“It was unfortunate that he should continue a strong line of personal opposition. I thought it was most unfortunate and it showed him in a rather poor light.”
Mr Herewini said Ngai Tamahaua’s claim was originally lodged by kaumatua Matenga Biddle.
He said Ms Hillier and Ms Wordsworth were appointed as claimants by the hapu, which met every month, following the death of Mr Biddle.
“When you see Maui’s opinion repeated in the newspaper that is really disappointing and unfortunate that he would have that conversation publicly when it was one that we should have internally.
“We support Tracy and Rita with their management of the claim. What it comes down to is that we have monthly hapu hui at the Opape marae and at those meetings we support a full comprehensive inquiry, which is what Tracy and Rita have said in their submission.
Mr Herewini said the benefit of a full comprehensive inquiry was that Ngai Tamahaua, and the other Whakatohea claimants, would have the ability to have their stories and research heard by the Government. Under the process agreed to by the pre-settlement trust, the Government had agreed to allow and pay for research to be conducted over a five-month period to establish an agreed account of grievances.
However, Mr Herewini said he doubted whether five months was long enough to put together an acceptable account of each of the sub-tribe’s historical grievances.
He also said much of the information held by claimants would not be available to the pre-settlement trust.
“And the Government will be left with a potential raft of modern day breaches [of the Treaty of Waitangi].”