Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry Report The Waitangi Tribunal released it’s report on the Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry on 11 September The findings and recommendations of the Tribunal can be found in Chapter 5, pages 85 – 101. They are summarised below. The Tribunal concluded that the Crown’s decision to recognise the Tuhoronuku IMA is in breach of its Treaty duty of active protection because that entity, as it is presently structured, is incapable of properly representing the interests and aspirations of hapu in negotiations with the Crown. The Tribunal find the claims to be well-founded. Although the Tribunal consider the flaws they have identified in the Tuhoronuku IMA structure to be fundamental, they also consider they can be remedied without restarting the entire mandating process. There are seven key remedial actions and a number of other findings and recommendations. 1

Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry Report First, the Crown must halt its negotiations with the Tūhoronuku IMA to give Ngāpuhi necessary breathing space to work through the issues that have been identified; Secondly, hapū must be able to determine with their members whether they wish to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA; Thirdly, those hapū that wish to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA must be able to review and confirm or otherwise the selection of their hapū kaikōrero and hapū representatives, so that each hapū kaikōrero has the support of their hapū; Fourthly, Ngāpuhi hapū should have further discussions on the appropriate level of hapū representation on the board of the Tūhoronuku IMA; Fifthly, the Crown should require as a condition of continued mandate recogni­tion that a clear majority of hapū kaikōrero remain involved in the Tūhoronuku IMA; Sixthly, there must be a workable withdrawal mechanism for hapū who do not wish to continue to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA; and Finally, if they exercise their choice to withdraw, hapū must be given the oppor­ tunity and support to form their own large natural groups. 2

Additional recommendations: – That the Crown support hapū which withdraw from the Tūhoronuku IMA to enter into negotiations with the Crown to settle their Treaty claims as soon as possible and preferably at the same time as other Ngāpuhi negoti­ations. This will involve the Crown supporting and encouraging hapū, through the provision of information and financial support, to form into large natural group(s), and to obtain mandate(s) from their members; – That nominations for hapū kaikōrero be decided on home marae and, if more than one nomination is received, that a voting process open to all hapū members, wherever located, be held; and – We suggest that discussions on the make-up and structure of the PSGE(s) should begin as early as possible, or at the least be open and transparent, as this is also likely to give hapu further confidence to join the Tuhoronuku IMA. – Our expectation is that a minimum of 65 per cent of the total number of hapu named in the amended deed of mandate would need to continue their support of the Tuhoronuku IMA. – Hapu should have the opportunity to discuss and consider whether the current level of hapu representation on the board of Tuhoronuku IMA is appropriate to support their settlement aspirations. – The Crown should also be prepared to ‘wind back’ the terms of negotiation if further hapū join the Tūhoronuku IMA as a result of the process we have recom­mended. 3

Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry Report For our part, and subject to the recommendations we make below, we strongly encourage claimant groups to proceed together. This may involve them negotiating with the Crown as one entity, or in parallel but with a unified and coordinated approach, and in either case with the knowledge that several settlement packages can be created. In addition to our formal recommendations, we hope that all parties will build on the very real progress that has already been made and continue to strive for the restoration of Ngapuhi’s social, cultural and economic position, the Crown’s honour, and the Treaty relationship itself. 4

Engagement Proposal Resolution from the 29 September 2015 hui at Mangamuka: – That the Te Kotahitanga o nga Hapu Ngapuhi Working Group meet to develop proposals in regard to the Waitangi Tribunal Urgency Report findings and recommendations and report back to the next Te Kotahitanga o nga Hapu Ngapuhi monthly hui. (Sharon Kaipo/Patu Hohepa Carried.) Over the last month the Working Party has met and has developed an engagement proposal which proposes that the parties engage on the findings and recommendations in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry Report. Kaupapa: to engage, discuss and attempt to resolve the issues in the Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry Report by way of a focussed 3 way engagement process between the parties. To develop options and provide recommendations for consideration by the hapu, taiwhenua, claimants, the Crown and Tuhoronuku. 5

Engagement Proposal The parties in the Ngapuhi Mandate Inquiry are: Hapu & claims in opposition: 15 claims and 70 interested parties (which includes hapu, claimants, Taiwhenua and TKONHN); The Crown; Tuhoronuku and the parties in support of Tuhoronuku / in opposition to the applications. 6

The Working Party feel that we have similar goals and objectives. We think that the hapu and taiwhenua should work together through this process to try and find a unified, coordinated and parallel approach. Te Kotahitanga is not seeking a mandate to negotiate. Te Kotahitanga is there to support hapu and taiwhenua. Ultimately each hapu and taiwhenua will decide what they want to do at the end of the engagement process. The Working Party propose we engage as Te Kotahitanga through a team which is representative of our taiwhenua. Our recommendation is that the team be: – Willow-Jean Prime (Technician) – Claire Morgan (Hokianga) – Rowena Tana (Nga Hapu o Te Takutai Moana) – Hera Dear (Te Waimate-Taiamai) – Hona Edwards (Whangarei) – Sharon Kaipo (Mangakahia) – Robyn Tauroa (Whangaroa) We have the ability to engage legal/strategic/specialist advice & support as required. The Working Party propose Season-Mary Downs (McCaw Lewis) & Jason Pou (Tupono). The Crown need to provide us with a budget for this as not funded by legal aid. The Minister’s letter said others who are not part of Te Kotahitanga or Tuhoronuku may also choose to participate. 7

Engagement Proposal Timeframes: Up to 4 months. – Propose 1-2 days of meetings every week until early February to workshop the issues. – Review and see if we are making progress. – This can be extended by agreement. Terms of Engagement: – The parties need to draft and agree to a clear terms of engagement (next step). – Engaging does not mean that we agree with the Tuhoronuku model or recognise their mandate. This can be made clear at the outset of any re- engagement. – It is without prejudice to the ability to exit the engagement and/or “withdraw” at the end of any agreed engagement process. – All legal rights etc are not affected. 8

Engagement Proposal Key Issues – all the issues identified in the Waitangi Tribunal’s report Facilitation – We do not propose having a facilitator. Each Party has one of their members take a lead role in facilitating the meetings. Decision-making – the parties have no delegated authority. The role is to develop options and provide information for consideration. Resourcing – Crown to adequately fund the Engagement Process. Including venue, kai, travel, accommodation, meeting fees, administration costs, legal/strategic/specialist advice, secretariat – minute taker and report writer. 9

Settlement Aspirations The Working Party discussed settlement aspirations and among other things the following were clear that: – Hapu rangatiratanga is maintained and enhanced in the settlement process – That we want a Taiwhenua based settlement model that is hapu driven and controlled. That is Taiwhenua want: Their own negotiation structure (to be determined by their Taiwhenua) Their own negotiations Their own settlement redress Their own psge(s) Their own settlement legislation – Whanaungatanga - our relationships enhanced and maintained – We want the Stage 2 Waitangi Tribunal hearings to continue and we want a report. The challenge for us is to find unified, coordinated and parallel approach which can achieve the above aspirations. 10