Te Ara Wenerei – Whangaroa Papa Hapū

TE ARA WENEREI | Understanding the Pathway

Historical grievances have travelled a long road — and understanding where we are today often means understanding what came before.

Te Ara Wenerei follows that pathway. We break down the processes, key stages and concepts that sit behind progressing historical grievances, and explore how the different pieces fit together.

The pathway can be complex. The kōrero doesn’t have to be.

Who Gets to Choose?

Last week, we looked at who is being represented — the people, hapū, whakapapa and historical claims that make up a claimant community.

But identifying the people is only one part of the picture.

The next question is, who gets to decide who will represent them?

When historical Treaty grievances are being progressed, there may be people who have carried claims for many years, others who have led the mahi, and organisations that have helped bring people together.

All of those contributions have a place in the journey.

...

But being involved in the work and having the authority to represent others are not necessarily the same thing.

That authority needs to come from the people whose interests are being represented.

In Whangaroa, this brings us back to hapū.

Each hapū has its own identity, whakapapa, history and ways of making decisions. Being part of a wider collective does not mean those differences disappear, or that one way of choosing representatives will necessarily suit everyone.

Some hapū may choose representatives through hui and collective agreement. Others may have different processes that reflect their tikanga and how they make decisions together.

What matters is that the process is clear, that people have a meaningful opportunity to participate, and that those chosen understand who they represent and what they have been asked to do.

And what happens when people disagree?

That is part of the conversation too.

A collective process does not necessarily mean everyone will hold the same view. Different perspectives, questions and concerns need to be understood rather than simply treated as obstacles to moving forward.

Because choosing representatives is not just about filling seats around a table.

It is about establishing where their authority comes from, who they are accountable to, and how the people they represent remain connected to the decisions being made.

Before we ask who will speak for the people, we need to understand how the people get to choose.

Who Is Being Represented?

Last week we looked at what has to be in place before anyone can negotiate on behalf of others.

One of the first questions is:

Who are the people being represented?

In a Treaty settlement process, this is often described as the claimant community.

Before a mandate can be sought, there needs to be a clear definition of that community.

That is sometimes called the claimant definition.

...

It helps answer some important questions:

Which hapū are included?

Which historical claims are connected to the group?

What whakapapa or tūpuna connect people to that community?

And what rohe or area is associated with those claims?

A claimant definition is important because it helps make clear whose authority is being sought and whose historical grievances could be carried through negotiations.

A Wai claim may have named claimants and may relate to particular Crown actions, whenua or historical experiences.

But having a name attached to a Wai claim does not, by itself, give that person greater authority than other members of the hapū to decide who should represent the wider group in negotiations.

A Wai claim can also relate to more than one hapū, or overlap with claims connected to other groups.

So a claimant community cannot be understood through Wai numbers alone.

It is about identifying the people, hapū, whakapapa and historical claims that sit within the group being represented.

And being part of a wider claimant community does not remove the identity of individual hapū.

Each hapū continues to carry its own whakapapa, history and relationship to its claims.

So when people are later asked to consider who should represent them, one of the first things they should be able to understand is:

Who exactly is included in “us”?

Because before authority can be given on behalf of a group, there needs to be clarity about who that group is.

What is Redress?

Last week we looked at what can sit beyond the Tribunal.

One of the words that often comes up from there is redress.

But what does that actually mean?

At its simplest, redress is about what may be done in response to a historical wrong or Treaty breach.

In a negotiated settlement, redress is not limited to a financial payment.

It can take several forms.

There may be a historical account, setting out what happened.

There may be a Crown acknowledgement and apology.

...

There may be cultural redress, which can include the return of culturally significant sites, changes to place names, or arrangements that recognise relationships with whenua, wai or other taonga.

There may also be financial and commercial redress, which can include money, property, or rights relating to Crown assets.

Sometimes there are also relationship mechanisms designed to support an ongoing relationship between the claimant group and Crown agencies.

In a negotiated settlement, the redress package is agreed through negotiations between the Crown and authorised representatives of the claimant group.

Historical harm may involve land, language, identity, economic loss, relationships, authority and generations of impact.

Redress can include agreed forms of acknowledgement, return, compensation and recognition in response to what occurred.

That is why, when words like settlement, remedies, compensation or redress are used, it helps to ask what is actually being referred to.

What redress is being discussed?

What part of the historical harm is it intended to respond to?

And what does it mean for the people whose grievances are being carried?

For Whangaroa, understanding redress is important because it helps distinguish between having claims heard, the different pathways that may follow, and the forms of redress each pathway can provide.

Beyond the Tribunal

Having a historical grievance heard by the Waitangi Tribunal is only part of the story.

The Tribunal is a commission of inquiry. Its role is to inquire into claims, hear evidence, consider whether Crown actions were inconsistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and make findings and recommendations.

That can involve years of research, claimant evidence, historical records, hearings and Crown responses before the Tribunal issues its report.

But a Tribunal report does not automatically decide what happens from there.

...

This is where an important distinction sits.

The Waitangi Tribunal process and the Treaty settlement negotiation process are separate, but related. The Tribunal investigates and reports on claims. Treaty settlement negotiations are carried out directly between the Crown and claimant groups.

Settlement negotiations are not the only avenue that can sit beyond a Tribunal hearing. In some circumstances, further Tribunal processes may be available, including applications for remedies. In limited circumstances, the Tribunal also has powers to make binding recommendations. Claimant groups may also choose to enter settlement negotiations with the Crown.

So moving beyond the Tribunal is not simply a matter of moving automatically from one box to the next.

It raises a different set of questions:

What pathway is available?

What does that pathway involve?

Who are the people whose historical grievances are being carried?

And how will they take part in decisions about the way forward?

For Whangaroa, kōrero about those questions has developed over many years through claimant mahi, hui and wider discussion.

The Tribunal examines and reports on what happened. Beyond it, the focus turns to the pathways available, what they involve, and how the people concerned remain part of that process.

The Journey of a Claim

Last week we talked about where historical grievances come from.

They belong to people, whānau and hapū — carrying histories, whenua, tūpuna and experiences that existed long before any formal process began.

For many, one way those grievances were carried forward was through the Waitangi Tribunal.

A claim was brought.

Once registered, it became part of a process that could involve much more mahi.

Further research was undertaken.

Historical records were examined.

Whakapapa, kōrero tuku iho and other evidence were gathered.

...

Claimants, kaumātua and whānau gave evidence about what had happened and the impact it had on their people.

The Crown also had the opportunity to provide evidence and respond.

Through the Tribunal inquiry, those different pieces were brought together so the claims could be examined and considered.

For some, that journey took many years.

But there is an important distinction to make here.

Having a historical grievance taken through the Waitangi Tribunal is not the same thing as settling it.

The Tribunal process and the settlement process have different jobs.

The Tribunal investigates claims, hears evidence and can make findings and recommendations.

Moving beyond that stage brings a different kind of mahi.

The conversation begins to shift from:

What happened?

to:

What pathway might be available for addressing those historical grievances?

For Whangaroa, that conversation did not begin overnight.

It developed through years of claimant mahi, hui and kōrero about what a pathway forward could look like.

808999984 1981497933110494 4317712563928151697 n

It Starts With the People

Last week we talked about the who, what and how that sit behind giving someone permission to carry out mahi on behalf of others.

This week, we dig a little deeper into the WHO.

And the first who isn’t the person being given the job.

It’s the people the mahi belongs to.

When historical grievances are being progressed, those grievances come from somewhere. They belong to people, whānau and hapū with histories, whenua, tūpuna and claims that existed long before anyone started talking about mandates or negotiations.

...

So before anyone can be given permission to act, there needs to be clarity about who they are being asked to act for.

In Whangaroa, hapū matter in that conversation.

A hapū has its own identity, its own whakapapa and its own historical experiences. Being part of a wider Whangaroa journey doesn’t make those things disappear.

Coming together doesn’t mean everyone becomes the same.

The collective kaupapa and the identity of individual hapū are not the same thing.

When historical grievances are progressed collectively, that means being clear about which hapū and claims are part of that collective journey.

Only then does the second WHO come into the picture:

Who will be trusted to carry that mahi?

Those people don’t become the owners of the grievances or the authority behind them. They have been given a job to do on behalf of others.

So there are two very different sides to the WHO.

The people the mahi belongs to.

and

The people trusted to carry the mahi.

Understanding the difference between the two is important.

Because before we talk about structures, titles or who might sit around a table, we first need to understand where the authority comes from.

It starts with the people.

811534363 1975170040409950 7431443455232744484 n

When We Entrust Someone With the Mahi

When we entrust someone with important mahi, there’s usually more to it than saying, “Yep, you can do it.”

We know who the mahi is for.

We know who has been trusted to carry it.

We understand what we’ve asked them to do.

We have an understanding of how they’ll do it.

And importantly, they remain answerable to the people who entrusted them.

These are familiar ideas.

...

Last week, we looked at some familiar examples from around the marae — the kaikaranga, the kaikōrero, and even the kōtiro asked to pour the kapu tī.

Each had been given a job to do on behalf of others. That helped us make sense of the word mandate — the permission given to someone to act on behalf of others for an agreed purpose.

But giving someone the job is only part of it. We also need to be clear about who the mahi is for, what we’ve asked them to do, and how that mahi will be carried out.

This week, we’re adding another layer.

When that permission involves something as important as progressing historical grievances, it needs to be clear what people are being asked to entrust.

There are a few important parts.

THE PEOPLE

It starts with the people whose historical grievances are being progressed. It needs to be clear who the mahi is for and whose authority is being sought.

THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH THE MAHI

It needs to be clear who has been trusted to carry the mahi on behalf of the people.

Being entrusted with the mahi doesn’t mean owning the authority. That authority comes from the people who gave it.

THE MAHI

There needs to be a clear understanding of what those entrusted are being asked to do.

The permission is for a particular purpose. It doesn’t automatically give someone permission to make every decision that may come later.

HOW THE MAHI IS CARRIED OUT

People should be able to understand how the mahi will be carried out, how decisions are made and how information is shared.

ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE

Being trusted with the mahi comes with responsibility.

Those entrusted remain answerable to the people who gave them that authority. People need ways to stay informed, participate and hold those carrying the mahi to account.

Put these pieces together and we begin to see what sits behind giving a mandate.

When we understand who, what and how, the bigger picture starts to become clearer.

And that matters — because before authority is given, our people should understand what they are being asked to entrust.

There’s more to this journey than one word or one decision. Each Wednesday, we’re breaking it down a little further — so keep following Te Ara Wenerei as we put the pieces together.

He ara whakamua — one step at a time.

797811708 1968041324456155 6821229790138255588 n

A Familiar Idea with an Unfamiliar Name

Last week, we followed the journey from the Waitangi Tribunal hearings to the point where claimants and hapū consider whether, and how, their historical grievances might be progressed.

This week, we introduce a word that can sound unfamiliar in this journey:

Mandate.

It might sound formal, but the idea behind it isn’t new to us.

Think about a pōwhiri on the marae.

Our kaikaranga has been given the authority to stand and call on behalf of the hau kāinga.

...

Our kaikōrero may be given the authority to stand and speak on behalf of the people.

Someone in the wharekai has been trusted to organise the kai.

Even the kōtiro who has been asked to pour the kapu tī has been given a job to do on behalf of others.

Each has been entrusted with something.

And importantly, the authority they have been given relates to the job they have been asked to do.

The kōtiro pouring the tea hasn’t suddenly been given authority to run the marae.

The kaikōrero doesn’t automatically have the authority to make every decision for the hapū.

They have been entrusted with a particular role, for a particular purpose.

That is a simple way of understanding a mandate.

A mandate is permission or authority given by people to someone else to act on their behalf for an agreed purpose.

When we bring that idea into the Whangaroa mandate journey, the principle is much the same — although the responsibility is much bigger.

The important questions become:

• Who is giving the authority?

• Who are they giving it to?

• What are they being authorised to do?

• How will they remain accountable to the people who gave it?

And there is one other distinction that is important from the beginning:

A mandate is not a settlement.

It is authority to take a particular step on behalf of the people.

Over the coming Wednesdays, we will unpack what that means for Whangaroa.

Understanding the Journey

Understanding the journey, one step at a time.

Today we bring Te Ara Wenerei—a series that shares straight forward information about the Whangaroa mandate journey.

Over the coming weeks, we will look at where this part of the journey began, how Whangaroa arrived at this point, what a mandate is, what it is not, and what happens next.

Today we take up the journey with the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

The grievances of Whangaroa hapū began generations before the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

...

The hearings gave claimants the opportunity to bring those grievances forward—to speak about the actions of the Crown and place the experiences, losses and mamae of our tūpuna, hapū and whānau on the historical record.

Being heard was a significant step, but it was not the end of the journey.

The hearings placed the grievances on record. The next question was whether and how hapū wanted to progress these further.

The next step belongs with hapū.

Hapū decide:

• whether and how the claims should be progressed

• who may be authorised to represent them

• what that authority will cover

• how representatives will remain accountable

This is where the mandate journey can begin.

A mandate is one way for hapū to progress their historical grievances. It is permission from the people for representatives to take the next step on their behalf.

It is not a settlement.