I am becoming concerned about the “stories” that are circulating within Ngati Hine about
the f...
2. recognized group of hapu: Ngati Te Rino, Te Orewai, Ngati
          Ngaherehere, Te Kau-i-mua, Ngati Kopaki, Ngati Te A...
During all of this process I have reported back on this issue and the Claims issue to all of
Te Runanga o nga Kaumatua me ...
PROVIDER”. There are other entities like Ngati Hine Forestry that also has
        contracts with Crown Agencies. The list...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Fisheries open letter 2004


Published on

Open letter circulated by Erima Henare (20/08/2004) explaining Fisheries Portfolio and representation.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Fisheries open letter 2004

  1. 1. NGATI HINE FISHERIES ISSUE I am becoming concerned about the “stories” that are circulating within Ngati Hine about the fisheries issue and the spokesperson for that issue, me. So, I have decided to lay out the facts as they are well known to others and so that all will be informed. This issue is not one that I have enjoyed doing as it has been heavy going, costly (Paeata and I have spent in excess of $40,000 in direct costs and legal fees excluding time) and ruined many friendships that both Paeata and I previously had. This is like having another hole in the head stuff. HISTORY • The “Sealord Deal” was signed between the Crown and our people (represented principally by the NZ Maori Council). The deal gave Maori roughly a 15% share of commercial fisheries quota and some shares in a company known as Sealord. • The Maori Fisheries Commission ( a Government appointed body) was appointed to hold these assets and cash in trust on behalf of Iwi. The Commission was to develop an allocation model and process that would see these assets and cash devolved to iwi. • 1992 the Ngapuhi Runanga received quota to the value of approximately $1.2m. It has received a similar amount of quota each year since then. A total of $14.2m over 12years. • 1992 to 1996 not one cent of this money came to Ngati Hine let alone went to the people of Ngapuhi. This situation continued up until 2 years ago. • In 1997, Te Runanga o nga Kaumatua me nga Kuia o Ngati Hine I Raro I te Tiriti o Waitangi, at a meeting at Te Rapunga, expressed disquiet over this situation and asked that I look at having Ngati Hine accepted as an iwi FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECEIVING FISHERIES ASSETS AND CASH. THEY WANTED Ngati Hine to have its own cash and assets so that its development and aspirations is not compromised by not receiving anything from Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi. Also at this time, there was a lot of media reporting that the Ngapuhi Runanga was in financial difficulty and that they were on the rocks. • The Fisheries Commission has as its accepted definition of an iwi the following characteristics: 1. a common ancestor or tupuna 2. a recognized group of hapu 3. recognized marae 4. recognition as an iwi by neighboring iwi • using this criteria I put a case together to present to the Fisheries Commission as follows: 1. common tupuna: Hine-a-maru
  2. 2. 2. recognized group of hapu: Ngati Te Rino, Te Orewai, Ngati Ngaherehere, Te Kau-i-mua, Ngati Kopaki, Ngati Te Ara, Ngati Hine, Ngati Manu, Ngati Te Tarawa and allied hapu of Te Kapotai, Te Uriroroi, Te Parawhau, Te Kahu o Torongare and Ngati Hau ki Akerama. All of the descendants of the latter 5 hapu could claim to Ngati Hine if they wished because of whakapapa. 3. recognized marae: Te Aroha, Tau Henare, Eparaima Makapi, Matawaia, Te Rito, Tereawatea, Maramatautini, Otiria, Karetu, Te Rapunga, Kawiti Whanau, Mohinui, Motatau, Waimahae and the marae of those other hapu whose descendants chose to identify as Ngati Hine 4. recognition of neighboring iwi: we had letters of support from Ngati Wai, Te Roroa, Ngati Whatua, Te Rarawa, NgatiKahu and Te Aupouri • I reported this to the kaumatua and kuia at a hui at the Motatau marae at their next hui and they gave down 2 critical decisions. They were: 1. to withdraw forthwith from the Ngapuhi Runanga 2. to go to the next meeting of the Fisheries Commission to present our case • in late 1997 myself, accompanied by Hirini Henare appeared before a full meeting of the Fisheries Commission and presented our case for Iwi status. The fisheries Commission turned us down because the Ngapuhi Runanga did not support our bid. • Between that meeting and late 2003 we have made various representations, exchanged letters and generally talked up the situation with the Fisheries Commission all to no avail • In late 2003 we joined in a High Court action against the Fisheries Commission seeking validation of our status as an Iwi to receive fisheries assets and cash. Although the action itself was not successful in its entirety the judge spoke warmly and supportively of the Ngati Hine case. We were represented in this case by Donna Hall of Woodward Law • In late 2003/2004 the Fisheries Bill was introduced to Parliament and we (Paeata and I) made a submission on behalf of Ngati Hine for recognition as an Iwi to receive fisheries assets and cash. We also asked that we would like to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee to emphasize our submission • Mid 2004, Paeata, Guy Royal (our solicitor and Ngati Hine) and myself appeared before the Select Committee. The Ngapuhi Runanga made their submission opposing our application and spoke to it immediately before we went in. We put our case persuasively and then left to come home. • Over the last two weeks, when it became evident that the Select Committee was persuaded by our case the shit hit the fan. The Chairperson of the Ngapuhi Runanga came out with all guns blazing. I feel that I gave measured responses to his at times personal remarks. • The Select Committee has since released its report and it has found favorably for Ngati Hine. I will update you on the exact content of the Bill when our lawyer has digested its full purport and intent and reported to us.
  3. 3. During all of this process I have reported back on this issue and the Claims issue to all of Te Runanga o nga Kaumatua me nga Kuia o Ngati Hine I Raro I te Tiriti o Waitangi at all of their meetings that I have attended. Pita Paraone declared his conflict of interest with the Chairman of the Select Committee and left the room when anything to do with the Ngati Hine case was under consideration and we have acted both responsibly and above board during all of this. If there was one failure, it was our inability to communicate everything above to ALL of Ngati Hine. Cost has been a major factor in this and if I or Ngati Hine had some spare cash somewhere to communicate with everyone we would have. Finally, just to put everything in its perspective I also invite you to consider the following historical snapshot: 1. In 1867, Ngapuhi called a major hui at Okorihi Marae on the outskirts of Kaikohe to choose a Ngapuhi Chief. The gathering chose Maihi Paraone Kawiti who signed the Treaty of Waitangi as Te Kuhunga. They gave him Hone Hekes’ mere as a symbol of his Ariki status 2. in 1878 he returned to Okorihi, threw Hone Hekes’ mere on to the ground and signaled that Ngati Hine were going on their own. His role as Ariki was being challenged constantly by Mohi Tawhai was the reason he rejected the role 3. he returned to Taumarere where Ngati Hine were living at the time and built two houses, a whare runanga and a dining room. He named the dining room Te Tau Panekoti and his Whare Runanga Te Porowini o Ngati Hine or the Province of Ngati Hine. These buildings were opened in 1875. Te Porowini currently stands at the Otiria Marae. He made his proclamation for all the descendants of Hine-a- maru living in the following province or rohe potae; Hikurangi titiro ki Pouerua, Pouerua titiro ki Rakaumangamanga, Rakaumangamanga titiro ki Manaia, Manaia titiro ki Whatitiri, Whatitiri titiro ki Tutemoi, Tutemoi titiro kit e Tarai o Rahiri, Te Tarai o Rahiri titiro ki Hikurangi ki nga Kiekie whawhanui a Uenuku. He then established the first Ngati Hine Runanga AND DECLARED NGATI HINE TO BE AN IWI 4. even in 1920 there was a Tai Tokerau Wananga trying to determine who is Ngapuhi, who is its tupuna etc. The scribe for this wananga was Hone Rameka and had luminaries like Ngakuru Pene Haare, Himiona Kamira, Nika Anihana and others on it. It went all around Ngapuhi and when it was finished it was unable to reach a decision. 5. when I was born I was named after the fact that there were 5 tribes in Northland. They were; Te Aupouri, Te Rarawa, Ngati Kahu, Ngati Whatua and Ngapuhi. The Fisheries Commission has also approved Ngai Takoto, Ngati Kuri, Ngati Wai and Te Runanga o Whaingaroa as IWI. Ngati Hine better fill the criteria that any of these others approved by the Commission. Where is the natural justice. 6. this Bill has the potential to have far reaching implications for Ngati Hine and others. The Ngati Hine Health Trust has in excess of $10m worth of contracts with the Ministry of Health. It has these contracts because it is listed as an “IWI
  4. 4. PROVIDER”. There are other entities like Ngati Hine Forestry that also has contracts with Crown Agencies. The list of IWI in the Fisheries Bill has the potential to become the definitive list of IWI that the Crown will treat with in the future. If Ngati Hine are not on the list there was the potential to lose these contracts because we are not an IWI as defined. CONCLUSION The Kaumatua and Kuia of Ngati Hine were very specific in their instructions to me relating to this issue and I have carried them out to the letter. They emphasized that this had NOTHING to do with separating our whakapapa from Ngapuhi. But, it was a response to what has happened at the Runanga in the past and their desire for Ngati Hine to progress. It may interest you to know that while 107,000 claimed to be Ngapuhi at the last census only 65 turned up to the AGM last year. Our whakapapa is inextricably intertwined through Rahiri but then so is Te Rarawa’s, Ngati Kahu’s, Ngati Whatua’s and Te Aupouri. I urge you to register on or call (09) 404 1551 and ask for a form to be sent out to you with a stamped addressed envelope. More information will go out soon on hui to be held so that we can further discuss this issue and look at an appropriate structure that can carry us in to the future. I urge you all to attend these hui which we hope will be held at each marae and in the main centres. We do have to discuss this and I recognize the need to involve as many Ngati Hine uri as possible. Ma te Atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki I nga wa katoa erima