It seems to us that the early decision by the Crown to settle the two hapū separately has had a damaging impact on relationships, particularly between the trust board and hapū, as the board sought to pursue its kotahitanga approach at the expense of whanaungatanga. The Crown must not create fresh grievances. The Crown has a duty to ensure that the application of its settlement policies to the Ngātiwai mandating process does not cause substantial damage to the whanaungatanga of hapū and other groups including the trust board. 7 The decision to pursue direct negotiations with the Crown to achieve a Treaty settlement was explicitly taken to allow Ngātiwai to ‘catch up’ with its two hapū and rebuild the unity that separate settlement processes threatened. 6 Thus, what Mr Edmonds described as ‘artificial divisions imposed on Ngātiwai’ for settlement purposes became a strong impetus for seeking a unified approach. 5Ĭounsel for the trust board submitted that the division ‘imposed on Ngātiwai for settlement purposes’ resulted in ‘continuing mamae’ (pain). His ‘issues with the Crown’ he would ‘save for the Crown’, but Mr Edmonds noted that Crown processes tend to ‘herd all of us’. The decision was ‘heaped’ on the board by the Crown and had been ‘very difficult’, a cause of contention that had split the board. Mr Edmonds told us the board felt forced into supporting the separate settlements in spite of its wish to ‘keep the entire iwi together, whanau, hapu, and iwi together’. The trust board has expressed deep concern at the damage that the Treaty settlement process has caused to relationships within Ngātiwai. ‘The reality is that the implications were not well understood by the Board at that time, and it was not a unanimous decision, but we have learnt from our mistakes and are still experiencing the negative effects of this decision’. 3Īlthough the trust board agreed at the time to support the two hapū in negotiating separate settlements, chair Haydn Edmonds told us that was a decision ‘we regret’. 2 The trust board responded that, on behalf of Ngātiwai, it had ‘enjoyed an autonomous relationship with the Crown’ that had not been challenged by other iwi, but the Minister responded that ‘working within a wider group’ would assist the Crown’s wish to negotiate Northland claims ‘as expeditiously as possible’. Direct negotiations with Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Rehua, he said, would ‘facilitate the protection of Ngātiwai’s interests in Kaipara and Mahurangi’. 1 The Minister replied that he wanted to settle Ngātiwai claims at the same time as the claims of Ngāpuhi, but could not say when that would be. In response, the Ngātiwai Trust Board wrote to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in August 2009 ‘on behalf of all the Ngatiwai Hapu’, seeking to initiate a dialogue and begin work towards settling Ngātiwai Treaty claims. Two hapū of Ngātiwai, Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Rehua, were included in the Tāmaki Makaurau proposals. In 2009, the Crown presented settlement proposals as part of negotiations with claimant groups in Tāmaki Makaurau, Kaipara, and Hauraki. Here, our focus is on identifying whether the Crown’s policies and practices have caused (or significantly contributed to) the problems we have identified, or whether they are – as the Crown suggested – matters that were more appropriately left to the people of Ngātiwai to decide.īack to top 5.2 The mandate strategy and the vote 5.2.1 The steps taken towards developing a mandate strategy In this chapter, we analyse the actions taken by the Crown as it worked towards its decision to recognise the mandate of the Ngātiwai Trust Board to negotiate a settlement of historical Treaty claims. This constraint also means that hapū will have limited ability to participate fully in Treaty settlement negotiations.
In the previous chapter we concluded that hapū have been constrained in their ability to determine whether and on what basis their claims should be included in the mandate that is held by the Ngātiwai Trust Board. The evidence presented to us has demonstrated a number of serious problems with the mandate to settle the historical claims of Ngātiwai. 5.4 The decision to recognise the mandate.5.3.4 Crown efforts to resolve problems identified with the mandate.5.3.3 The trust board’s engagement plan.5.3.1 The steps taken towards advertising the mandate.
5.3 Advertising the mandate and the submissions process.5.2.2 The Crown’s role in the development of the mandate strategy.5.2.1 The steps taken towards developing a mandate strategy.Chapter 5: The Crown's Actions in the Mandating Process Contents
0 kommentar(er)
