Te Ohu Kai Moana argues that urban Maori benefit   21 Apr 2016

Te Ohu Kai Moana argues that urban Maori benefit from iwi-dominated $20 mln trust

By Sophie Boot

April 21 (BusinessDesk) - Te Ohu Kai Moana, the body set up to oversee Maori fisheries assets, has defended its control of a $20 million trust set up for the benefit of urban Maori who have taken a High Court suit seeking a greater say over the assets.

The National Urban Maori Authority (NUMA) and Te Waipareira Trust began their case yesterday, telling the High Court that the Te Putea Whakatupu Trust couldn’t truly benefit urban Maori – those that aren’t affiliated with an iwi – because the trustees are appointed by the iwi-dominated Te Ohu Kai Moana.

The plaintiffs are seeking court orders to require Te Putea trust directors to have knowledge of, and represent, the interests of urban Maori, and for the court to quash plans by Te Ohu Kai Moana to make changes to the trust's governance they say would give iwi even more control.

In reply today, defence counsel James Ferguson said Te Ohu Kai Moana understood that Te Putea "is there to make sure no-one can slip through the cracks," but said the plaintiffs went too far in asking the court to restrain what iwi could do.

Te Putea was set up under the 2004 Maori Fisheries Act as part of the settlement of Maori fishing rights claims to provide for urban Maori who might not benefit from iwi-based settlements because they no longer had an active association with their tribe.

The plaintiffs say Te Ohu Kai Moana had failed to meet its statutory obligations because only one of Te Putea’s three directors - John Tamihere - was affiliated with urban Maori, while the other two - Rikirangi Gage and Richard Jefferies - had strong iwi connections and no urban Maori connections.

Gage and Jefferies are listed as interested parties in the case.

As well as appointing directors, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee can make decisions about changes to Te Putea’s governance arrangements and currently has a proposal to increase the number of directors to five, which the plaintiffs also object to.

But Ferguson said the parliament hadn’t intended to “compartmentalise” Maori in the way the trust was established and it was “there to make sure all Maori could benefit" from the fisheries settlements.

Justice Simon France asked Ferguson about the status of an independent review of Te Putea by Wellington barrister Tim Castle in 2015 which had recommended urban Maori get more say over the trust.

Ferguson said the report had been rejected by a working group set up by Te Ohu Kai Moana, which had instead proposed a plan which would give even more control to iwi interests, including directors being appointed directly by iwi rather than through the Maori electoral college.

"If it's the case that more Maori are able to benefit through iwi, that's a relevant consideration in the defence's submission," Ferguson said.

Justice France replied that while the defence talked of the benefits to all Maori, “the question is whether the correct section of Maori is benefitting."

(BusinessDesk)

Add a comment