Tapsel Report Response from Te Hika a Papauma 11 December 2007

Te Hika-a-Papauma Response

Tapsell report of 11 Dec 2007
‘Report on Options for Mandate to Negotiate with the Crown
In respect of the Wairarapa ki Tararua District’

The report was commissioned by Rangitane and funded by CFRT. The purpose of the report was to provide an opinion on the mandate and representation process of claimant groups within the Wairarapa region. The report duly notes that the mandate and representation process within the Wairarapa region has broken down and its overarching aim is therefore to consider and discuss options that might best facilitate Crown negotiations. Extant policy is that the Crown wishes to enter negotiations only with a ‘large natural grouping’ and the report identifies the two key macro groupings in the Wairarapa region as being Ngati Kahungunu and Rangitane. The report’s primary recommendation is that these two macro groupings consolidate their interests as a means of facilitating a single united group with which the Crown might negotiate. Alternatively, the report advocates the view that it is possible for these two macro groupings to enter negotiations separately but the key disadvantage is identified as the Crown reducing the priority of the Wairarapa ki Tararua district which will mean a significant delay in the settlement negotiation process.
Te Hika-a-Papauma understands that the Crown has a policy of negotiating only with a ‘large natural grouping’ and endorses the statement that Rangitane and Ngati Kahungunu are indeed the two macro tribal groupings within the Wairarapa region. Accordingly, the tenor of the report centres primarily on advancing the interests of those micro groups which consider themselves to be and are acknowledged as being part of Rangitane and/or Ngati Kahungunu. Te Hika-a-Papauma endorses the report’s key recommendations that Rangitane and Ngati Kahungunu pursue negotiations either as a single united group or as individual groups in respect of the Wairarapa ki Tararua district.

A Flawed Consultation Process
The report states that:
‘…not all of the Claimants listed in the Tribunal district needed to be consulted to discuss the issues herein nor would that be possible within the confines of this report.’
On the assumption that all groups within the Wairarapa region are included in Rangitane and/or Ngati Kahungunu, the author sought to consult with selected persons whom he construed as a being a representative of these macro tribal groupings. The author’s selection of claimant voices is qualified by a ‘range of factors’ and ‘an apparent acknowledgement’ by the Office Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. In the past year the Waitangi Tribunal has issued two reports which are highly critical of the Crown’s policies and practices in respect of mandating and representation. To this end, the Waitangi Tribunal considered that in the case of claims in the Rotorua and South Auckland regions, that the Crown had clearly shown a bias towards certain groups whilst ignoring the interests of others. Te Hika-a-Papauma considers that the author’s selection of claimant voices, as influenced by the Office of Treaty Settlements, is a further example of Crown bias.
For the Ngati Kahungunu grouping, a single voice is the source of comment and is considered a critical voice by the author. Te Hika-a-Papauma is appalled that the author chose not to speak to any other representatives from within Ngati Kahungunu and in particular, the Chairperson or Secretary of Te Hika-a-Papauma. Te Hika-a-Papauma construes this as the author making the assumption that the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus, which was represented by Murray Hemi, represents the interests of all micro tribal groupings of Ngati Kahungunu which includes Te Hika-a-Papauma. Whilst Te Hika-a-Papauma affiliates strongly to the Ngati Kahungunu tribal grouping, it neither supports nor affiliates itself with the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus. Te Hika-a-Papauma is a strong advocate of a governance and management structure which is marae driven and will not support an overarching Ngati Kahungunu tribal entity which fails to meet these criteria. Te Hika-a-Papauma considers that the current governance and management structure of the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus does not meet Te Hika-a-Papauma’s criteria and will therefore remain outside of the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus until such time as it considers that these criteria are met. This point will be further discussed later.
The author also shows a bias concerning the canvassing of comment from Rangitane representatives. It is clear that representatives from Tamaki-Nui-a-Rua, Rangitane Tanenuiarangi of Manawatu, and Muapoko of Horowhenua were duly consulted but not so for Rangitane ki Wairarapa. Te Hika-a-Papauma is concerned that because Jim Rimene and Hone Hurihanganui were unable to attend the consultation hui that no comment was infact sought from them. There is no record in the report of these people making comment. Instead, it is inferred from the author that Maurice Takarangi is the principle voice for Rangitane ki Wairarapa. Accordingly Te Hika-a-Papauma considers that the voice of Rangitane ki Wairarapa has been ignored by the author as has its own. Te Hika-a-Papauma’s understanding of the report therefore is that it ignores the real political situation within the region and instead accepts the view of the select few. With a focus purely on the representation of a macro tribal grouping, the report ignores the reality of factions within that grouping and therefore fails to seek their voice which would produce research which is thick and robust in nature. In turn, research of this kind produces a result which is consequently robust, transparent and highly credible.
The author makes the claim that:
‘a fair and even spread viewpoint of the majority of Claimant interest in the district has been achieved.’
Te Hika-a-Papauma strongly refutes this comment as the author has failed to canvass comment from all significant interests in the Wairarapa region. The author qualifies this position with the narrow scope and short timeframe being integral components of his commission. Consequently, Te Hika-a-Papauma refutes the accuracy of the report and the assumptions upon which the information has been gathered and presented. Accordingly Te Hika-a-Papauma considers that the author paints a simplistic picture of the Wairarapa region which does not achieve a ‘fair and even spread viewpoint of the majority Claimant interest in the Wairarapa region.’

The Insignificance of Te Hika-a-Papauma
The report makes the following comment concerning Tumapuhia-a-rangi, Te Hika-a-Papauma and Ngati Hinewaka:
‘the issues they are concerned with are (relatively) quite narrow and/or the individuals they purport to represent are very low in number compared to the Rangitane interests and the Kahungunu interests or they fall within the whakapapa scope of these larger groups’. ‘Crown consider they fall within the definition of Kahungunu and would need to do so in any mandating process.’

Narrow Issues
Te Hika-a-Papauma refutes this statement which labels Te Hika-a-Papauma an insignificant micro tribal grouping on the basis of having narrow issues, representing a low population, or falling within the whakapapa scope of Rangitane or Ngati Kahungunu.
As mentioned already, Te Hika-a-Papauma advocates a governance and management structure which is marae driven. To that end, Te Hika-a-Papauma has undergone a robust and transparent process of free and fair elections that has produced representatives who are duly mandated to represent issues concerning Te Hika-a-Papauma. Te Hika-a-Papauma has a current register of beneficiaries, a constitution, and its representatives are duly recognised by Crown officials and other community groups and agencies both inside and outside of the Wairarapa region. The governance and management structure of Te Hika-a-Papauma is such that it is accountable to its registered beneficiaries and seeks to govern and manage the use of resources within its boundaries.
As mentioned already, Te Hika-a-Papauma refutes the notion that the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus represents the interests of Te Hika-a-Papauma. Te Hika-a-Papauma’s main criticism of the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus is that its governance and management structure is not accountable to marae but instead an oligarchy of the chosen few. Te Hika-a-Papauma further argues that the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus has neither a constitution nor a current register of beneficiaries. Te Hika-a-Papauma argues that the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus’s register has a significant number of beneficiaries who are either deceased or do not have a current address. In the main these beneficiaries are sourced from entities such as the Wairarapa Moana Trust which does not include all Ngati Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. Accordingly Te Hika-a-Papauma will remain outside the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus until such time as the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus changes its governance and management structure.
Te Hika-a-Papauma considers that the author has classified their issues as ‘(relatively) quite narrow’ on the basis that they are confined geographically to the boundaries of Te Hika-a-Papauma. Whilst the geographical confinement of Te Hika-a-Papauma’s issues is true, the principle associated with a macro tribal entity having accountability to a micro tribal entity, such as the marae, goes to the heart of establishing a democratic society. In today’s world of corporatization and globalization, Te Hika-a-Papauma has a real fear that entities such as the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus will effectively marginalize the mana of the groups that it purports to represent. Consequently Te Hika-a-Papauma’s stance clearly flies in the face of the assumption held by the author and the Crown that a macro tribal grouping such as the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus can properly fulfill its paternalistic responsibilities towards its beneficiaries.

Population
Te Hika-a-Papauma contests the report on the basis of population. A Memorandum of Understanding was duly signed and ratified last year which unites the coastal interests of Te Hika-a-Papauma, Tumapuhia-a-Rangi and Ngati Hinewaka. The unification of these tribal groupings is significant in terms of both geography and population within the Wairarapa region.
[Do a comparison of stats and state the significance of this]

Whakapapa
The whakapapa of Te Hika-a-Papauma is such that it has strong whakapapa connections to both Rangitane and Ngati Kahungunu. Indeed Te Hika-a-Papauma considers that the name Ngati Hamua would be acceptable to Te Hika-a-Papauma, Rangitane, and Ngati Kahungunu interests alike in the Wairarapa region. However, Te Hika-a-Papauma contends that its principal affiliation is to Ngati Kahungunu. Despite this, Te Hika-a-Papauma strongly refutes the notion that it is an insignificant grouping by virtue of whakapapa to Rangitane or Ngati Kahungunu. For reasons already mention, Te Hika-a-Papauma will represent its own interests until such time as there are changes to the Ngati Kahungunu Caucus structure.

Conclusions
Te Hika-a-Papauma challenges the report on several matters which as different guises, seek to marginalize the mana of Te Hika-a-Papauma together with Tumapuhia-a-Rangi and Ngati Hinewaka. The catalyst for this is derived from the Crown’s policy to negotiate only with large natural groupings. Recent Waitangi Tribunal findings are highly critical of the policies and practices of the Crown in respect of mandating and representation.
On that basis, Te Hika-a-Papauma challenges the assumptions upon which this Crown policy is premised and which are duly reflected in the report. Firstly, the micro tribal groupings are an inherent part of the macro tribal grouping through whakapapa but that does not make the micro tribal groupings subservient to the macro tribal grouping as of right and in all capacities. Te Hika-a-Papauma argues that certain criteria must be met before it will pledge its support and even then there will be certain conditions attached. Secondly, whilst an issue may be narrow in terms of the geographical region affected by a particular micro tribal grouping, this does not confine that to that particular grouping alone. Te Hika-a-Papauma argues that an issue such as the governance and management of resources within a micro tribal grouping’s boundaries is not narrow and does not make that micro tribal grouping subservient the macro tribal grouping because it is generic to all affect micro tribal groupings. Thirdly, the notion of population making a group insignificant is not always the case. In the case of Te Hika-a-Papauma, Tumapuhia-a-Rangi and Ngati Hinewaka who have come together under a Memorandum of Understanding, the population and resources which they represent does not make them an insignificant grouping as the report would have you believe.
Te Hika-a-Papauma also challenges the accuracy of the information contained in the report because of the timeframe in which it was produced and consequently the voices canvassed during the consultation process.